Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_01.24.2019Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown January 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action * Those who 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. Legislativ e Regular Agenda A Co nsideration and possible actio n o f the Minutes from the December 13, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary B Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a req ues t fo r a c o mmercial ad d itio n and renovation for the p roperty loc ated at 101 E. 7th S treet, b earing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.14 ac. Geo rgeto wn, City o f, Bloc k 39, Lo t 2-39 (W/P T S), (C OA-2018-046). Mad is on Tho mas , Downto wn and His to ric Planner C Public Hearing and possible action o n a req uest fo r a Certific ate of Appropriateness for a res idential additio n of a s treet facing fac ad e for the property lo cated at 1103 S. Elm St., bearing the legal desc riptio n of .33 ac . Glas s coc k Ad d ition, Blo c k 25, Lot 7-8 (COA-2018-055). Mad is o n T homas, AIC P, Downtown His toric Planner D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tio n o n a reques t fo r a Certificate o f Appropriatenes s for an ad d ition that Page 1 of 116 c reates a s treet facing fac ade for the property lo cated at 1227 Churc h S treet, bearing the legal desc riptio n of 0.2 ac. Cody Additio n, Bloc k 1, Lo t 16. Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Do wntown and Histo ric Planner. E Public Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a req uest fo r a Certificate o f Appropriateness for a new building c o nstruc tio n for the property loc ated at 1310 Maple Street, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.66 ac . Snyd er Addition, Blo c k 33, S 1/2 (C OA-2018-058). Mad is on Tho mas ,AICP, Downto wn and His to ric Planner. F Up d ates, Commis s ioner ques tions and c omments . Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Robyn Dens more, City S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do 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 __________________, 2019, 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. ____________________________________ Ro b yn Densmo re, City Sec retary Page 2 of 116 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 24, 2019 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion of the Minutes fro m the Dec emb er 13, 2018 HAR C meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rding Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes _HARC_12.13.2018 Backup Material Page 3 of 116 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2 Meeting: December 13, 2018 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Lawrence Romero; Shawn Hood, and Terri Asendorf-Hyde. Absent: Amanda Parr Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Call to order by the Chair at 6:01 pm. Commissioner Hood read the meeting procedures. A. Consideration of the Minutes from the October 25, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Bain, second by Hoods to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 6 – 0. B. A Conceptual Review for a proposed infill development for the property located at 1310 Maple Street, bearing the legal description of 0.66 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 (COA-2018-058). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Thomas explained the presented the staff findings and the findings of the demolition subcommittee. She explained that this property is zoned MF-2 which would allow the multi- family use. It is currently used as a single-family residence. And they would not be allowed to maintain that with the addition of the multi-family structure. The current home is a medium priority structure, built in approximately 1917. Across the street, 1404 Maple is a high-priority structure. The proposed structures on Maple are 3 stories and the north side, 14th Street, would have 2 story structures. The west side of the property is adjacent to railroad tracks. She showed pictures of existing structures in the area and their heights. She explained policies 14.4 and 14.5 which were used to review this property. She asked the commissioners to consider context as outlined in Chapter 14: building setbacks, mass and scale, building form, building materials, and pedestrian environment. Gary Wang, Architect, gave a presentation. He started by showing the cluster of MF-2 zonings in this immediate area. He showed drawings and elevations that were submitted as part of the agenda packet. Bain asked about setbacks and articulation amounts. Wang explained that this building is only 84 feet long, as opposed to 96 feet which would trigger articulation standards. The glass was discussed and is not proposed to be mirror reflective. The metal is supposed to be black and steel. It will weather with a patina. Hood asked about the staircase and material to be used. Wang explains the planter box and staircase, and balcony above are conceptually black steel. Concrete will be used on the first floor. There are some seams and forms used on the drawings that are explained by formed concrete sections and their fasteners. The first floor will be poured concrete, not wood siding. The windows will be aluminum framed. Hood is concerned about the verticality of the 14th Page 4 of 116 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Meeting: December 13, 2018 Street elevation. He is concerned about the flat, two-story wall plank. Wang showed drawings of other design options. There was discussion about how much articulation or offset is good. Hood also asked if there was an alternative to the concrete first floor. Wang said stucco was considered. Asendorf-Hyde asked about finistration that is visible to the adjacent house. A drawing was given. She indicated she feels the building is too tall and is concerned about parking. Bain asked about the structure on the west side of the property. It is not a priority structure and will be demolished. Morales is concerned about the lack of step downs in height to the one story homes. Commissioners discussed the adjacent properties and the effect of the proposal. They discussed the effect of this proposal with the future of the medium priority existing structure. Romero is concerned about the height of this property. He is concerned about this third story in the context of the neighborhood. The front setback is 25 feet, with rear and side setbacks as 15 feet. Are they retaining the front yard feel of the neighborhood? Is this in line with Old Town character? Hood explains the drawing and how it is not reflective of the actual view of the height of the building. Hood is not concerned about the three story height. Wang says the only ones that will see the full three story height will be standing across the street in the empty city owned lot. Thomas asked if commissioners had any concerns about the materials. Bain, Asendorf-Hyde, don’t have issues with materials. Morales and Romero still do not think the height is appropriate next to the residential structures. Hood can see himself approving this project. Waggoner and Thomas asked for more clarification on the height concerns. Browner responds that the way the project is situated, the height is not concerned about this. He prefers to have the parking off the street as it is designed. Morales explains her concern about the height context near the SF residential structures on Maple and 14th. Romero states his concern about height has been resolved by other comments made. They expressed that they were comfortable with the pedestrian environment as shown. Browner thanks Wang. Hood asks Wang to bring a stucco sample to the next meeting to insure that option is reviewed if needed. C. Updates, questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Waggoner stated the Council reviewed the HARC process at its last workshop meeting and the Council has not set a meeting date for future discussions at this time. Options 4 and 5 from the presentation are still being discussed. Staff will email the presentation to the commissioners. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Bain, second by Asendorf-Hyde. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. ________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 5 of 116 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 24, 2019 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and possible ac tion o n a reques t for a c ommerc ial additio n and renovation fo r the p ro p erty lo cated at 101 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.14 ac . Georgetown, City of, Bloc k 39, Lot 2- 39 (W/PTS), (C OA-2018-046). Mad is o n Tho mas , Downto wn and His toric Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to add a sec o nd s to ry to the exis ting s ingle-s tory s tructure. There are als o some minor alterations along the exis ting s treet fac ing facades to convert windows to d o o rs . HARC Review Replac ing a his toric arc hitectural feature with a no n-his toric arc hitectural feature, street facing, contrib uting s truc ture: Modific ations mad e to the existing struc ture. Create o r add to an existing street facing faç ad e to a contributing s truc ture: S econd sto ry ad d ition and firs t floor expans io n. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans Exhibit Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit Exhibit 4- His toric Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit Page 6 of 116 EL M S T R OC K S T SCENIC DR S MA I N S T A S H S T E 7 T H S T E 5 T H S T E 8 T H S T E 4 T H S T E 2 N D S T WE S T S T E 6 T H S T W 8 TH ST PI N E S T S A U S T I N AV E W 1 0 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T S C H U R C H ST S C O L L E G E S T W 6 T H S T W 4 T H S T W 11TH ST WALNUT ST FO R E ST S T H O L LY S T W 7TH ST W 3RD S T E 1 0T H S T E 11T H S T E 3 R D S T MAR T IN LU T H E R K IN G J R S T E U N IV E R S I T Y AV E W 5 T H S T W 2ND ST W 9THST RAILROAD AVE E 9 T H S T R U C K E R S T E 9 T H 1 /2 S T TI N B A R N A LY RIVEROAK S C V MONTGOMERY ST E 9 T H S T W 5 T H S T E 1 0T H S T W 9 T H S T E 3 R D S T H O L L Y S T PI NE S T FO R E ST S T E 11T H S T W ES T S T WA L N U T S T W 2 N D S T E 9 T H S T COA-2018-046Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 7 of 116 1 JAB ENGINEERING, LLC.4500 Williams Drive, Ste. 212-121 Georgetown, TX 78633 512-619-5655 michelle.baran@jabeng.com August 31, 2018 City of Georgetown Planning Dept. Nathaniel Wagner RE: Letter of Intent for 101 E 7th Street To Whom It May Concern, We are applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition to two street facing facades, the addition to two non-street facing facades, and a new fence. Owner of the facility is the City of Georgetown, and application is made on behalf of the developer, Benchmark Properties. The property is located at 101 E. 7th Street in Georgetown, TX. The proposed improvements include the addition of a second story to the existing structure and a small addition on the east (non-street facing façade). The existing wall structures and rotunda are proposed to remain as-is, with the exception of the replacement of two sets of windows with entry doors. The following items are proposed for the additions: ·Cast limestone wall cap to match existing turret profile ·2nd floor - Copper colored metal wall panel of varying widths with standing seam profile ·2nd floor - Hardie wall panel – iron gray with extruded aluminum trim, painted to match. ·Standing seam metal at high slope (>2:12) roof; TPO roof at low slope (<1:12) roof ·Storage walls – Copper colored metal wall panel at South and North walls. CMU at abutting east property wall. Including in our submittal are the following: A.Site Design (Plot) Plan – Prepared by developer’s architectural consultant. B.Architectural Elevations – All four sides; prepared by developer’s architectural consultant. C.Specifications and Details – These will be provided after the completeness review D.Photographs/Renderings – Current Photos of Structure E.Material Samples – These will be provided after the completeness review F.Fee – Due Upon Submittal $265 Best wishes, Michelle Baran Office Manager Page 8 of 116 101 EAST 7TH ST SITE PLAN NEW EXIT EXISTING 6'-6" WIDE ALLEY EXISTING COVERED SIDEWALK S MAIN ST. ADJACENT BUILDING E. 7 T H S T . CO V E R E D S I D E W A L K NORTH TENANT 1TENANT 2 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PR O P O S E D A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G L I N E 6' SCALE: 1:10 COMMON NEW WALK UP WINDOW NEW ENTRY 2 STORY ADDITION BUILDING AREA 5679 SF - FIRST FLOOR EXISTING FOOTPRINT 437 SF - FIRST FLOOR ADDITION 5568 SF - SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION (INCLUDING BALCONY/PATIO SPACE) NEW LOADING ENTRY EXISTING ENTRY TO BE RELOCATED; GLASS TO REMAIN PR O P O S E D A C C E S S E A S E M E N T 18 ' PROPOSED ADJACENT PARKING GARAGE Page 9 of 116 ZINC METAL FLASHING 18 GA METAL COLUMN KAWNEER MILITARY BLUE EXTRUDED METAL TRELLIS KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING DOVE GRAY CAST STONE CORNICE ADVANCED CAST STONE CLASSIC WHITE SHERIDAN 3034L (13) STUCCO PAREX USA LAHABRA EXISTING LIMESTONE TO REMAIN EXISTING METAL CANOPY (TRIM ONLY) TO BE REPAINTED MILITARY BLUE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 7 5 METAL WINDOW FRAME KAWNEER ANONDIZED BRONZE 10 9 10 8 METAL WALL PANEL8 PAGE 1 OF 4 1 X 2 WOOD SLAT ON STL FRAME W/ 1/2" SPACING. SLATS PAINTED MILITARY BLUE11 MISC. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY12 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1 2 ADJACENT BUILDING ADJACENT BUILDING 37 ' - 2 " T. O . R I D G E Page 10 of 116 PAGE 2 OF 4 REFERENCE PAGE 1 FOR MATERIALS LEGEND 1 2 3 7 85 8 5 10 10 1 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1 2 Page 11 of 116 PAGE 3 OF 4 1 7 5 3 7 15 2 8 ZINC METAL FLASHING 18 GA METAL COLUMN KAWNEER MILITARY BLUE EXTRUDED METAL TRELLIS KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING DOVE GRAY CAST STONE CORNICE ADVANCED CAST STONE CLASSIC WHITE SHERIDAN 3034L (13) STUCCO PAREX USA LAHABRA EXISTING LIMESTONE TO REMAIN EXISTING METAL CANOPY (TRIM ONLY) TO BE REPAINTED MILITARY BLUE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 METAL WINDOW FRAME KAWNEER ANONDIZED BRONZE 10 METAL WALL PANEL8 11 12 1 X 2 WOOD SLAT ON STL FRAME W/ 1/2" SPACING. SLATS PAINTED MILITARY BLUE MISC. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY 10 11 8 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1 2 ADJACENT BLDG ADJACENT BLDG 9 6 37 ' - 2 " T. O . R I D G E Page 12 of 116 PAGE 4 OF 4 10 12 3 REFERENCE PAGE 3 FOR MATERIALS LEGEND 7 8 85 1 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 101 E 7th Expansion SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1 2 CMU WALL ADJACENT TO EXISTING BUILDING (NOT VISIBLE) 11 37 ' - 2 " T. O . R I D G E Page 13 of 116 Page 14 of 116 Page 15 of 116 Page 16 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 1 of 10 Meeting Date: January 24, 2019 File Number: COA-2018-046 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a 1) Commercial Addition and 2) Renovation for the property located at 101 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.14 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-39 (W/PTS), (COA-2018-046). