The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_HARC_12.08.2016Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown December 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. Legislativ e Regular Agenda B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the Octo ber 27, 2016 regular meeting. Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary C Public Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t for a Certific ate of Appropriateness (COA) fo r remo val of a histo ric s tructure fo r the property lo cated at 1005 Eas t 7th S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of Shell Ad ditio n, R es ub o f Blk 21, Bloc k 21, Lo t 1. Matt S ynatsc hk, His toric Dis tric t Planner D Public Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t for a Certific ate of Appropriateness (CO A) fo r an additio n to a residential s truc ture for the p ro p erty lo cated at 403 Eas t 4th S treet, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f Outlot Division C, Blo ck 24 (P T ), 0.472 acres. Matt Synats c hk, His toric Dis tric t Planner Page 1 of 97 E Public Hearing and pos sible actio n o n a req uest for a C ertific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) for infill c o nstruc tio n for the property lo cated at 808 South Ash S treet bearing the legal d es c rip tion of Glassc oc k Ad d ition, Bloc k 28, Lot 3 (N/P T), 0.10 ac res . Matt S ynatsc hk, Histo ric Dis tric t Planner F Public Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t for a Certific ate of Appropriateness (CO A) fo r an additio n to a residential s truc ture fo r the property lo cated at 208 So uth Aus tin Avenue, b earing the legal desc rip tio n o f C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Bloc k 9, Lo t 4. Matt S ynatsc hk, His toric Dis tric t Planner G Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tio n on a reques t for an amended C ertific ate of Ap propriatenes s (C OA) for infill c ons tructio n for the property loc ated at 501 So uth Aus tin Avenue, b earing the legal d es criptio n of City of Georgetown, Bloc k 27, Lot 1-8, 1.3104 ac res . Matt Synats chk, His to ric District P lanner H Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 2 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the Oc tober 27, 2016 regular meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rding Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC_Minutes _10.27.2016 Cover Memo Page 3 of 97 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2 Meeting: October 27, 2016 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Shawn Hood, Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams Commissioners absent: Lee Bain, Chair; Patty Eason; and CIT, Jan Daum Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Vice-chair Knight at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2016 regular meeting. Eason asked that Hood’s suggestion to add a minaret at the theater black box as a solution for different material on the building be added to the minutes. A correction on the number of students that have attended the Palace camps, should be 600. Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Hood. Approved 5-0-2. (Bain and Eason absent.) C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations for the property located at 1264 South Church Street bearing the legal description of Logan Addition, Block 1, Lot 5-6, 4 (E/PT) (CDC-2016-034) Synatschk presented the staff report and made a recommendation to approve the changes to the south façade and enclosing the second floor balcony on the east façade. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the new primary entrance door, excluding the sidelights. Commissioners asked questions about the original south facing door with the side windows, and about whether the front porch columns would remain. Synatschk introduced the applicant’s representative, Carl Illig who stated the applicants wanted to have the side windows on the south door. He also asked for flexibility to remove the front porch columns if it was decided that it would not be structurally sound to keep them in the enclosed porch. Hood agreed with the concerns about the viability of being able to waterproof the front enclosure with the porch columns remaining in place. Vice-chair Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Bohls to approve the application as submitted by the applicant, allowing the Page 4 of 97 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Meeting: October 27, 2016 sidelights. Second by Lawrence. Approved 5 – 0 – 2. (Bain and Eason absent.) After further discussion, Mee made a motion to allow the applicant flexibility to remove the columns on the Church Street porch if they so choose. Second by Bohls. Approved 5 – 0 – 2. (Bain and Eason absent.) D. Comments or Questions by Commissioner-in-Training. There were no comments made. E. Updates on downtown Projects and Events • Austin Avenue Bridges are still being reviewed. Go to austinavenue@georgetown.org for more details. • Historic Resource Survey: work is ongoing by the consultants. They are working on the forms and the GIS map. Staff is expecting a draft report by the end of October. There will be notifications of public meetings and a comment period for homeowners to meet with the consultants and/or staff. • The next HARC meeting will be Thursday, December 12th. • The next Breakfast Bites meeting will be held November 16th. Adjournment Motion by Knight, second by Romero to adjourn at 6:55 p.m. Approved 7 – 0. ___________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 5 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and pos s ib le actio n o n a req ues t for a C ertific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r removal of a his toric s truc ture for the p ro p erty loc ated at 1005 Eas t 7th Street, b earing the legal d es criptio n o f Shell Additio n, Res ub of Blk 21, Blo ck 21, Lo t 1. Matt Synats chk, His toric Dis tric t P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a Certific ate o f Appro p riatenes s for the demolitio n or relo catio n o f a his toric s truc ture. Acc o rd ing to the applic ant's letter o f intent, the applic ant wis hes to relo cate the s truc ture and build a new struc ture o n the site. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed upon the findings that the req ues t meets the ap p ro val criteria of Sec tio ns 3.13.030 and 3.13.040 of the Unified Develo p ment Code, as o utlined in the attac hed s taff rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-035 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Plan Review Backup Material Exhibit 2 - HARC Demolition Subcommittee Recommendation Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Protes t Letter Backup Material Page 6 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐035 1005 East 7th Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 8, 2016 File Number: COA‐2016‐035 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for removal of a historic structure for the property located at 1005 East 7th Street, bearing the legal description of Shell Addition, Resub of Blk 21, Block 21, Lot 1 AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1005 East 7th Street Relocation of a historic structure Applicant: James Winden Property Owner: James Winden Property Address: 1005 East 7th Street Legal Description: Shell Addition, Resub of Blk 21, Block 21, Lot 1 Historic Overlay: NA Case History: This is the first review for this case. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1890 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low Priority 2007 – Medium Priority National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the Medium Priority historic structure. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines do not apply to demolition. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting approval to remove the medium priority historic structure from its current location. Originally constructed ca 1890, the structure has been significantly altered over time, including the removal of historic windows, installation of vinyl siding, and a complete renovation of Page 7 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐035 1005 East 7th Street Page 2 of 4 the interior of the structure. Although the structure retains its original footprint, no other historically significant components remain intact. The HARC Demolition Subcommittee met on October 27, 2016 and agreed that the structure has no historic significance and recommended approval of the request. 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 is deemed complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Not applicable C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Not applicable D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The approved CoA will result in the complete loss of integrity of the historic structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Not applicable F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The structure is not located in a 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 applicable. 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 The removal of the historic structure creates an adverse effect on the structure. However, based upon staff analysis, the structure no longer retains its historic significance, due to significant modifications. Page 8 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐035 1005 East 7th Street Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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. 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, historic association, or other element of the original designation criteria applicable to such structure or tract; The structure does not reflect a specific stylistic influence, and any character defining features or examples of craftsmanship have been removed. B. The condition of the structure from the standpoint of structure integrity and the extent of work necessary to stabilize the structure; and The structural integrity of the structure is intact, with minimal work required to stabilize the structure. C. The status of the structure under Chapter 15 of the Georgetown City Code containing Building Safety Standards and rules governing Dangerous Buildings. The structure does not qualify as a dangerous building per Chapter 15 of the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the COA as submitted. 10 notices were mailed to property owners located within 200 feet of the subject property. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 9 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐035 1005 East 7th Street Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 1 – Demolition Plan Review Exhibit 2 – HARC Demolition Subcommittee Recommendation Exhibit 3 – Protest Letter SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Page 10 of 97 The Winden Residence Georgetown, Texas 15022 REVIEW SET NOT FOR REGULATORY PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION CM A1 03.05.15 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" A1 2 LIVING AREA: 1,634 FRONT ELEV. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" A1 1 GREAT RM.14'0" X 18'10" 9' CLG. DINING16'0" X 8'10" 9' CLG. KITCHEN12'4" X 12'10" 9' CLG. COV'D. PORCH16'0" X 10'0" 9' CLG. MSTR. BDRM.12'4" X 14'4" 9' CLG. MSTR. BA.9' CLG. W.I.C.8'6" X 7'0" 9' CLG.BA. 29' CLG. W.I.C.9' CLG. BDRM. 212'4" X 12'2" 9' CLG.UTIL.6'8" X 8'4" 9' CLG. DBL. GARAGE23'0" X 23'2" 9' CLG. COV'D. PORCH20'0" X 6'6" 9' CLG. BDRM. 313'4" X 11'4" 9' CLG. FOYER6'0" X 13'8" 9' CLG. BA. 39' CLG. BRKFST. BAR LINEN 3040 SHWR. 3040 SHWR. SHELVES CABINETS CABINETS 36" REF. DBL. SINK D.W. 30" RANGE CABINETS SHELVES SH & RD SH & RD SH & RD SH & RD SH & RD SHELVES SH & RD WASH. DRY. SINK WATER SFTNR. W.H. WASTE CAN Page 11 of 97 Page 12 of 97 Page 13 of 97 Page 14 of 97 Page 15 of 97 Page 16 of 97 Page 17 of 97 Page 18 of 97 Page 19 of 97 Page 20 of 97 Page 21 of 97 Page 22 of 97 Page 23 of 97 Page 24 of 97 Page 25 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an ad d itio n to a residential struc ture fo r the p ro perty loc ated at 403 Eas t 4th Street, b earing the legal desc rip tion of Outlo t Divis ion C , Blo ck 24 (PT), 0.472 ac res . Matt S ynatsc hk, Histo ric Dis tric t Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for ad d ition to the s treet facing façade o f a histo ric s tructure. Acc o rd ing to the s ubmitted letter o f intent, the ap p licant wis hes to ad d a new master s uite to the co rner o f the s tructure. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 o f the Unified Development C o d e (UDC), as outlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-038 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Plan Review Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material Page 26 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐038 403 East 4th Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 8, 2016 File Number: COA‐2016‐038 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition to a residential structure for the property located at 403 East 4th Street, bearing the legal description of Outlot Division C, Block 24 (PT), 0.472 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Masterson Residence Rehabilitation Applicant: John Lawton Property Owner: Lynn Masterson Property Address: 403 East 4th Street Legal Description: Outlot Division C, Block 24 (PT), 0.472 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This is the first review for this project. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1915 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium 2007 ‐ High National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the rear corner of a historic structure. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained. Complies 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 Page 27 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐038 403 East 4th Street Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove 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 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the construction of a 962 square foot addition to the northeast corner of the High Priority structure. The existing structure is 1,476 square feet, making the new addition approximately 65% of the current size. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines recommend that additions be small in scale, to minimize the impact on the historic structure. The Guidelines also recommend locating an addition at the rear of the building, or setting it back from the primary façade of the existing structure. The addition consists of a master suite and a screen porch. The proposed addition attaches to the rear corner of the structure, achieving the necessary setback to differentiate the addition from the historic structure. The use of modern materials, including hardie plank and modern windows, will also differentiate the addition from the structure. The construction of the addition will result in the removal of approximately 41 feet of existing wall, along the east and south walls. Neither wall is a street facing façade. The removal of the wall will not create an adverse impact on the property, due to the lack of character defining features along that wall. The materials of the wall are consistent with the remainder of the existing structure, so the removal of the materials will not have an adverse impact on the historic integrity of the structure. Placing the addition on the rear of the structure reduces the overall impact to historic building materials, and the new addition will not result ibn the loss of any character defining features. Overall, the massing, placement and materials of the addition make it subordinate to the primary structure, minimizing the visual impact to the existing historic home and limiting the impact upon its historic significance. The proposed project complies with 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 The application is deemed complete by staff. Page 28 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐038 403 East 4th Street Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS final action; B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project complies with the design standards of the Residential Single Family (RS) 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 proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as outlined in the staff analysis. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed project does not have an adverse effect on the historic integrity of the structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed addition is subordinate to the existing historic structure and does not create an adverse effect to the surrounding historic properties. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project does not negatively impact the Old Town 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. No signage is proposed for 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 The proposed project adheres to the requirements of the Design Guidelines, minimizing the impact upon the historic structure, adjacent properties and the Old Town Overlay District. The applicant’s design utilizes materials and massing that are compatible with the structure, and places the addition to the rear, limiting the impact to the historic structure. Page 29 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐038 403 East 4th Street Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as presented. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent and Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 30 of 97 Page 31 of 97 Page 32 of 97 Page 33 of 97 Page 34 of 97 JUL-25- d Pl- Plelrr 3 FRI O{:08 FIl ]EORGET$,III T]TLE Ffx w, 5i2E694255 P P, JI tlt t gELT L. IAF I tta tl0.172l krc. of d I I -,-- (-r Ar.)-Ll$|A6r' @ hlA.leR reTER 6t' C.e r*€lEF. c I 6e<rvle CALL. rl h ht I I ? I IIF lci€ lur Ltf 5* $s T I I 1I - 2.+' ('tj\"& Fr5'e tzocc')-tE ..jc' \^/ll-Lt\9tr)tslFrft.i Lo.L1t- r<) .? l-.i': -:- 7:1 r-trr , r 9rv. .- i-:-'l' ::l: .i F-i:aG.L-i,J.,'..'i..j r€/f€*/ \^.@O :c Page 35 of 97 Page 36 of 97 Page 37 of 97 Green Earth Builders, LLC Office: 2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, TX 7g626 Phone 512-591-7588 o 512_Z7g_0100 codes consist blocking glued d centers t prers on framing studs to sheared withy2" walls to all r OSB and change go back roof stru roof st de of the house. walls in back g'x7' of kitchen and 11,X16, of dining room to original elevation of 12'. Bad construction done by previous occupants made re in this area unstable. For that reason, beam work is necessary to restore re and capacity to take loads from roof. The original bathroom to be cut into d will add wall for washer and dryer area. : www.GreenEsrthB uildersTx.com, e_mail 403 E. 4rH St. Masterson Residence Addition Description of project e addition on this location will be engineered to meet the guidelines and he area. The addition will be pier and mean to match house. Framing will2"x4" studs and plate allwarts to be on a 16,, center. There will be pressure t 8' throughout. sub floor wiil be'/o" x 4'xg,tongue and groove o.s.B. will bewith PL 400 adhesive. Floor joist will consist of 2"xg', pine. They will be on 2,will be resting on 9 rf2"x3 r/2" LVL beam system on g,, secrete form. Tube barrier.rk originalwindows and doors where available. New windows to be low_e.New doo ' centers throughout. Framing nails with be 3,,X.131 shank. Nailing pattern for ill be 2 nails top and 2 nails bottom. second top plate nailed on 16,,center. All r consistent with original house elevation of !2'. All exterior walts to be th %"xt/2" crown staples. Ail exterior walls to be wrapped with Tyvek water ; to be of the same design as house. New exterior siding to be hardi e 4,xL2, imed trim for a board and batten styre, All trim to match house. Ail interior zTr" drywall and all ceilingto be 5/g" drywall. ceiling joiststo be 2,,X10,,and to be 2"X6". Joists and raftersto be on 2'centers. Roof to be decked with%,, fapled with a Ly2"x/r"crown staple. Dried in with 30 Lb felt. Tin roof maypending on home owner. All walls and attic to be insulated with foam thatmeetse. All interior trim to match house. odel of house consists of Jack and Jill bathroom between the two rooms onthe west half bath Page 38 of 97 on sound side of new construction there wirf be a L6,x!6, screen porch illllT-yl,t o piers and wiil attach to the house with a 2,x8,, pressure ' o. r'iri;;;'.=rrr,. ffia".,lll-Y?I,:l: O" ,."\o".pressure treated material. ceiting joists to be2,,X8,,with ;Jffiil'"",;m plumbing and electricar work to be done by ricensed prumber and erectrician. ireplace to be added to new structure in the center of west wail. Fireplace tocodes and requirement of Georgetown. Page 39 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a C ertific ate o f Appro p riatenes s (COA) fo r infill cons tructio n for the property lo cated at 808 So uth As h S treet bearing the legal d es criptio n o f Glassc oc k Additio n, Blo c k 28, Lo t 3 (N/PT), 0.10 acres . Matt Synats chk, His toric Dis tric t P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a Certific ate o f Appro p riatenes s for infill cons truction that is no t in c o mp lianc e with the b as e Res idential Single Family zoning distric t. Acc o rd ing to the s ubmitted letter o f intent, the ap p licant wishes to b uild a new s tructure with a red uc ed sec o nd flo o r s etbac k. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 o f the Unified Development C o d e (UDC), as outlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-041 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Plan Review Backup Material Page 40 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐041 808 Ash Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 8, 2016 File Number: COA‐2016‐041 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction for the property located at 808 South Ash Street bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, Block 28, Lot 3 (N/PT), 0.10 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 808 Ash Street Residential Infill Project Applicant: Kevin Wilson Property Owner: Kevin Wilson Property Address: 808 Ash Street Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 28, Lot 3 (N/PT), 0.10 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This is the first review for the application. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1940 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded 2007 ‐ Low National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for infill construction that is not in compliance with the base Residential Single Family 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: The Design Guidelines are not applicable to this request. The request is evaluated under the Unified Development Code criteria only. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to reduce the required 2nd floor setback for a proposed infill project. The current structure, identified as a Low Priority structure on the 2007 survey, is deemed a dangerous structure under the City of Georgetown’s Dangerous Building Page 41 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐041 808 Ash Street Page 2 of 4 ordinance and does not require demolition review by the Historic and Architectural review Commission. Residential and Two family infill projects in the Old Town Overlay District are exempt from the Certificate of Appropriateness review when the project complies with the base zoning district site requirements. The applicant is seeking approval to reduce the second floor setback from 10 to 6 feet for a second floor hallway measuring 16 feet in length. The lot configuration creates a narrow lot, limiting the buildable width of the property. In addition, a large pecan tree in the rear of the property reduces the buildable area. The proposed design complies with all other required setbacks and UDC design standards for the property. In addition, the project mitigates an existing setback encroachment, bringing the overall site in to compliance with the UDC. Overall, the proposed design maximizes the buildable area, while preserving a heritage tree and eliminating existing encroachments. Reducing the second floor setback to 6 feet does not create a significant impact on the surrounding residential properties and allows for the construction of the new residence. The existing structures along the street are small, single and two story residential structures. The proposed structure is compatible in massing, materials and scale, creating a comprehensive streetscape while differentiating the new construction from the historic structures in the district. 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 is deemed complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The project does not comply with the second floor setback requirements of the Residential (RS) zoning district. It does comply with all other UDC requirements. 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 Design Guidelines are not applicable to this project. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Not applicable E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed structure is compatible with the surrounding properties. The existing structure is located within the current Page 42 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐041 808 Ash Street Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS setback, so allowing the setback reduction does not create an adverse effect for the property to the south. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project does not create an adverse effect on the Old Town Overlay District The surrounding structures are small residential structures, on similarly configured lots. The proposed design blends with the existing structures in scale, massing and materials. 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. Not applicable. 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 mitigates an existing non‐conforming structure, deemed dangerous by the Chief Building Official. The new structure is designed to be compatible with the adjacent properties, and the overall district. The construction of a second floor interior hallway at the 6 foot setback line does not create an adverse effect on the surrounding properties or the overall district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 43 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐041 808 Ash Street Page 4 of 4 As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Page 44 of 97 Page 45 of 97 Page 46 of 97 CS Architect J. Bryant Boyd Design-Build 902 Forest Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 (512) 930-1686 Owner Kevin Wilson 107 Sunset Ridge Georgetown, TX 78633 (512) 940-3676 The Wilson Residence Georgetown, Texas 78626 808 Ash Street Structural Engineer TBD - 16052 11.08.2016 PM Th e W i l s o n R e s i d e n c e 80 8 A s h S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 RE V I E W S E T NO T F O R RE G U L A T O R Y PE R M I T T I N G O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Contractor/Builder TBD - Page 47 of 97 16052 11.08.2016 PM Th e W i l s o n R e s i d e n c e 80 8 A s h S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 RE V I E W S E T NO T F O R RE G U L A T O R Y PE R M I T T I N G O R CO N S T R U C T I O N AS1 Page 48 of 97 16052 11.08.2016 PM Th e W i l s o n R e s i d e n c e 80 8 A s h S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 RE V I E W S E T NO T F O R RE G U L A T O R Y PE R M I T T I N G O R CO N S T R U C T I O N A1 Page 49 of 97 16052 11.08.2016 PM Th e W i l s o n R e s i d e n c e 80 8 A s h S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 RE V I E W S E T NO T F O R RE G U L A T O R Y PE R M I T T I N G O R CO N S T R U C T I O N A2 Page 50 of 97 16052 11.08.2016 PM Th e W i l s o n R e s i d e n c e 80 8 A s h S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 RE V I E W S E T NO T F O R RE G U L A T O R Y PE R M I T T I N G O R CO N S T R U C T I O N A3 Page 51 of 97 Page 52 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an ad d itio n to a res id ential struc ture for the p ro p erty loc ated at 208 South Aus tin Avenue, b earing the legal desc rip tio n o f City of Georgetown, Bloc k 9, Lo t 4. Matt Synats chk, His toric Dis tric t P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for ad d ition to the s treet facing façade o f a histo ric s tructure. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 o f the Unified Development C o d e (UDC), as outlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-042 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Plan Review Backup Material Exhibit 2 - National Regis ter of His toric Places Multiple Property Lis ting Backup Material Page 53 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐042 208 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 8, 2016 File Number: COA‐2016‐042 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition to a residential structure for the property located at 208 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 4 AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 208 South Austin Avenue Rehabilitation Project Applicant: Lisa Lykes Property Owner: Lisa Lykes Property Address: 208 South Austin Avenue Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 4 Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 Case History: This is the first review for this project. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1890 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High Priority 2007 – High Priority National Register Designation: Individually listed on the National Register Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The property owner requests approval for an addition to a High Priority historic structure. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained. Complies 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 remove original architectural details and Complies Page 54 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐042 208 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS materials of the primary structure. 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the High Priority historic structure located at 208 South Austin Avenue. The structure is listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its architectural integrity. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey form describes the structure as “a good example of a late 19th Century vernacular dwelling with some Victorian detailing.” The rear addition, constructed between 1890 and 1916, was deemed dangerous by the Chief Building Official and removed from the stricture in 2015. The applicant wishes to construct a new addition at the rear of the structure, creating additional space inside the building for residential use. The existing historic structure is 779 square feet and the addition is 706 square feet. The Design Guidelines allow for larger additions to historic structures if the addition is set back from the primary façade and subordinate to the overall design of the project. The proposed addition is set back from the façade and placed at the rear of the structure, helping create the required differentiation for the site. The grade change of the property creates a small challenge for the view from the west (Rock Street) but material differentiation and simplified design still create the required differentiation. The project includes the construction of the addition, and the replacement of an existing garage with a new carport, as shown on the attached site plan. The City of Georgetown Unified Development Code requires two parking spaces for residential uses, along with driveway access. The parking area will be constructed as part of the overall project. The addition complements the existing structure by creating a simplified version of the existing design. The proposed materials will differentiate the addition from the historic structure, and utilize modern materials to blend the design. The addition is set off by a small connector utilizing a board and batten style siding, contrasting with the horizontal siding for the existing structure. The proposed design is an appropriate treatment for the structure, rehabilitating the structure for continued use by the property owner. The project’s massing, scale, materials and design comply with the Design Guidelines and the Unified Development Code requirements. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: Page 55 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐042 208 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 4 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 is deemed complete by staff. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project complies with the Mixed Use – Downtown zoning district requirements. 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 Design Guidelines, as outlined in the staff analysis. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed design protects the integrity of the historic structure by limiting the impact of the addition through the use of materials and setbacks to create a subordinate structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The addition is compatible with the surrounding historic properties. The adjacent properties are small structures, creating a unique environment within the Downtown Overlay District. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project does not have an adverse effect on 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. No signage is 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 The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines by creating a compatible project for the Downtown Overlay District. The design creates a subordinate addition, utilizing materials and setbacks, to distinguish it from the historic structure. The parking areas will be screened with landscaping and other materials in accordance with the UDC requirements. Overall, this project does not create an adverse effect on the Downtown Overlay Page 56 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐042 208 South Austin Avenue Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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. District and provides a good rehabilitation project for the continued use of the structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the application as presented. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this project. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 57 of 97 Page 58 of 97 Page 59 of 97 VIEW OF FRONT FROM SOUTH AUSTIN AVENUE VIEW OF EXISTING SHED VIEW OF SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE FROM 3RD STREET VIEW OF NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE VIEW OF BACK OF HOUSE Page 60 of 97 GABLE END DETAIL COLUMN DETIAL FRONT DOOR Page 61 of 97 Page 62 of 97 - Page 63 of 97 Page 64 of 97 Page 65 of 97 Page 66 of 97 NPS Form lO-gOO-* (M2) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item numtier ^^^^^^^^^ i 4 Page 22 TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM Williamson -TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) 1. County. City/Rural Georgetovn 2. Name Imhoff House WM GE Address 208 Austin 5. USGS Quad No 3097-313 UTM Sector 626-3390 6. Date: Factual 7. Architect/Builder Site No 357. Photo 23~ Est. 1890 3. Owner Address. Mrs. Amy Harris Contractor Same, Georgetown, 78626 4 Blocl</Lot City/Blk. 9/Lot 4 8. Style/Type _ 9. Original Use Present Use vernacular residential residential 10 Description One-story vood-frame dwelling with central-hall plan; exterior walls with beveled wood siding; gable roof with composition shingles; metal ridge cresting; front elevation faces East; exterior brick chimney in ruins on north elevation; wood-sash double-hung windows with 2/2 lights; single-door entrance good; rear additions 11. Present Condition 12 Significance Primary area of significance: architecture. A good example of a late nineteenth-century vernacular dwelling with some Victorian detailing. Date, or Original Site x (cescribe) Mixed residential/ 13 Relationship to Site: Moved commercial area north of CBD; mostly turn-of-the-century dwellings and modern 14. Bibliography Tax rolls. Sanborn Maps 15. informant 16. Recorder D. Moore/HHM Date July 198A DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA TNRIS No. B&W 4x5s. Slides, NR: n RTHL n HABS (no) TEX • Individual • Historic District 35mm Negs YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME • Thennatic • Multiple-Resource NR File Name 19 8 to • Thennatic • Multiple-Resource NR File Name 40 10 to 40 15 Other to CONTINUATION PAGE No 2_ of TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) 1 County Williamson City/Rural Georgetown 2. Name Imhoff House WM GE 5. USGS Quad No 3097-313 UTMPt. 