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Commercial Renovation and Addition Applicant: Josh Baran, P.E., JAB Engineering, LLC Property Owner: City of Georgetown Property Address: 101 E. 7th St. Legal Description: .14 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-3 Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay; Area 1 Case History: 9/27/2018 Conceptual HARC Review with comments pertaining to the proposed roofline on the new story being taller than the dome on the existing structure. There was also discussion pertaining to the window mullions being a smaller divided light window than what is seen on the existing structure and other buildings around the square. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1970, major renovation in the 2000’s. Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded 2007 - Low 2016 - Low National Register Designation: No, Located in the Williamson County Courthouse National Register District Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing single-story structure. There are also some minor alterations along the existing street facing facades to convert windows to doors. HARC Review Page 17 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 2 of 10 • Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature, street facing, contributing structure: Modifications made to the existing structure. • Create or add to an existing street facing façade, contributing structure: Second story addition and first floor expansion. HPO Review • Create or add to an existing non-street facing façade, contributing structure: Second story addition and first floor expansion. HARC Conceptual Review Summary At the 9/27/2018 conceptual review, HARC provided feedback on the proposed design, focusing on two Design Guidelines, 7.3 and 7.5 regarding compatibility of materials with the character of the main building, and design specifications relating to roof additions, respectively. The Commission expressed concerns for the proposed siding material on the new addition and its compatibility with the stone material used on the 1st floor of the existing structure. The windows proposed for the new second story were requested to be changed to reflect the window style found on the first floor as the divided light windows in the proposed design were not seen as compatible. There was also concern by HARC for the number and expanse of windows, the extent of transparency on the second floor is reflective of modern design. There was also discussion on the proposed height of the structure with the center gable being taller than the existing domed tower. STAFF ANALYSIS Design Goals for Area 1 The design goals for Area 1 are: • To rehabilitate existing historic commercial buildings; • To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area; • To maintain the traditional mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a building should be a rectangular mass that is one- to three-stories in height.); • To design commercial buildings with storefront elements similar to those seen traditionally (i.e., a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kick plates, transom windows, midbelt cornices, cornices or pediments, and vertically oriented upper- story windows.); • To design a project that reinforces the retail oriented function of the street and enhances its pedestrian character; • To promote friendly, walkable streets (i.e., projects that support pedestrian activity and contribute to the quality of life are encouraged.); and • To provide site amenities—such as benches, lights, waste receptacles, landscaping, etc.— to enhance the pedestrian clean, uncluttered experience. The subject structure is a one-story, rectangular commercial building located on a corner lot, adjacent to S. Main St. and E. 7th St off of the historic square, within the Williamson County Courthouse Page 18 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 3 of 10 National Register District. The structure has a corner entry with stone block cladding and multiple storefront windows with a domed tower rising above the corner entry way. The building was identified on the 2007 and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys as a low priority structure. It was constructed in 1970, undergoing major renovations in 2000. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing historic structure, making some minor alterations to the exterior street-facing facades a first floor expansion and the addition of a second-story. Alterations The applicant is proposing alterations to the existing structure’s street facing facades. Along the E. 7th Street façade and S. Main facade, the applicant is proposing dentils along the existing cornice. Based on research provided by the applicant, the original plans included these architectural features which are appropriate for this style of architecture. On the E. 7th Street façade the applicant is requesting to add a service entry door, as previously proposed door on the interior lot line is no longer an option. They are proposing an area with a steel framed door and thin wood slats. The addition of fenestration to this façade is appropriate, as most historic commercial buildings had a high ration of door and windows on the first floor. The use of steel and unpainted wood creates a modern design, this helps to identify it as a new element to the existing façade. The proposed Changes to the S. Main St. façade include converting one of the existing window sections to doors, maintaining the same size and location, to accommodate the new interior design and uses. The applicant is also proposing a small door addition to this façade. It will be the same height as the other existing windows and doors. These proposed changes to the windows, addition of doors meet the guidelines by retaining the existing openings, locations and transparency and retaining character of the existing structure. Additions The applicant is also proposing two additions, totaling 6,005 sf to the north of the property on the ground floor and a second story. The proposed expansion discussed at the conceptual review extended east, touching the adjacent building. This new addition was approx 180 sq. ft. and setback from the exisitng façade approximately 16’. The proposed height was approximately 16’ 6” tall and beneath the height of the existing structure. Due to surveying issues, the property does not extend that far east, therefore the applicant had to redesign to accommodate the additional space needed towards the north property line. This new expansion to the north of the existing 5,679 sf structure is a two story addition of approximately 437 sf at the rear of the existing structure, which is. It will be setback approximately 18” from the west plane of the existing structure, 6’ from the adjacet property line in the north, and nearly abut the east property line. The second floor addition will cover most of the existing structure’s roof and will reach a height of 35’ 2”. The updated design has lowered the ridgeline of the gables by 2 feet as requested by HARC during the conceptual review. The highest ridge is 2’ 2” above the current dome which is at 33’ 8”which is located approx. 52’-7” away from existing dome. The other ridgeline was also lowered approximately 5’ 4” to a height of 28’-4”. The proposed second story addition will be slightly recessed, as the guidelines recommend. The guidelines reference substantially setting back a new addition. However a majority of the structures around the square are two stories and the creation of a second floor on this structure, visible and Page 19 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 4 of 10 prominent, would be in character with the area. The proposed expansion to the north is also appropriate as it is a ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of the existing structure and is proposed at the rear of the building. The addition will be slightly recessed, as structures at the property line is encouraged and in character with the area. The proposed materials will also help differentiate it from the existing structure. The Design Guidelines, page 75 provides commentary related to commercial additions: “Two distinct types of additions are considered to be appropriate by HARC: ground-level or roof- top. First, a ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be considered. Such an addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least impact on the character of a building, but there may only be limited opportunities to do this. Second, an addition to the roof may be designed that is simple in character and set back substantially from the front of a building. The materials, window sizes and alignment of trim elements on the addition should be compatible to those of the existing structure, but also visually subordinate in character so as to avoid calling attention alteration to the addition. Another option, which will only be considered on a case-by-case basis, is to design an addition to the front wall plane of the existing building. This option may only be considered on a “newer” or more contemporary building that was originally constructed set back from the front property line or sidewalk edge.” Materials The second floor addition is proposed as a mixture of dark blue stucco and a bronze color metal wall panel. The existing structure is mostly clad in stone with some stucco, similar to other structures around the Square. Both second floor façades will have a significant amount of divided light windows. Traditional second floor commercial buildings do not have small pane divided light windows, but have larger panes, that are typically one over one or two over two panes (see picture below). The applicant has also altered the proposed windows on the second story. They have updated the mullion proportion and spacing to have an increased glass size. This window style and proportion are more appropriate based on the context of the historic windows on the adjacent building’s second floors. The existing structure’s roofline is flat, however the proposed second story will have a mix of roof styles and heights. There will be a flat portion at approximately 24’, a side gable at 35’ and a front gable at 28’. Policy 7.5 states that “The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by Page 20 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 5 of 10 changing its basic shape and should have a roof form compatible with the original building.” The majority of rooflines of the structures along the Square (picture above) have flat roofs, as this was the typical roof style for a second floor addition. The proposed mixture of rooflines help to visually break up the dominant effect that a single roofline would have and identify the addition as new. Overall, the proposed second floor is modern in design and style. The proposed materials, mix of roof types, and window styles are not seen in the existing structure or typical of commercial structures in Area 1. Based on the feedback the applicant received during the HARC conceptual review, they lowered the height of the roofline and enlarged the glass panels in the windows. An addition should be designed so that it is distinguishable as new, but respectful of the existing historic structure and those in its vicinity. Using modern interpretations are encouraged if they are balanced with elements that are commonly seen in historic commercial building style and design. This addition uses a roofline that is distinguishable as well as a cladding which is modern in material and color. This design could increase its compatibility with other structures around the historic square if it were to utilize a more historic cladding and color. The applicant discussed the difficulty in structural concerns if using a heavier material such as stone. They are proposing stucco and a metal cladding. Stucco siding is a common material in Area 1, the metal siding material is not a typical siding material seen historically. However, metal was historically used for architectural features such as domes. There are two domes on the Square that use a similar color metal. The window frames and the awning on the existing structure are also a darker colored metal color, which would be appropriate to match. This color metal would be more appropriate as a siding material than the proposed color metal. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES Page 21 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 6 of 10 4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building. For example, details such as decorative millwork or cornices should not be added to a building if they were not an original feature of that structure. Complies The proposed changes to add dentils along a cornice is typical of other historic structures along the Square and was included in the initial 1970 design as discovered by the applicant . 4.11 Avoid adding decorative elements, unless thorough research indicates that the building once had them. Conjectural “historic” designs for replacement parts that cannot be substantiated by documented evidence are inappropriate. Dressing up a building with pieces of ornamentation that are out of character with the architectural style gives the building a false “history” it never had, and is inappropriate. Complies This structure is not historic, but has incorporated elements that were compatible with the adjacent historic structures. CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.7 Preserve the character of the cornice line. An original cornice moulding should be preserved. Most historic commercial buildings have cornices to cap their facades. Their repetition along the street contributes to the visual continuity on the block. Many cornices are made of sheet metal. Areas that have rusted through can be patched with pieces of new metal. Complies The existing cornice will be enhanced with dentils. 6.8 Reconstruct a missing cornice when historic evidence is available. Use historic photographs to determine design details of the original cornice. Replacement elements should match the original in every detail, especially in overall size and profile. Keep sheet metal ornamentation well painted. The substitution of another old cornice for the original may be considered, provided that the substitute is similar to the original. Complies The existing cornice will be enhanced with dentils. The existing structure is not historic, however this architectural feature can be seen on other structures around the Square. Page 22 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 7 of 10 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening. Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been altered over time is encouraged. Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The proportions of these windows contribute to the character of each residence and commercial storefront. Complies This structure was built in the 1970’s and does not represent a specific stylistic influence. The applicant is retaining the majority of the two street-facing façades and is proposing to add a door to south elevation and change out an existing window for doors and add a small door to the west facade. 6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to solid wall. Significantly increasing (or decreasing) the amount of glass will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. On traditional storefronts, first floors should be more transparent than upper floors. − Upper floors should appear more solid than first floors. N/A Avoid a blank wall appearance that does not provide interest to pedestrians. Note, however, that the side wall of a historic building located on a corner will have fewer openings. − Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate on residential structures and on the upper floors and sides of commercial buildings. N/A − If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows that are in scale with those seen traditionally. N/A Complies The proposed changes to the facades will convert an existing set of windows to doors and add a small door. The south façade will also have a door added. Again, the structure itself is not historic, but the surrounding buildings are. The existing ratio of windows to doors will be respectful of what is existing. CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building. Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The proposed second story addition does not impact the existing structure. 7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Partially Complies The mass of the proposed rear addition and second story is appropriate and the new second-story facades have been Page 23 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 8 of 10 An addition to the front of a building is inappropriate. However, where a building in the Downtown Overlay is set back from the front property line and the structure does not have historic significance, the first consideration for the placement of an addition should be to fill the gap between the existing building and sidewalk. This will maintain the consistent “street wall” desired in the downtown. - For example, mounting a sign panel in a manner that causes decorative moldings to be chipped or removed would be inappropriate. N/A slightly recessed as requested. The new façade at the ground- level is at the sidewalk, which is appropriate for this area and context This footprint and lowered roofline will help this addition to remain subordinate to the existing building. The proposed stucco is consistent in typical material seen around the square, however the proposed bronze metal panel would be a completely new material. The majority of the siding material is proposed to be a bronze metal. This is not a typical siding material and can only be seen a few times throughout the downtown on domes. The proposed windows are divided light, but with a larger glass size to reflect that style of window that is complementary to what is typically seen on the second stories around the square. 7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. For example, loss or alteration of a cornice line should be avoided. Complies The new addition does not damage any features of the existing structure. 7.5 An addition may be made to the roof of a commercial building if it does the following: An addition should be set back from the primary, character-defining facade, to preserve the perception of the historic scale of the building. • Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract attention from the historic facade. • The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a subtle way. The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape and should have a roof form compatible with the original building. Partially Complies The new second story addition is slightly recessed from the façade of the existing structure. The new design for the north and second story addition is distinguishable however, it does reflect a modern style with a few elements that have been pulled from a typical historic commercial style. The design proposes both pitched and flat roof lines to provide a Page 24 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 9 of 10 complementary style to what is typically seen, but to identify it as a new addition. CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND CANOPIES 10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the style of the building is encouraged. • Operable awnings are encouraged on historic buildings. N/A Use colors that are compatible with the overall color scheme of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-stripe patterns are appropriate. The awning should fit the opening of the building. Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular openings. Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings are inappropriate on most historic structures. Complies The new metal trellis will be on the new second floor and will have a contemporary feel and will be compatible with the existing metal canopies on the first floor. 10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered. Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted brackets, chains, and posts. Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those canopies seen historically. Complies The new metal trellis will be on the new second floor and will have a contemporary feel. 10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features. It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be found above the storefront and should not hide character- defining features. Its mounting should not damage significant features and historic details. Complies The new awning will be on the second floor over the some of the windows on the west and south elevations. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies Page 25 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 10 of 10 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm Complies, Structure is not historic 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed second story addition and first floor expansion of the structure are appropriate based on the Design Guidelines. The design of the second floor addition is reflective of modern elements and materials. The proposed bronze color of the metal cladding and the proposed dark blue stucco will create a strong visual contrast between the existing structure and the proposed second floor. Staff recommends approval of the request and recommends the following conditions: 1) 2nd floor cladding is changed to a color metal that is commonly seen on historic commercial buildings such the window frames on the existing structure and/or the two domes that are in Area 1. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3- Historic Resources Survey Exhibit 4 – Plans and Renderings Exhibit 5- Staff Report SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 26 of 116 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Downtown District Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information Owner/Address CITY OF GEORGETOWN, PO BOX 409, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78627-0409 Latitude:30.637746 Longitude -97.676823 Addition/Subdivision:S3667 - Georgetown City Of WCAD ID:R391754Legal Description (Lot/Block):GEORGETOWN CITY OF, BLOCK 39, LOT 2-3(W/PTS), Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Current Designations: NR District Yes No) NHL NR (Is property contributing? RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC Other: Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Other: Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Function EstimatedActual Source:"UF Hopes to Give Library $2000," The Sunday Sun, September 15, 1974, 14. Construction Date:1970 Builder:Architect: Healthcare Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4 Vacant Vacant Downtown District Current/Historic Name:Georgetown Municipal Court and Council Chambers/Georgetown Library Photo direction: Northeast Page 27 of 116 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Downtown District Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 2 Architectural Description General Architectural Description: One-story, rectangular, commercial building clad in rusticated stone blocks with a corner entrance located in a domed, stucco-clad tower; fixed, storefront windows with clerestories; rounded, wrap-around canopy supported by tension rods. Relocated Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered Stylistic Influence(s) Queen Anne Second Empire Greek Revival Eastlake Italianate Log traditional Exotic Revival Colonial Revival Romanesque Revival Renaissance Revival Folk Victorian Shingle Monterey Beaux Arts Tudor Revival Mission Neo-Classical Gothic Revival Moderne Craftsman Spanish Colonial Art Deco Prairie Pueblo Revival Other: Commercial Style Post-war Modern No Style Ranch International Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet Structural Details Roof Form Mansard Pyramid Other: Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other: Roof Materials Wall Materials Metal Brick Wood Siding Stucco Siding: Other Stone Glass Wood shingles Asbestos Log Vinyl Terra Cotta Other: Concrete Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash Windows Decorative Screenwork Other: Single door Double door With transom With sidelights Doors (Primary Entrance) Other: Plan Irregular L-plan Four Square T-plan Rectangular Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage Other Bungalow Chimneys Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps Interior Exterior Other Specify #0 PORCHES/CANOPIES Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other Support Suspension rods Box columns Classical columns Wood posts (plain) Spindlework Wood posts (turned) Tapered box supports Masonry pier Other: Fabricated metal Jigsaw trim Suspension cables Materials:Metal FabricWood Other: # of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement: Ancillary Buildings Garage Barn Shed Other: Landscape/Site Features Stone Sidewalks Wood Terracing Concrete Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other materials:Brick Other Landscape Notes: Not visible Vinyl Canopy None None None None Unknown Asphalt Page 28 of 116 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Downtown District Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 3 Historical Information Immigration/Settlement Religion/Spirituality Commerce Law/Government Science/Technology Communication Military Social/Cultural Education Natural Resources Transportation Exploration Planning/Development Other Health Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria: National State LocalLevel of Significance: Integrity: Setting Feeling Location Association Design Materials Workmanship Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined Is prior documentation available for this resource?Yes No Not known General Notes:The building underwent a major exterior renovation c2000. Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts C D B A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinctions Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Areas of Significance: Periods of Significance: Integrity notes:See Section 2 Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined High Medium Priority: Low Explain:Property lacks integrity Other Info: Type:HABS Survey Other Documentation details 2007 survey Contact Survey Coordinator History Programs Division, Texas Historical Commission 512/463-5853 history@thc.state.tx.us Questions? 1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:121 2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded Page 29 of 116 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Downtown District Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos NorthPhoto Direction Page 30 of 116 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 24, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action o n a req uest fo r a Certific ate of Appropriateness for a res id ential ad d ition o f a s treet facing fac ad e fo r the property loc ated at 1103 S. Elm St., bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f .33 ac . Glas sc o ck Addition, Blo ck 25, Lot 7-8 (COA-2018-055). Mad is o n Thomas , AICP, Downtown Histo ric Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p lic ant is propo s ing to add a o ne sto ry ad d ition at the rear o f the exis ting home. The fo llo wing lis t s p ecifies the s p ec ific wo rk p ro p o s ed by the applic ant: New ad d ition to the rear. - A new, 540 s .f. living spac e for a to tal s quare footage o f 2,122. Approximately 16’ of the faç ad e of this new additio n will b e vis ib le fro m E. 11th Street. This new ad d ition will b e s etb ack approximately 7’, fro m the p lane o f the existing s tructure. The proposed ro o f height and form and materials will matc h the existing. The p ro pos ed s id ing and window will all matc h the materials o f the existing home. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4- His toric Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit Page 31 of 116 EL M S T A S H S T PI N E S T S M A I N S T E 1 5 TH S T E 1 3 TH S T E 8 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E R O C K S T S C O L L E G E S T E U N I V E R S IT Y AV E WA L N U T S T E 1 0 TH S T E 11 TH S T E 1 4 TH ST W 9 T H S T W 8 T H S T W 11TH ST W 1 0 T H S T W U N I V E R S IT Y AV E E 9 T H S T E 9 T H 1 /2 S T TI N B A R N A LY E 11 TH S T E 1 4 TH S T E 1 4 T H S T E 1 0 TH S T E 9 T H S T E 9 T H S T COA-2018-053Exhibit #1 Coordinate S ystem : Texas S tat e Plane /C ent ral Z one/NA D 83/US F eetCartographic Data For G eneral P lanning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 250 500Feet Page 32 of 116 Green Earth Builders, LLC 2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626 Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100 Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: Jennifererin.jl@gmail.com 1103 S Elm St. Letter of intent Level house and install new piers as needed for structural loads. Extra piers for foundation add on. All piers added are engineered to meet code for City of Georgetown. Foundation beaming will be 9”X31/2” LVL. Floor joist are to be 2X8 pine. Subfloor is ¾”X4’X8’ T/G O.S.B. plyboard. Framing to be 2”X4” stud and plate/blocking/deadwood/ fire block. Rafters will be 2”X6” with 2”X8” ridge. Roof to be 6/12 pitch. Ceiling joist to be 2”X10” because of span from bearing wall to wall. Pearlings to be midspan of rafter length. All beams supported with solid wood studing to piers. Sheathing to be ½”X4’X8’ OSB. South wall to be resided all other siding on house to be restored. Tyvek house wrap used on new construction. Windows and doors to be wrapped with weather guard seal tape.122 V groove wood siding to match existing 100 v-cut wood siding. Brackets to be added to match existing. All trims to match exterior. Underpinning to be done with rebar and mesh and mortar. Venting to be 2’ off corners and 10’ separation. Attic to be foam insulation to meet code of City of Georgetown walls to be insulation with R-13 and blown in insulation on existing wall to meet code. 1” Insulation under floor to be foam. Paint and caulk to owners approval. All windows to be used on side in new areas around house. Doors added exterior are DB 3(0)6(8) full glass with mini blinds. Front porch door to have added transom window to match elevation of window next to it. For extension at back of house (east side) facing garage. All attached structures added at different times that are lower to original elevation are to be demolished along with concrete foundation in this area. New structure to match front width and extend east 7’ full width of house. Electrical panel and meter to relocate from facing street to mounting on east side of the house around corner of existing. HVAC condenser on north side of house