14/626680/3390360 Acreage Less than one acre Site No. _352_ #10. Description (cont'd): with transom; three-bay porch with gable roof over central bay and shed roof over side bays; porch extends across east elevation; turned wooden posts with jigsawn brackets. Other noteworthy features include symmetrical three-bay facade; imbricated shingled gable ends on front porch and southern elevation; jigsawn bargeboards in each gable end; single-door entrance on southern elevation; rear frame additions. Outbuildings include small frame garage. #13. Relationship to Site (cont'd): office structures nearby. Page 67 of 97 NPS Form 1C.900.« OMB No. 1024-0018 CM2) Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register off Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form MiaaNaaNaaHNMiMaHHaaai Continuation sheet Item number Page Multiple Resource Area Thematic Group Name Georgetown MRA g^g^g wiiiiamson uounty, xtAAb Nomination/Type of Review Date/Signature 21. Hawnen, A. W. , House ' '^feeper Q/ltTi^-i-c^i^i^'^^c^T/ Attest 22. Harper-Chesser House ^^.J!!Lr peeP^r ^Jj^-^^^^^^ ^^^M^ Attest I > 23. Hyer, Dr. Robert, House gubstiUltlva H«vle» KeeperJ^J>l^[bMl,AL/i^ Attest 24. Imhoff House tojw»4^1m^j^ r:>(f^^^>-^.-~/^.^ Attest 25. Irvine, George, House ^**^*'^^".'!^t«- -"/^ePer L^^^.^-^^^'-^^-^^ ^/^A. Attest 26. Johnson, J.J., Farm 8*«*W»l5iT8 H«vie. j^^^p^^ }h Attest 27. Lane-Riley House t« ••^^ ^^^P^V^^pTU.^. ^/^^^ //^/fe Attest ^ >^28. Leake,Will & Mary, House -gg Keeper ^pTy^ Attest 29. Love, Frank & Mellie, (hlb«tMltlT8 B.vie. ^'^^P^^ House ^/^/^ Attest Keeper -^^^^ A ^/^J/yA.J • ' Attest V Page 68 of 97 WASO Form -177 l"R" June 1984) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET /7/ Imhoff House (Georgetown MRA) Williamson County TEXAS (HI resubmission CH nomination by person or local government • owner objection d] appeal Substantive Review: (HI sample • request Working No. _ /2 i985 Fed. Reg. Date:. Date Due: / Action: IB t3i« [Z] appeal .RETURN. REJECT. Federal Agency: dl] NR decision Reviewer's comments: Recom./Criteria. Reviewer Discipline Date see continuation sheet Nomination returned for: .technical corrections cited Iselow .substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Category Ownership Public Acquisition Status Accessible Present Use 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys IHas this property been determined eligible? • yes • no 7. Description Condition excellent dH good • fair I I deteriorated [Z! ruins r~l unexposed Check one unaltered altered Check one • original site moved date. Describe the present and original (if knowm) physical appearance • summary paragraph (Zl completeness dH clarity dD alterations/integrity • dates I I boundary selection Page 69 of 97 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance—Check and justify below Specific dates Builder/Architect Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) IZ] summary paragraph [Zl completeness dH clarity dD applicable criteria dH justification of areas checked [Z] relating significance to the resource • context [Zl relationship of integrity to significance [• justification of exception [• other 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quadrangle name UTM References Verbal boundary description and justification 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national state local State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date 13. Other dH Maps CZ Photographs dZ Other Questions conceming this nomination may be directed to. Signed Date Phone: GPO 91 8-450 Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet Page 70 of 97 Page 71 of 97 Page 72 of 97 Please refer to the map in the Multiple Property Cover Sheet for this property Multiple Property Cover Sheet Reference Number: 64000843 Page 73 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest for an amended Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) for infill c o nstruc tion fo r the pro p erty loc ated at 501 S o uth Aus tin Avenue, b earing the legal des c rip tion o f City o f Georgetown, Blo ck 27, Lo t 1-8, 1.3104 ac res . Matt S ynatsc hk, Histo ric Dis tric t Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t to amend a p revious ly approved Certific ate o f Appropriatenes s for an infill p ro ject in the Do wntown Overlay Dis tric t. The ap p licant req uests an approved amendment to exp and the parking struc ture to ac c o mmo d ate ad d itional parking needs . Staff rec o mmend s approval with c o nditio ns of the reques t b as ed on the find ings that the req uest meets the ap p ro val criteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC ), as outlined in the attached Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-043 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Plan Review Backup Material Exhibit 2 - COA-2015-025 Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Parking Garage Backup Material Page 74 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐043 501 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 8, 2016 File Number: COA‐2016‐043 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for an amended Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction for the property located at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lot 1‐8, 1.3104 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Tamiro Plaza Phase II Residential Mixed Use Project Applicant: Franciso Choi Property Owner: Franciso Choi Property Address: 501 South Austin Avenue Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lot 1‐8, 1.3104 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 Case History: This COA request is an amendment to a previously approved COA (COA‐2015‐ 025) HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: NA Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: NA National Register Designation: NA Texas Historical Commission Designation: NA APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requested an amendment to the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness request. The amendment is prompted by an increased parking requirement for the site. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 8.30 Locate a surface lot such that it will be subordinate to other site features Complies 8.31 Locate a parking lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a block Complies 8.33 Design a parking structure so that it creates a visually attractive and active street edge. Does not comply 8.34 In the Downtown Overlay District, a parking structure shall be compatible with traditional buildings in the surrounding area. Does not comply Page 75 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐043 501 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 4 STAFF ANALYSIS The approved design for the project include one level of surface parking, with a single level of structured parking, interior to the proposed structure. After further review, the applicant has determined that there is an additional demand for parking, and is proposing to increase the parking structure to one level of surface parking and three levels of structured parking. In addition, the parking structure will be extended to the north, and visible from Main Street, Austin Avenue and 5th Street. The proposed size of the parking garage creates a larger emphasis on the garage by increasing the height and visibility of the structure. The previously approved railing partially obscures the vehicles in the garage, but does not completely mitigate the overall impact of the parking structure on the site and surrounding sites. A solid wall would further reduce the visibility of the vehicles and the impact on the site. Chapter 8 of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines specify that surface parking lots and multi‐floored parking structures must be obscured from view. These requirements can be met in several ways, included landscape buffering, fences or other walls, and wrapping the parking area within the proposed building. The proposed expansion of the parking structure creates additional street frontage for the structure, beyond the commercial and residential structures. In doing so, it expands the façade and creates a visible edge to the structure, emphasizing the vehicles within the garage. The street edge of infill construction and structured parking should create a visually attractive and active street edge. The curvature of the exposed portion of the garage helps mitigate the impact, but the open railing still emphasizes the automotive use of the structure. Based upon the review of the Design Guidelines, staff recommends constructing a solid wall on each floor of the parking structure, utilizing the material finish for each corresponding floor. The solid wall will obscure the vehicles from the street, reducing the impact of the parking garage on the surrounding properties and the Downtown Overlay District. 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 is deemed complete by staff. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project complies with the UDC design standards for the Mixed Use – Downtown (MU‐DT) zoning district. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design The project as proposed does not comply Page 76 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐043 501 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; with the Design Guidelines. A solid wall, utilizing the finish for each corresponding floor, would comply with the Design Guidelines. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed project is new construction and does not impact a historic resource. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed new parking structure is compatible with the surrounding structures and the previously approved infill project. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The project as proposed impacts the overall district by creating a parking structure that does not obscure the vehicles in the structure. A solid wall, utilizing the finish for each corresponding floor, would mitigate the impact on 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. No signage is proposed at this time. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness: 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 amendment to the existing COA increases the impact of the project on the Downtown Overlay District by creating a parking structure visible from three sides of the project. The proposed open railing does not obscure the view of the vehicles from the street or adjacent properties. A solid wall, utilizing the materials for each floor, would achieve the goals outlined in the Design Guidelines and the UDC. Page 77 of 97 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA‐2016‐043 501 South Austin Avenue Page 4 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request to amend the existing COA by expanding the parking garage, with the condition that the railing is replaced on the east and west sides of the garage by an opaque wall, using materials consistent with the corresponding floors. Staff requests the following motion: “Approve COA‐2016‐043 with the condition that the railing is replaced on the east and west sides of the garage by an opaque wall, using materials consistent with the corresponding floors. Staff will review the final design to verify compliance with this motion prior to issuing the COA.” As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent and Plans Exhibit 2 – COA‐2015‐025 SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 78 of 97 Page 79 of 97 Page 80 of 97 Page 81 of 97 Page 82 of 97 Page 83 of 97 Page 84 of 97 CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN COMPLIANCE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: CDC‐2015‐025 PROJECT NAME: 501 South Austin Avenue APPLICANT: Francisco Choi PROPERTY OWNER: Francisco Choi PROPERTY ADDRESS: 501 South Austin Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres REQUEST: Mixed use infill development project EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 2015 This is to certify that pursuant to action by the City of Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission (“HARC”) on the 27th day of August, 2015, the above referenced request for Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) was approved as detailed below. CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN COMPLIANCE REQUEST DESCRIPTION The request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the development of a mixed use residential center is approved This Certificate is revocable and does not confer any permanent rights. Signed this 28th day of August 2015 Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Attachment: Plans and Supporting Documents Page 85 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: August 27, 2015 File Number: CDC‐2015‐025 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Tamiro Plaza Phase II Applicant: Francisco Choi, FTC Architects Property Owner: Francisco Choi Property Address: 501 South Austin Avenue Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres Historic Overlay: Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District, Case History: This project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 HARC meeting. This is the first public hearing for the project. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: None Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: None National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed infill construction project known as Tamiro Plaza, Phase II. The project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure and the construction of a four story structure with commercial space on the first floor and residential units on the upper floors. Page 86 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 6 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 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines. • Variation in the plane of the front façade. • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module. • Variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot width. Complies 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies 13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure. Complies 13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings. Complies 13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Complies 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Complies 13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians. Complies 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies 13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. Complies 13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use structure in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District. The subject property is located north of the historic core of Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay District and is primarily surrounded by new construction. Page 87 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 6 The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines identify the following design goals for Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District: • To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians. • To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by pedestrians. • To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles. • To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths. • Retain native vegetation with project design. • Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately converted residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain. • To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks. The proposed infill construction project complies with the design goals by establishing a pedestrian character with the first floor storefronts, and new sidewalks and other amenities. The building utilizes a modular design to break up the scale of the structure, providing a human scale and eliminating large expanses of blank walls. The parking area is primarily shielded with the exterior of the building, enhancing the pedestrian flow and experience. The block contains the existing Tamiro Plaza building, a mixed use office and restaurant development. Guideline 13.1 and UDC Section 4.08.070.A.1 specify that new construction shall be placed at the property line to preserve the building edge of the overall district. The proposed design incorporates upper floor setbacks at different levels to create a variation in the front plane of the façade and utilizes a mix of complimentary materials to reflect the traditional building width, as outlined in Guideline 13.3. The materials for the proposed project are stone and stucco, styled to provide a human scale and create a textural difference for the individual bays. The stucco colors reflect the color palate found throughout the building materials in the Downtown Overlay District. Secretary of the Interior Standard #9 states “New additions, exterior alterations and related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. New work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” The proposed new construction utilizes materials and form found within the district, specifically masonry materials and 30 foot bays to blend with the historic architecture. The Downtown Overlay District has a wide historic context, allowing for the construction of contemporary designs within its boundaries. The use of the contemporary design complies with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The overall design of the structure incorporates first level commercial space, detailed with different materials and recessed storefronts, similar to those seen historically. The design expands the walkability of the Downtown district by creating more usable sidewalks and eliminating the parking lot along the edge of the current property. The proposed sidewalks and pedestrian amenities will Page 88 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 4 of 6 clearly identify the street edge and provide access to the first floor commercial space. The building’s design wraps around the exterior of the lot, enclosing the parking within the space. Only a small portion of the parking area will be visible on the north side, between the existing building and the proposed structure. The overall building composition includes three separate buildings, breaking the combined project in to smaller structures, as outlined in Guideline 13.5. The articulation and setbacks of the upper floors further enhances the creation of individual modules, similar to those seen around the Courthouse Square. The proposed project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure, which does not require review by the HARC. The project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 meeting and the Commission provided feedback regarding the materials and the verticality of the structure. These comments were addressed through the new design, by utilizing different materials and textures on the proposed structure. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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 deemed to be complete by staff. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and the UDC provisions outlined in Chapter 4 and 6. 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 outlined in the staff analysis. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Not applicable. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed project is designed to be compatible in scale and materials with the surrounding structures. Many of the surrounding structures are non‐historic and do not have any historic fabric. Page 89 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 5 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project does not have an adverse effect on the Downtown Overlay District and accomplishes some of the goals identified in the 2013 Downtown Master Plan update. 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 with this application. Any future signage will require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 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 complies with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as outlined in the staff report. The infill construction does not directly impact a historic resource and does not adversely impact the overall historic district. The proposed design utilizes the building to shield the parking areas from street view, limiting the impact upon the walkability of the Downtown Overlay District. In addition, new commercial space along Austin Avenue will draw pedestrians further off the Square, enhancing the vibrancy of the Downtown Overlay District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC‐2015‐025 as submitted. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 90 of 97 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS Letter of Intent Exhibit 1 – Renderings Exhibit 2 – Material List Exhibit 3 – Site Plan SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Page 91 of 97 Page 92 of 97 Page 93 of 97 Page 94 of 97 Page 95 of 97 Page 96 of 97 Page 97 of 97