to be moved to south side. North window for kitchen to have planter and pergola for character. Two windows added for garage to have same planter and pergola across the two back DB 3(0)6(0) doors there will be a pergola as well. In front west side of house bedroom window to have planter and pergola as well. Page 33 of 116 Page 34 of 116 Page 35 of 116 8" JOIST 9' BEAMS 2' 20' 11' 6/12 PITCH ROOF 1103 S ELM WEST SIDE FRONT OF HOUSE NEW TRANSOM WINDOW NEW NEW Page 36 of 116 1103 S ELM NORTH SIDE ADD ON ADD ON NEW NEW Page 37 of 116 ADD ON 1103 S ELM SOUTH SIDE ADD ON NEW Page 38 of 116 1103 S ELM EAST SIDE NEW PERGULA NEW DECK BACK OF HOUSE Page 39 of 116 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1103 S Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123877 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042527Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:Sanborn (not present 1925)Construction Date:1930 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: new wrought iron stoop rails) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:909 ID:617 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name None/None ID:123877 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.633955 Longitude -97.673897 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: West Page 40 of 116 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1103 S Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123877 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 41 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: January 24, 2019 File Number: COA-2018-055 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) A Residential Addition of a street facing facade for the property located at 1103 S. Elm St., bearing the legal description of .33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 25, Lot 7-8 (COA-2018-055). Madison Thomas, AICP, Downtown Historic Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Residential Addition Applicant: John Lawton Property Owner: Greg & Linda Austin Property Address: 1103 S. Elm St., Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: .33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 25, Lot 7-8 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1930 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low 2007 - Medium 2016 - Medium National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add a one story addition at the rear of the existing home. The following list specifies the specific work proposed by the applicant: • New addition to the rear. - A new, 540 s.f. living space for a total square footage of 2,122. Approximately 16’ of the façade of this new addition will be visible from E. 11th Street. This new addition will be setback approximately 7’, from the plane of the existing structure. The proposed roof height and form and materials will match the existing. The proposed siding and window will all match the materials of the existing home. Portions of the request are reviewed by staff and HARC per UDC 3.13.010, including: Page 42 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 2 of 8 HARC: -Creation of a new street facing façade. Staff Review: Non-street facing additions Restoring historic architectural features Demolition of non-historic addition STAFF ANALYSIS The 2016 Historic Resource Survey identifies this as a 1930 single- story residential structure with Craftsman style influence on the. It retains a medium priority rating as despite some alterations. The property is significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. The applicant is requesting to add approximately 540 s.f. of living area to the existing approx. 1,582 sq. ft. home. The addition is significantly smaller than the existing square footage of the property. The historic home is one story and in an effort to retain the integrity of the primary structure, the proposed addition will also be a one-story, located at the rear of the existing home. A minor portion of the addition, which will create a new street facing façade, will be on the north side of the structure, facing East 11th St. This new façade will be recessed approximately 7’ from the façade of the existing home. The rear façade has a more modern design with a porch and two sets of double French doors. These subtle changes will help differentiate it as a new addition. It uses the stylistic and appropriate architectural elements for that style home. The new addition will also have wood siding and will incorporate some of the windows that are on the existing structure’s non-street facing façade that are being removed. The roofline and roofing materials of the existing structure will be continued in the addition to create cohesion as one single structure. The Design Guidelines, Chapter 7, page 69, provides commentary related to the design of an addition: “A historic addition typically was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. The height of the addition was usually positioned below that of the main structure and it was often located to the side or rear, such that the primary facade remained dominate. An addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those in use historically. In some cases, owners simply added on to an existing roof, creating more usable space without increasing the footprint of the structure. This tradition of adding on to buildings is anticipated to continue. It is important, however, that new additions be designed in such a manner that they maintain the character of the primary structure. The compatibility of proposed additions with historic buildings will be reviewed in terms of the mass, the scale, the materials, the color, the roof form, and the proportion and spacing of windows and doors. Additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions that introduce compatible contemporary design could be acceptable.” The picture below is an example of placing an addition in a location so that it is minimally visible. Page 43 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 3 of 8 “An addition to a structure can radically change its perceived scale and character if inappropriately designed. When planning an addition, consider the effect the addition will have on the building itself. When creating an addition, keep the size of the addition small, in relation to the main structure. If an addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the main structure and connected with a smaller linking element. A design for a new addition that would create an appearance inconsistent with the character of the building, especially an historic one, is discouraged. One also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of a street or neighborhood, as seen from the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case.” APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building. Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The applicant is requesting to place the addition at the rear of the structure. The addition will be compatibly designed to reflect the same period of Page 44 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 4 of 8 history as the existing structure. 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained. Due to special circumstances, a structure’s historic priority may change over time (because a reduced number of similar style structures in stable condition still exist within the district or city, or if unknown historic information becomes available that adds significance). Complies The original structure is being maintained, with a small addition proposed at the rear of the structure. 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building. An addition should be made distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should match that of the original building, in appearance, detail, and material. Even applying a new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition. See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14- exterior-additions.htm Complies The north side of the addition that can be seen from the street is compatible with the existing structure, by the reuse of existing windows, using wood siding, and by carrying through the same roof form and materials. The new addition has been recessed and has a different style of windows in order to differentiate it from the existing historic structure. 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Setting an addition back from any primary, character- defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented earlier in this chapter. Complies Page 45 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 5 of 8 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. − Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. N/A Complies The proposed addition is located at the rear of the existing structure and will be setback from the existing façade plane. It will also be smaller in size, subordinate in scale to the existing structure. The addition will use some of the existing windows (non- street facing façade) and will also use matching wood siding. 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for commercial buildings in the downtown area. Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the original building. Complies The existing roof form will be extended to cover the new addition. CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback. − Align the new non-residential building front at a setback that is in context with the area properties- N/A − New residential buildings should meet the minimum front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if the block has historically developed with an extended setback- N/A Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing façades. − Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks. N/A Complies 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. Complies Page 46 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 6 of 8 See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and protecting historic building materials. 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged. Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate. Asphalt shingles are not appropriate. Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. Complies 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance. Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building. An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. Even applying new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition. See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. Complies The north side of the addition that can be seen from the street is compatible with the existing structure, by the reuse of existing windows, using wood siding, and by carrying through the same roof form and materials. The new addition has been recessed and has a different style of windows in order to differentiate it from the existing historic structure. 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Setting an addition back from any primary, character- defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented in this document. Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies Page 47 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 7 of 8 An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. − Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. N/A The proposed addition is located at the rear of the existing structure and will be setback from the existing façade plane. It will also be smaller in size, subordinate in scale to the existing structure. The addition will use some of the existing windows (non- street facing façade) and will also use matching wood siding. 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character- defining façade. An addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies 14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed. See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting architectural features. Complies 14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided. Addition of a porch may be inappropriate Complies 14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when additions are proposed. See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving individual building elements. Complies Page 48 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-053] – 1103 S. Elm St. Page 8 of 8 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed addition location, material differentiation, height and massing meet the Design Guidelines. The design respects the historic integrity of the existing building and it does not have a significant visual impact on the historic structure. Staff recommends approval of the street facing addition. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 4- Historic Resources Survey SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 49 of 116 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 24, 2019 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and possible ac tion o n a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap propriatenes s for an add ition that creates a street fac ing fac ad e for the p ro p erty lo cated at 1227 C hurch Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f 0.2 ac . Cod y Ad d ition, Blo ck 1, Lot 16. Mad is o n T homas, AICP, Do wnto wn and His toric P lanner. ITEM SUMMARY: Background: This p ro ject was ap p ro ved at the June 28, 2018 HAR C meeting, ho wever the applic ant is p ro p o s ing changes to the previo us ly approved windows , and des ign changes to the eas t faç ad e. T he p revious reques t fo r a height mo d ific atio n was ap p ro ved with the p revious applic ation, and will no t b e up for d is cus s io n with this applic atio n req uest. Request: The ap p ro ved projec t inc luded rep lacement of exis ting no n-his toric metal wind o ws with new windows . The ap p ro ved C OA includ ed an 8/8 design, b ut the ap p licant is no w req ues ting to change that to a 6/6 s tyle. The Co mmis s io n granted a height exc eptio n o f 2-fo o t 6-inches for the s tructure that is 17-foot 6- inc hes at the p res c ribed 6-foot setb ack. The applic ant is req uesting to add two d o rmers to the ro o fline and with the addition of the dormers, the two street fac ing fac ad es will require HARC approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type exhibit 1- location map Cover Memo Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 and 4 -Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 5- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Exhibit 6- Staff Report Exhibit Page 50 of 116 EL M S T A SH S T S MA I N ST E 15TH S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S TI N AV E E 1 3 T H S T S C OL L E G E S T E 1 6 T H S T E 14T H S T E U N I V E R S I TY AVE W 17T H S T S MY R T LE S T W 1 6 T H S T E 17TH ST W U N IV E R S ITY AV E GEOR GE ST R O C K S T K N I G H T S T E U B A N K S T S M Y R T L E S TE 16T H S T E 17T H S T COA-2018-065Exhibit #1 Coordinate S ystem : Texas S tat e Plane /C ent ral Z one/NA D 83/US F eetCartographic Data For G eneral P lanning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 250 500Fee t Page 51 of 116 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services/HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC Submission for CoA Remodel 1227 S. Church Street Georgetown, TX 78626 December 19, 2018 Project Scope Summary: We are excited to be well into our project to renovate and improve our house located at 1227 S. Church Street. While this property is classified as low historical significance, we fully support that it still must complement and enhance the historic character of the Old Town Overlay District. We are focused on bringing the original structure much more into compliance with HARC guidelines than it currently is, including replacing vinyl siding and windows with more appropriate materials. Throughout the whole process, we have collaborated closely with the City of Georgetown, and HARC since last December, to make adjustments to the project to ensure a great final result. A previous CoA was approved for this project. This current CoA is relating to 3 specific requests: Original Structure/House • Change windows from 8 over 8 divided light to 6 over 6. The previous CoA was requested and approved for Anderson 100 Series Single-Hung Windows in an 8 over 8 divided glass configuration for the original structure. This is more in line with the style of windows throughout neighboring homes on the street. The windows removed from the house were not all the original windows and were a mix of configuration. As a reminder, we are replacing vinyl windows that a previous owner had installed with a more current, HARC-approved Anderson 100 Series. New Addition • Addition of 1 window on north-facing Wall. On the current HARC-approved design there are no windows on the north facing side of the addition. We would like to add a window on the downstairs exterior wall to provide natural light into the room. In order to provided further perceived separation from the original house, this window, like all others on the north and south walls of the addition will not be divided light. • Add 2 north-facing dormers. After previous design and submission, we determined that the ceiling height in the upstairs loft was going to be limiting. Our son is 6’5” which makes it very difficult for us to make that room fully useable. As not to change the size, scale, and mass, we would like to add 2 dormers. This is consistent with neighboring Page 52 of 116 houses. In fact, the house immediately to the south has a very similar dormer facing our backyard. Dormer of house immediately to south. House across street (Church) We feel adding dormers would also enhance the architecture and design of the structure, providing more depth and richness. Even the City’s UDC indicates “Elements intended to add scale and rhythm, such as balconies, awnings, dormers etc., are encouraged.” Further, the Design Guidelines for Additions & Alterations indicates: “Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor.” Dormers are very common within the Historic District and adding them will make the addition relate well in mass, scale, and form to other structures in the area. Lastly, the addition of the dormers will affect the front (west) and rear (east) facades from both Church Street and Myrtle Street, respectively. Regarding Church Street, the below picture was taken 7 feet into Church Street, 6 feet off the ground. As you can see, the tip of the roof of the addition only starts to become viewable. Page 53 of 116 Because the roof of the dormer is farther back, it will not become visible for another 14 feet, which is into the neighbor’s yard across the street. Including the trees in the front yard, the dormers will be very difficult to see from Church, if at all. Regarding Myrtle Street, there is currently no consistent facade of houses. Some have fences lining the street while across the street is the front of other houses. Adding dormers will not detract from the visual appeal of our house from this direction. Picture from street on Myrtle of house directly south Thank you for your consideration of these changes. We look forward to finalizing our project and making Georgetown our new home! Sincerely, Jeff and Lisa Zook Page 54 of 116 Page 55 of 116 Page 56 of 116 Page 57 of 116 Page 58 of 116 Page 59 of 116 Page 60 of 116 Page 61 of 116 Page 62 of 116 Page 63 of 116 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041539Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950 Bungalow Other Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s) Note: See additional photo(s) on page 2 General Notes: Explain Upon reassessment, due to alterations, priority has been lowered from the previous survey. Geographic Location Latitude:30.63123 Longitude -97.675391 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 795 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125738 2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: Northeast Page 64 of 116 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos EastPhoto Direction Page 65 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: January 24, 2019 File Number: COA-2018-065 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 1) an addition that creates a street facing facade for the property located at 1227 Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.2 ac. Cody Addition, Block 1, Lot 16. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Residential Remodel Applicant: Matthew Mac Connell Property Owner: Jeff and Lisa Zook Property Address: 1227 S. Church Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.2 ac. Cody Addition, Block 1, Lot 16 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: HARC Conceptual on April 12, 2018 and on May 24, 2018. At this meeting, HARC was receptive to the applicant’s proposed changes to replace the windows on the existing home, the massing, scale, materials and design of the new addition. The project was approved at the June 28th HARC Meeting. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: est. 1950 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A 2007 - Medium 2016 - Low National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST This project was approved at the June 28, 2018 HARC meeting, however the applicant is proposing changes to the previously approved windows, and design changes to the east façade impact the two street facing facades. The previous request for a height modification was approved with the previous application, and will not be up for discussion with this application request. HARC: -Street facing facades Page 66 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 2 of 8 HPO -Addition of transom window on non-street facing façade. The approved project included replacement of existing non-historic metal windows with new windows. The approved COA included an 8/8 design, but are now requesting to change that to a 6/6 style. The Commission granted a height exception of 2-foot 6-inches for the structure that is 17-foot 6- inches at the prescribed 6-foot setback. The applicant is requesting to add two dormers to the roofline and with the addition of the dormers, the two street facing facades will require HARC approval. The first conceptual review provided the applicant feedback on all the renovation of the existing home, specifically the windows, and the addition on the rear of the home. The major concerns from HARC at that time were the height, massing and scale of the proposed addition. The Commission concluded that the height exception request was not appropriate within the context and character of the property and surrounding area. The applicant revised the size and design of the addition, reducing the overall height, reducing the visibility from the Church St. façade and the design of the structure from the S. Myrtle St. façade. The second conceptual review, conducted in May was positive, and HARC was supportive of the newly proposed design. HARC approved that design on the June 28, 2018 meeting. STAFF ANALYSIS In June, the applicant was granted approval to replace all windows with the Anderson 100 Fibrex composite material, and retain the 8/8 window style that can be seen on the home today. The applicant is now requesting to replace the windows on the existing historic structure with a 6/6 style. In Chapter 6 of the Design Guidelines, it states that the replacement should be matched to the original design as closely as possible. The house currently has a mix of window styles, including the 8/8 however, the homes on the block have a mix of 1/1 and 6/6. All of these styles would be appropriate for the minimal traditionalist architectural style of this home. HARC approved Fibrex composite material proposed instead of wood. Applicant is now requesting a 6/6 style instead of the previous approved 8/8. Surrounding properties utilize 6/6, which are complimentary to the style of the home. The windows that are currently on the home are not original and because the 8/8 style is not common throughout the neighborhood, it is possible that that style is not original. The applicant was given permission to replace the existing 8/8 with 8/8 because that style currently exists on the home. However, changing to a 6/6 style is also appropriate. In June, the applicant was given approval for the proposed addition to the rear of the structure, including an exception of 2-foot 6-inches to the required height at the setback. The applicant is requesting approval of the redesign of this façade, which includes two dormers on the roofline. The peak of the dormers will align with the peak of the roofline of the addition. Dormers are typical architectural features in minimal traditionalist style homes, however they are traditionally seen on the front façade of a home with a high pitched side-gabled roof. The location of the proposed dormers Page 67 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 3 of 8 meets the required height at setback, and a height variation is not required. The addition of these dormers will alter the previously approved street facing facades. A concern from the previously HARC review was the impact the addition would have from Church St. The addition of the dormer will increase the amount of structure that can be seen from Church St. however, it still remains less than what was originally requested. The proposed dormer on the S. Myrtle façade will create a visual break from the previously proposed pitched roofline, and almost mimic the roofline of the existing historic structure. Though, it will be taller than the roofline of the existing structure. The original proposed addition was taller, with a prominent roofline over the existing structure’s roof. The approved version has a much less dominant roofline which is minimally visible from Church Street. The Myrtle Street façade has tiered rooflines which break up the design and visually reduce the mass of the second story structure and two car garage; designed to address comments from the Commission during the conceptual review. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall.  Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening. N/A  Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been altered over time is encouraged.  Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The proportions of these windows contribute to the character of each residence and commercial storefront. Complies 6.14 Maintenance of windows. - Wash windows. N/A  Clean debris from windows. N/A  Replace loose or broken glass in kind. This will reduce air leaks.  Replace damaged muntins, moldings, or glazing compound with material that matches the original in shape, size, and material.  Repair window hardware or replace with materials that match the original in scale and design. If the replacement hardware does not match the original design it should be simple, unobtrusive, and compatible with the style and building’s period of significance. N/A Complies The majority of windows on the home are not original, and have been maintained but due to substandard materials need to be replaced. The previous request was for replacement windows will be the same size windows and the same Page 68 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 4 of 8  Install weather-stripping. This will enhance energy conservation significantly. N/A  Maintain the interior views, so that either merchandise or furniture can be seen. N/A style of 8/8. The new request is for the windows to be 6/6 6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original design as closely as possible.  Preserve the original casing, when feasible.  If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be doublehung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes.  Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the building’s architectural style are inappropriate. N/A  Using the same material (wood) as the original is preferred. N/A  A new screen door added to the front of a visible door should be “full view” design or with minimal structural dividers to retain the visibility of the historic door behind it. N/A  A screen door should be sized to fit the original entrance opening and the design should be of the appropriate style and period of the building. N/A  Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they should follow the guidelines for screen doors. N/A Complies, HARC approved Fibrex composite material proposed instead of wood. Applicant is now requesting a 6/6 style instead of the previously approved 8/8. Surrounding properties utilize 6/6. Complimentary to style of home. CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts.  Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.  Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Partially Complies, the dormers on the addition are visible but have a minimal impact and the original character remains prominent. They are visible from both of the street facing facades. The two guidelines are met, however the policy does not fully comply because the dormers are visible from the street facing facades. 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. Partially Complies, Page 69 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 5 of 8  An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.  While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure.  An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade.  Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. The addition of dormers is a common architectural element seen on this style of home and is used on other homes throughout the neighborhood. They are visible from Church St. and could compete with the primary façade. 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building.  Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for commercial buildings in the downtown area.  Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.  If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.  The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the original building. Complies The proposed roof form is not changing, however dormers are being added to the roof of the addition. The previously approved roofline is not symmetrical, however they are both pitched roofs. The dormers will also have a pitched roof and will not impact the roof of the existing house. CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building.  An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.  An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate. Partially Complies, The addition of dormers is a common architectural element seen on this style of home and is used on other homes throughout the neighborhood. They are visible from Church St. and could compete with the primary façade. The scale of the dormers, is minimal, however the proposed height of the dormer is parallel with the roofline of the addition. This height is Page 70 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 6 of 8 above the roofline of the existing historic home. 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen.  In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building.  An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted.  Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition.  Even applying new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition.  See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. Complies The proposed dormers will be placed on the addition, and not on the existing historic structure. 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts.  Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.  Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Partially Complies, the dormers on the addition are visible but have a minimal impact and the original character remains prominent. They are visible from both of the street facing facades. The two guidelines are met, however the policy does not fully comply because the dormers are visible from the street facing facades. 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure.  When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented in this document. Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building.  An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.  While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, Partially Complies, The addition of dormers is a common architectural element seen on this style of home and is used on other homes throughout the neighborhood. They are visible from Church Page 71 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 7 of 8 one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure.  An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade.  Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. St. and could compete with the primary façade. The scale of the dormers, is minimal, however the proposed height of the dormer is parallel with the roofline of the addition. This height is above the roofline of the existing historic home. 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade.  An addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies The dormers are being added to the rear addition. 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building.  Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings.  Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.  If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies The proposed roof form is not changing, however dormers are being added to the roof of the addition. The previously approved roofline is not symmetrical, however they are both pitched roofs. The dormers will also have a pitched roof and will not impact the roof of the existing house. 14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed.  See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting architectural features. Complies 14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features.  For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided.  Addition of a porch may be inappropriate Complies CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: Page 72 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-065] – 1227 S. Church Street Page 8 of 8 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval and finds that the proposed renovations to the windows on the existing structure to a 6/6 style meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. The proposed changes to the previously approved design include two dormers on the roof of the façade that will impact the street facing facades. Dormers are an appropriate architectural element and are only slightly visible from Church Street. The Myrtle St. façade is not significantly impacted by this change either. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 73 of 116 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 24, 2019 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r a new building cons tructio n for the property lo cated at 1310 Maple Street, bearing the legal des c rip tion of 0.66 ac . Snyder Add ition, Bloc k 33, S 1/2 (C OA-2018-058). Madis o n Tho mas ,AICP, Downto wn and His toric Planner. ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to c o nstruc t a two and three s tory multi-family res id ential struc ture on the p ro p erty loc ated at 1310 Map le S treet. The propos ed use will have two s eparate, multi-family s tructures, p laced b ehind the exis ting s ingle-family home. The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing a ro w o f three-story s truc tures adjac ent to 14th Street with fro nt yard s and s tructured p arking and a s ep arate two sto ry s truc ture on the northern portion of the lot. T he s econd , two- s tory struc ture will b e loc ated p arallel to Map le s treet, and to the three-s tory s truc ture. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans Exhibit Exhibit 4- Renderings Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit exhibit 6 s taff report Cover Memo Page 74 of 116 A S H S T PI N E S T EL M S T E 1 5 T H S T M A P L E S T S M A I N S T E 1 3 TH S T E U N IV E R S I T Y AV E S C H U R C H S T S C OLLE GE ST H U T T O R D E 8 T H S T E 1 8 T H S T O L I V E S T S M YRT L E S T WAL NUT S T E 1 0 TH S T E 11 TH S T S A N J O S E S T E 1 6 TH S T VI N E S T E 1 4 TH S T E 1 9 T H S T L O U I S E S T LAU R EL ST H A V E N L N SOUTH W E S T E R N B L V D V I R G I N I A S T E U B A N K S T K N I G H T S T P I R A T E D R SO UL E DR C Y R U S A V E M I M O S A S T H O G G S T T A Y L O R R D P I R A T E C V JA M E S S T E 1 7 TH S T F I N C H L N E RUTERSVIL L E D R E 9 T H S T M C C O Y P L W E S L E Y A N D R A N N I E P U RLDV H O L L Y S T M C K ENZIE DR GE OR G E S T W 18 T H S T E 2 0 T H S T E 9 T H 1 /2 S T W 1 7 TH S T W 1 6T H S T A L L E Y E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T W R U T E R S V I L L E D R P E A C H T R E E L N E 1 9 T H S T E 1 6TH ST E 1 6 T H S T E 1 4 T H S T E 1 7 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 1 6 T H S T E 1 7 TH S T E 9 T H S T E 16TH ST E 17 TH S T E 1 3 T H S T WA L N U T S T E 1 4 TH S T E 1 9 T H S T E 1 9 T H S T E 11 TH S T E 9 T H S T E 1 6 TH S T E 1 8 T H S T L A U R E L S T V I N E S T E 1 4 TH S T E 1 8 T H S T E 1 0 TH S T E 1 7 T H S T A N N I E P U R L D V COA-2018-058Exhibit #1 Coordinate S ystem : Texas S tat e Plane /C ent ral Z one/NA D 83/US F eetCartographic Data For G eneral P lanning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 75 of 116 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com January 3, 2018 Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: Maple Street Condominiums – CoA Application Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: On behalf of our clients, Maple 618 LLC, here are materials for a CoA application for condominiums at 1310 Maple Street in Georgetown, TX. This property is one of three sites zoned as MF-2 in the Old Town District. Included here are pages to describe the rationale for design of the proposed project: Page 1, Site Map: The proposed site is clustered with two large-scale, multi-family properties, Alpine Apartments and Mid-Century Park. The design mainly faces 14th Street, which is a dead end on that block due to the railroad tracks. There is an existing structure on the property that shares the site. Page 2, Existing Neighbors: Views of the properties nearby that are (scale, not visual) precedents for this proposal. Page 3, Site Plan: The proposed project faces 14th Street, which is a dead end street on that block. (4)-“Front Units” face 14th Street, while (4)-“Back Units” are tucked behind the Front Units. At Maple Street, the Owner proposes to add a Playground and Park Area for the residents. Page 4, MF-2 vs. Old Town Overlay Comparison Page 5, Setback Requirements: While MF-2 Zoning is supposed to allow for substantially increased density (no FAR requirements) and height (45’ max allowable), due to this property falling in the Old Town Overlay, the setbacks as indicated here are required. Page 6, Section for proposed design: Observing the setback requirements, our proposed design will fall within these guidelines. Page 7, Front Units facing 14th Street: Plans Page 8, Back Units facing Mid-Century Park: Plans Page 9, Detailed Elevation of Front Units: Materials as noted Page 10, Alternate Detailed Elevation of Front Units: Alternate Materials as noted Page 11, Elevation at 14th Street Page 12, Elevation at Maple Street Page 13, East Elevation of Front + Back Units: For Information Only Page 76 of 116 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC / 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 / Ph: 512.819.6012 Page 14, North + West Elevations: For Information Only Page 15, Elevations from Parking Drive: For information Only Page 16-20, Model Views: For Information Only Page 21, Detail Wall Section Page 22, Proposed Materials Page 23, Perspective: View from corner of Maple and 14th Street We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on January 24th. We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you in advance for your time. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Principal Wang Architects LLC Page 77 of 116 Design Concepts for Review by HARC Maple Condominiums January 24, 2018 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 78 of 116 I m ag ery ©2 0 1 8 G o o g le, M ap d ata ©2 0 1 8 G o o g le 2 0 0 ft Home 2 8 mi n via I-35 S Work E UNIVERSITY AVE TRAIN TRACKS 14TH STREET 13TH STREET M A P L E S T R E E T PROJECT LOCATION MF-2 ZONING MID-CENTURY PARK (MULTI-FAMILY)ALPINE APARTMENTS (MULTI-FAMILY) DEAD END SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY CITY-OWNED PROPERTY 1Site MapJANUARY 3, 2018 N Page 79 of 116 2Existing Neighbors ALPINE APARTMENTS MID-CENTURY PARK APARTMENTS JANUARY 3, 2018 Page 80 of 116 3Site PlanJANUARY 3, 2018 N 3/32” = 1’-0” EN D O F S T R E E T 25 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 15 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 15' SIDE SETBACK APPROX LOCATION OF HERITAGE TREE MA P L E S T R E E T 14TH STREET 15' BUILDING SEPARATION EXISTING STRUCTURE N.I.C. N NEW PROPOSED SIDEWALK EXISTING DRIVE NEW PLAYGROUND / PARK FIRE LANE FDC/STAND-PIPE LOCATION TWO-WAY DRIVE NEW DRIVEWAY AREA NEED PARKING FOR ADDITIONAL 2 CARS NEW PROPOSED SIDEWALK OPTIONAL SIDEWALK FROM MAPLE GROUND FLOOR FOR REFERENCE ONLY SEE A211 FOR ACTUAL PLANS GARAGE FLOOR FOR REFERENCE ONLY SEE A210 FOR ACTUAL PLANS A310 1 A310 2 A311 1 A311 2 A3121A3122 'ISLAND' TYPICAL FOR 3 DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A002 FRONT BUILDINGS BACK BUILDINGS FAR FOR OLD TOWN OVERLAY = 45% OF SITE AREA SITE AREA: 28792 SF 28792(0.45) = 12956 SF 12956-1964(HOUSE) = 10992 SF 4 GARAGES @ 480 SF EACH = 1920 SF 10992 SF - 1920 SF = 9072 SF 9072 ÷ 8 UNITS = 1134 SF PER UNIT Page 81 of 116 4MF-2 vs Old Town Overlay Comparison MF-2 - HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESTRICTIONS OLD TOWN OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS HEIGHT 45 FEET MAX HEIGHT 30 FEET MAX HEIGHT SETBACKS FRONT SETBACK - 25 FEET SIDE SETBACK - 15 FEET REAR SETBACK - 15FEET NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS DENSITY 24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE 0.66 ACRES = 15.8 DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED 0.45 FAR 8 DWELLING UNITS PER DESIGN HEIGHT / SETBACKS NO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION @ SETBACK LINE 15 FEET MAX HEIGHT @ SETBACK LINE, ADDITIONAL 5 FEET HEIGHT PER 3 FEET SETBACK - SEE DIAGRAM 1310 MAPLE MF-2 VS OLD TOWN OVERLAY COMPARISON JANUARY 3, 2018 Page 82 of 116 15' - 0" 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 30' - 0" 15 ' S I D E S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 15 ' S I D E S E T B A C K 33' - 0" MAX AE 14TH STREET 5Setback Requirements 1/8” = 1’-0” SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER OLD TOWN GUIDELINES JANUARY 3, 2018 14TH STREET Page 83 of 116 6Proposed Design-Section 1/8” = 1’-0” M. BATH 000 MAST. BEDROOM 000 CORR. 000 BEDROOM 000 MASTER BED 000 DINING 000 KITCHEN 000 GARAGE 000 LIVING 000 KITCHEN 000 DINING 000 14TH STREET 15' - 0" 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 30' - 0" MAX AE 33' - 0" 15 ' S I D E S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 15 ' S I D E S E T B A C K DRIVE WAY 14TH STREET BACK BUILDING JANUARY 3, 2018 14TH STREET FRONT BUILDING Page 84 of 116 BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER, PLANTERS BY LANDSCAPE (15)RISERS @7-1/2", W/ 11" TREADS TALL MILLWORK ISLAND (18)RISERS @7-9/32", W/ 11" TREADS (15)RISERS @7-1/2", W/ 11" TREADS MILLWORK CLOSET MILLWORK DESK RAILING FAR TARGET SF: 1134 SF ACTUAL SF (1ST AND 2ND FLOOR): 1144 SF 2 A320 1 A320 d D B A E C F e a b c OQ M K H J R S L I P N f KITCHEN 121 LIVING 120 DINING 122 PWDR 123 GARAGE 100 MASTER BEDROOM 132 BEDROOM 2 130 BATH 131 M. BATH 134 CLOS. 133 HALL 135 2 A320 1 A320 2 A320 1 A320 OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT ROOF TERRACE CANOPY LINE OF STAIRS/ LANDING ABOVE GARDEN+FENCE BY LANDSCAPE LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE G C' A A A A A A B C B D D E E E E G B FB B B H I IO J JKK L M L N A C D B D G D E F D D ACCENT ACCENT A4101 DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A2107 N JANUARY 3, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 85 of 116 MILLWORK CLOSET SHOWER OPTIONAL TUB OPEN STAIR OPTIONAL CLOSET W/D OR OPTIONAL CLOSET (18)STEPS @7-11/32" TALL MILLWORK PANTRY W/ DOOR ISLAND FAR TARGET SF: 1134 SF ACTUAL SF: 1198 SF T U V W Z AA Y GG BB CC DD EE FFHH II LL KK JJ NN MM g h i X 4 A320 3 A320 3 A320 4 A320 M. BATH 206 MASTER BEDROOM 204 BEDROOM 2 220 BATH 221 KITCHEN 200 PWDR 203 DINING 202 LIVING 201 CLOS. 205 HALL 222 CANOPY ABOVE OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT CANOPY OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT PQRQ T T T Q Q Q S WV U S U S S HI M L K J K N M O O A4102 DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A2118 NN JANUARY 3, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 86 of 116 9Detailed Elevation of Front Units 3/16” = 1’-0” BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER WHITE BOARD+BATTEN CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL CONCRETE JANUARY 3, 2018 BLACKENED STEEL OPEN STAIR FENCE Page 87 of 116 10Detailed Elevation of Front Units - Stucco Alt. 3/16” = 1’-0” BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER WHITE BOARD+BATTEN CANOPYWOOD ACCENT WALL GRAY STUCCO JANUARY 3, 2018 FENCE Page 88 of 116 14th Street Elevation - RenderedJANUARY 3, 2018 EXISTING STRUCTURE “BACK” UNITS BEYOND 11 Page 89 of 116 Maple Street Elevation - Rendered “FRONT” UNITS BEYOND EXISTING STRUCTURE “BACK” UNITS BEYOND JANUARY 3, 2018 12 Page 90 of 116 32'- 6" MAX ROOFTOP UNIT 9' - 6" GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" GARAGE FLOOR 20' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 31'- 4" T.O. PARAPET 30'- 6" T.O. ROOF 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 9' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 20' - 2" T.O. ROOF 13' - 10" T.O. ROOF 21' - 0" T.O. PARAPET FRONT UNITS BACK UNITS WHITE BOARD+BATTEN CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL CONCRETE BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER BEYOND WHITE BOARD+BATTEN ENTRY STAIRS WOOD ACCENT WALL FENCE ISLAND DOWNSPOUT DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31013 For Information Only JANUARY 3, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 91 of 116 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 9' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 20' - 2" T.O. ROOF 21' - 0" T.O. PARAPET SHED ROOF EXISTING STRUCTURE FRONT UNITS BEYOND WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 13' - 10" T.O. ROOF SLIDING PATIO DOOR DOWNSPOUT 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 9' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 20' - 2" T.O. ROOF 21' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 9' - 6" GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" GARAGE FLOOR 20' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 31'- 4" T.O. PARAPET 30'- 6" T.O. ROOF 32'- 6" MAX ROOFTOP UNIT BACK UNITS FRONT UNITS WHITE BOARD+BATTEN WHITE BOARD+BATTEN CONCRETE BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER ENTRY STAIRS 13' - 10" T.O. ROOF FENCE DOWNSPOUT DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31114 For Information Only JANUARY 3, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 92 of 116 EXISTING STRUCTURE WHITE BOARD+BATTEN WOOD ACCENT WALL 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 9' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 20' - 2" T.O. ROOF 21' - 0" T.O. PARAPET EXISTING STRUCTURE WHITE BOARD+BATTEN CONCRETE 9' - 6" GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" GARAGE FLOOR 20' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 31'- 4" T.O. PARAPET 30'- 6" T.O. PARAPET 32'- 6" MAX ROOFTOP UNIT DOWNSPOUT DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31215 For Information Only JANUARY 3, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 93 of 116 16Model View - For Information Only NEW PARK AREA 14TH STREET JANUARY 3, 2018 Page 94 of 116 17Model View - For Information Only EXISTING STRUCTURE MID-CENTURY PARK APARTMENTS 14TH STREET JANUARY 3, 2018 Page 95 of 116 18Model View - For Information Only EXISTING STRUCTURE 14TH STREET JANUARY 3, 2018 Page 96 of 116 19Model View - For Information Only 14TH STREET JANUARY 3, 2018 EXISTING STRUCTURE Page 97 of 116 20Model View - For Information OnlyJANUARY 3, 2018 Page 98 of 116 TR I M VE R T I C A L B O A R D + B A T T E N S I D I N G HE A D E R B Y S T R U C T U R A L WA T E R B A R R I E R IN S U L A T I O N ST U D W A L L S T A R T S H E R E FL A S H I N G + C A P WA L L S H E A T H I N G WA T E R B A R R I E R VE R T I C A L B O A R D + B A T T E N S I D I N G TR I M DR I P E D G E TR I M VE R T I C A L B O A R D + B A T T E N S I D I N G WA T E R B A R R I E R TR I M DR I P E D G E BL A C K E N E D S T E E L P L A N T E R RO O F M E M B R A N E WO O D S I D I N G BE A M B Y S T R U C T U R A L JO I S T S B Y S T R U C T U R A L WA L L B A S E JO I S T S B Y S T R U C T U R A L WE S T C O A T CA S T I N P L A C E C O N C R E T E WO O D F L O O R I N G GW B GW B C E I L I N G ME T A L R A I L I N G GA R A G E F L O O R 0' - 0 " GA R A G E C E I L I N G 7' - 1 1 " GR O U N D F L O O R F . F . 9' - 6 " GR O U N D F L O O R C E I L I N G 19 ' - 5 / 8 " SE C O N D F L O O R F . F . 20 ' - 6 " SE C O N D F L O O R C E I L I N G 29 ' - 3 / 4 " PA R A P E T 31 ' - 4 " IN S U L A T I O N OP E R A B L E W I N D O W WO O D S T U D S DO O R WO O D S I D I N G SH E A T H I N G HE A D E R B Y S T R U C T U R A L RO O F D E C K I N G BE A M B Y S T R U C T U R A L CO V E R B O A R D SH E A T H I N G DR I P E D G E JO I S T B Y S T R U C T U R A L FU R R I N G S T R I P S GW B (3 ) 2 x B E A M B Y S T R U C T U R A L DATE: JANUARY 3, 2018 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s MA P L E S T R E E T C O N D O M I N I U M S 13 1 0 M a p l e S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A610 JANUARY 3, 2018 21 0 1 2 Page 99 of 116 22MaterialsJANUARY 3, 2018 BLACKENED STEEL BOARD + BATTEN POURED CONCRETE ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS Page 100 of 116 23Perspective View - For Information OnlyJANUARY 3, 2018 Page 101 of 116 1 Madison Thomas From:Janet Rasor <janetrasor@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 3:52 PM To:Madison Thomas Subject:Three Story Condos   I am opposed to the condos since their style snd height would conflict with other homes in the area, many of which have  historical significance.    They belong in the Austin area and not in our community.    Janet Rasor              Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  ‐ COG Helpdesk  ________________________________  Page 102 of 116 1 Madison Thomas From:Carlin Troy <carlin@suddenlink.net> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 8:49 AM To:Madison Thomas Subject:Condos on Maple street Please do whatever you can to prevent these condos from being built in Old Town. What a travesty this would be. Thank  you.    Sent from my iPhone  Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  ‐ COG Helpdesk  ________________________________  Page 103 of 116 1 Nathaniel Waggoner From:Karen Frost Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 2:10 PM To:Sofia Nelson; Nathaniel Waggoner Subject:FW: HARC Review 1310 Maple St. FYI - Karen From: Danielle Saunders [mailto:musictherapy_ds@yahoo.com]   Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:31 PM  To: Madison Thomas <Madison.Thomas@georgetown.org>; Karen Frost <karen.frost@georgetown.org>; District1  <district1@georgetown.org>; District6 <district6@georgetown.org>  Subject: RE: HARC Review 1310 Maple St.  To whom it may concern, My name is Danielle Saunders I live at 1004 E. 15th St, near the corner of Maple and 15th St., and only a couple of houses away from the proposed condominium project at 1310 Maple St. I became aware of the proposed project just a couple of days ago and am writing to voice my opposition and concerns to this project. I have taken the opportunity to review all of the provided materials from the December HARC review and have several concerns. First and foremost, I am shocked that this single family lot can even be deemed appropriate and suitable for such a dense and compact multi-family unit. I also think it is incredibly disheartening that such a structure would even be considered as the neighbors could have never envisioned this single home property becoming a multi-family unit. An empty lot turned multi-family, maybe, but not such a charming house and small lot! I fear it sets a dangerous precedent for other homes in the neighborhood that may be snatched up, torn down or altered and become multi-family sacrificing the character and history of the neighborhood. This creates little certainty for the home buyers and owners within the neighborhood and little security that the home you purchase is safe form neighboring over development right next door. Please find my greatest areas of concern listed below. - I believe a condo structure is not appropriate for this single family lot and sets a bad precedent in addition to being unfair to the neighboring home owners being such a drastic change in property use. -The height is of greatest concern to me, A three story height is well above anything else in the neighborhood and will even block my current view form my kitchen windows several houses away. Instead of my current view, I will see this building's third floor. If this does end up approved it needs to be limited in height to 2 floors like the neighboring apartments which sit below the tree line. - Structure size vs. parking allocated is of great concern as well. Their current design allocates only 8 parking spaces but there will be 8 condo units. I do not know of a family or couple that owns only 1 car! If all couples or families move into these units (as anticipated by including a playground) that will leave 8 more cars requiring parking with little street parking available. Maple St. is an incredibly busy road, people regularly run the stop sign at Maple/15th street and increased street parking in this area will only add to the visibility and distraction issues that contribute to the danger of this intersection. - I also have concerns about the design and finishes which look highly "industrial" and do not fit with the neighboring buildings. In fact when I first looked at the drawing I thought it was made of shipping container materials! Even with the board and batten siding the roof line and pitch (especially if it is Page 104 of 116 2 going to tower above everything else in the neighborhood) should be more indicative of the peaks and roof lines of the majority of the neighborhood. It seems they are trying to take the easy route of saying its just like the apartments behind. But the apartments are not the majority of the neighboring structures and many in the neighborhood honestly feel like the apartments should have had more design oversight and shouldn't have had their design approved. Don't let a past mistake serve as the basis for a present one. - With the addition of the playground, are there any building requirements in regards to fencing and enclosure? I know many apartments and schools enclose their play areas due to liability concerns. So will we next be talking about a wall or large fence further deteriorating the charm and view of the property? - Profitability, empty properties and community need are another concern. This design is very similar in nature to The Lofts on Rock, similar in both height and style. The most recent Community Impact had the statistic that single family homes in Old Town spend an average of 26 days on market. As of 1/12/19 The Lofts on Rock had 8 units that have been listed for 245 days (although the realtor just reset the days listing to 1 day as of today. I can't help but think it is because they have heard that there is a similar concern of marketability for the Maple St. Condos). Based on this it is clear to me that condos are not what people want when they move to Old Town, particularly not at the prices being listed. No one wants a home sitting next door empty for nearly a year, it isn't good for the community or the neighborhood to have empty properties and I fear this will be no different than what we are currently seeing. Thank you for considering these concerns and I hope the voices of the neighborhood will be heard and considered as this decision is made. For my family (including my 6 year old who looked at the picture as I was studying it and when I pointed out where it would be while we were walking our dog remarked "that is way too big to fit there!) we feel this would be a detriment to our neighborhood and our home. Sincerely, Danielle Saunders 1004 E. 15th St. Georgetown TX 78626 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) that is legally privileged and not intended for public use or knowledge in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this material/information in error, please contact sender by telephone and destroy all material/information received in error. Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. - COG Helpdesk Page 105 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 1 of 11 Meeting Date: 1/24/2019 File Number: COA-2018-058 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 1) new building construction for the property located at 1310 Maple Street, bearing the legal description of 0.66 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 (COA-2018-058). AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Maple Street Condominiums Applicant: Gary Wang Property Owner: Maple 618, LLC Property Address: 1310 Maple St. Legal Description: 0.6612 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a two and three story multi-family residential structure on the property located at 1310 Maple Street. The proposed use will have two separate, multi-family structures, placed behind the existing single-family home. The applicant is proposing a row of three-story structures at 32’ in height adjacent to 14th Street with front yards and parking that is located under the three-story structures and a separate two story structure that is 21’ in height on the northern portion of the lot. The second, two-story structure will be located parallel to 14th street, and to the three-story structure. HARC Review: -New building construction (infill development) HPO/Site Plan Review -Site layout -Landscaping -Sidewalk design -Parking Page 106 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 2 of 11 HARC Conceptual Review Summary The Historic and Architectural Review Commission reviewed a conceptual version of this project in December 2018. The Commission discussed the proposed materials, including the blackened steel used for the planter boxes, balconies and the staircase and the choice of concrete as a siding material. The Commission requested detailed pictures of the materials for the next meeting. The applicant described the 1st floor siding material for the 3 story structure as formed concrete which mimics tile forms and seams. The applicant confirmed that the window glazing would be clear, and the window frames are to be aluminum and match the same color as the blackened steel on the building and explained the incorporation of fenestration on the Maple St. façade. Overall, there was general support for the proposed materials and architectural elements. The Commission and applicant discussed several aspects of the building form including stepbacks for the Maple St. facade and overall height of the proposed buildings. The applicant provided the Commission design alternatives that incorporated stepbacks for the structures abutting 14th Street and expressed aesthetic and design concerns and shared their reasoning for not selecting that approach. The applicant explained how he achieved building articulation through fenestration and the decision not to include a stepback due to the size of the project and the impact the usable square footage of the lot. There are two proposed structures, one closest to 14th Street and the other along the property line adjacent to the neighboring multi-family structures. The Commission had concerns regarding the height of the proposed three-story structure facing 14th St and the relationship to the existing one-story residential structure that is on the lot as well as the historic context of the area adjacent with single story structures. The applicant and Commission discussed the 15’ separation between the existing structure and the proposed 3 story structure as well as the preservation of open space on the northeast corner of the lot. The applicant and Commission discussed the feasibility of moving the 3 story structure to the rear of the lot. The applicant explained the driving considerations behind the placement of parking as the design guidelines suggest and the desire to include a front yard. The applicant provided an explanation of the limited visibility of the peak of the 3rd story structure behind the existing building from the Maple Street perspective and how they were preserving and respecting the structure with the 15’ separation and open space. The Commission requested perspective drawings to clarify the relation in building height and visibility between the two structures from the Maple and 14th perspectives STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property is located west of the intersection of 14th and Maple Street. The subject property is located in an area that is mostly made up of one-story single family structures with a scattering of two story structures within a two block radius of the subject property. Immediately adjacent to the property considered in this request is a multi-family development identified as a low priority structure (a two story mf structure constructed in approximately 1965 and located at 13th Street and Maple Street). There is a 2nd two story multifamily development northwest of the subject Page 107 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 3 of 11 property along 13th, constructed in 1970 and identified as a low priority in the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. Siting and General Design The applicant is proposing to add two structures on the western and northern portions of the approx. 28,700 sf lot. There is an existing single-family home on this lot. One structure will be located to the north of the exiting home, the other structure will be placed along 14th Street. The applicant is proposing to keep some open space at the northeast portion of the lot along Maple St. The drive aisle and parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the lot adjacent to the railroad property. Both proposed structures will have a flat roof. Materials The design has incorporated a mix of materials for the siding and architectural elements. The proposed siding is white board and batten. This type of siding is typical of historic homes within this area and within Old Town. The other proposed siding material, for the first floor of the three-story structure is caste in place concrete, which not a typical historic siding material as concrete is typically used as material for foundations. The applicant is also offering an alternative material, of stucco. The adjacent multi-family structures use brick and stucco as a siding material. The proposed structures will also have tall rectangular windows, blackened steel planters, stairs and canopies. This layout on the façade is repeated to create a four-module visual effect. Most of the windows will be a divided light, one over one window that is a typical design used historically, however these windows are much longer and thinner, and the 1/1 is divided unevenly achieving a modern profile. There will also be an inset wood accent wall. Wood is a typical historic material that can be seen on the adjacent craftsman, farmhouse and minimal traditionalist homes, though it was always painted. The placement of materials and architectural elements such as windows, balconies, and doors on the structure help express a traditional building and lot width. 14th Street (South) Elevation The South elevation is approximately 85’ in length. This structure is proposed to house 4 dwelling units and is approximately 32’ tall. The façade is broken up in four modules through repetition of architectural elements such as the windows, balconies, doors and stairs. Four individual garages will be located on the ground level of the structure, with the primary entrances located on the second floor. Each of the four modules will have a private fenced in yard. There is a second row of structures behind the first row parallel to 14th Street. These structures will be approximately 21’ at their highest. The façade extends beyond the 3rd story structures, with a portion of the 2 story building visible from 14th Street. These structures will also be covered in board and batten siding, have tall, thin rectangular windows and front doors with a wood accent wall. The repetition in the architectural elements also create a visual effect of 4 modules. Maple Street (East) and West Elevations Page 108 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 4 of 11 These elevations will look very similar to the front elevations of each building. The siding materials have been carried over on both sides of the buildings. Both provide fenestration as an architectural elements. Both structures have a recession in the design to create an offset and visual break in the façade plane. North Elevation The north elevation of the taller structures faces the 2 story building. It will carry the concrete material on the first floor, with the board and batten and multiple windows. The garage door will be located on this façade to access the internal drive aisle. The back row structure will have the 13’ façade with a recessed second floor height of 21’. It will also have board & batten siding, windows and a patio door to access the private backyard. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: DESIGN GUIDELINES CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.1 Locate a new building using a residential setback.  Align the new non-residential building front at a setback that is in context with the area properties.  New residential buildings should meet the minimum front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if the block has historically developed with an extended setback.  Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing façades. n/a  Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks. Complies Proposed structures exhibit a similar front setback distance as the existing home on the lot and other nearby residential homes. Sidewalks will be required at the site plan stage of the project and are shown on the exhibit. 14.2 In the front yard, acknowledge the residential character of the area with residential type landscape treatments.  Landscaping elements should be compatible with the character of the area in size, scale, and type. Free-form, suburban type landscaping is inappropriate in this setting. Complies The undeveloped area in the northeast corner of the lot will remain a natural area with park like features. The area facing 14th Street will include a traditional landscaped front Page 109 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 5 of 11  Consider using landscaped beds, trees, low level lighting, sidewalks, etc. to reflect a more residential appearance of the property.  Limit front yard pavement to driveways rather than parking lots, or if parking lots are deemed necessary make them heavily screened by low level shrubs, vines, and decorative walls. Consider pavers or other less impactful materials. yard, with the back structures having a landscaped backyard area. Driveway location and drive aisle have been located at the rear of the lot, away from the adjacent streets. Additional landscaping will be required during the site plan phase. 14.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.  A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller surrounding structures.  A larger house should step down in height towards all setbacks, especially near smaller surrounding houses. N/A Partially Complies There are different heights provided within the two structures. The 2 story structure steps down towards the northern property line, however this adjacent building is also two-stories. The front building does not step down towards 14th street. The front building is three stories, with the back building two stories and neither step down towards the existing historic home. 14.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure.  This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.  The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Partially Complies The applicant is proposing two new separate structures. The façade height of the individual buildings are not varied. The adjacent multi- family structures have similar roofs, however most of the nearby architecturally and historically significant structures have pitched roofs. 14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings.  A typical building module should not exceed 20 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the following: Partially Complies The design has utilized material changes and architectural detailing to create a modular effect on the Page 110 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 6 of 11 - A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet - A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece  Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear facades.  If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimensionally throughout the entire building. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building. building. The repetition of these architectural elements and the vertical trim piece creates a visual separation every 23’. The roofline on the two front facades do not vary. The roofline on the rear of the two-story structure has multiple heights, which are repeated throughout the structure. The varied roofline on the two story structure is adjacent to the interior property line and minimally visible from maple street.. 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.  Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.  Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.  Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. Partially Complies The applicant is proposing white, board and batten siding for the second and third stories, and a concrete first floor base. The board and batten is a traditional siding material while the application of the concrete panels are a non-traditional material. The applicant could provide more residential architectural elements within the design to create a stronger cohesion between this proposed project and the existing single-story homes. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies Page 111 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 7 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially Complies. The UDC identifies a minimum of 80% masonry requirement for multifamily development that is not currently met. Additionally, the UDC outlines minimum roof treatments should a roof less than 2 to 12 pitch is utilized. The UDC provides for an alternative building design through an Administrative Exception. Staff finds the use of stucco as a more appropriate material in line with an alternative building design. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; N/A Page 112 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 8 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; N/A 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies The design guidelines provide the following guidance when new construction is being considered: New construction should be sensitive to the character of the existing buildings in the area and any design should attempt to maintain a similar mass and scale and be in context to the area New construction in the historic district is encouraged if the proposed Page 113 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 9 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS design and siting are compatible with the District’s character. When siting new construction, compatibility with existing setbacks, the spacing of buildings, and the orientation of buildings should be considered. Compatibility of proposed landscaping, lighting, paving, signage, and accessory buildings is also important. The purpose of guidelines for new construction is not to prevent change in the Old Town Overlay Dis- trict, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic character is Page 114 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 10 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS respected. The height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the details of the proposed building must be compatible with existing historic buildings in the District. However, compatible contemporary designs rather than historic duplications are encouraged. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the UDC and the adopted design guidelines. The review was focused on the design guidelines for infill development found in Chapter 14 of the design guidelines. As identified in the design guidelines infill development is encouraged. The purpose and the use of the guidelines for new construction is not to prevent change in the Old Town Overlay District, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic character is respected. Staff’s review and analysis is informed by the guidance that any new design should relate to the traditional design characteristics of surrounding buildings while also conveying the stylistic trends of today, incorporating sustainable practices and accommodating site constraints while seeking to achieve the overall vision of the District and City. Staff’s analysis has found partial compliance in 3 key areas of ensuring the above guidance is met. The 3 key areas are as follows: Page 115 of 116 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 11 of 11  Guideline 14.10 Use of traditional materials. First floor material of concrete is not a traditional material used in the surrounding architectural or historical character. A remedy for this may be stucco. Staff recommends renderings showing the application of stucco in lieu of the concrete on the first floor. While stucco is not a prominent material in the surrounding area its use may allow for a material on the first floor that is more residential in nature.  Guideline 14.4. A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller surrounding structures. A remedy for this is one discussed during the conceptual review which included concerns from the applicant related to parking accommodation and overall appearance which the applicant felt was contrary to other design guidelines. This includes moving the two story building to the street edge along 14th street and the three story to the rear. Another possible remedy is to have the three story building take a step down as the rear two story building is proposed. Staff is seeking clarity from the Commission and applicant on perspective view shed, is the dominant and prioritized view from 14th Street or Maple Street and what is the impact of the 3rd story on the existing structure given the updated perspective drawing the Commission requested in the conceptual review.  UDC Criteria #7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected. The design guidelines specifically identify the height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the details of the proposed building must be compatible with existi ng historic buildings in the District. Given the recommended step down to the street and smaller building is provided for the height and proportion of the proposed development could be compatible with the surrounding character. Additionally, given the material recommendation for the first floor the materials and texture may also allow for compatibility. However, the use of residential architectural elements within the design is needed to create a stronger cohesion between this proposed project and the surrounding medium and high priority resources. Staff is seeking direction from the Commission and input from the applicant, can additional residential architectural elements be incorporated into the design. Staff recommends the proposed design incorporates more residential style architectural elements such as pitched rooflines, porches, traditional historic siding, etc. to better create a cohesive look with the existing residential character and style. As of the date of this report, staff has received three comments opposed to the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans and Renderings PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 116 of 116