Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.28.2019Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown F ebruary 28, 2019 at 6:00 P M at Council and Courts B ldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. 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: S taff P resentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to S taff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative P rocess 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. L egislativ e Regular Agenda A C ons ideration and possible action of the Minutes from the January 24, 2019 HAR C meeting. Madison T homas, Historic and Downtown P lanner B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a req uest for a C ertificate of Appropriatenes s fo r a R esidential Addition for the property loc ated a 1501 C hurc h S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.22 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D(P T ), (C O A-2018-032). Madison T homas, Downtown and Historic P lanner C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for 1) a 20’ setback encroac hment along the north property line of the required 30’ s etbac k, allowing for a residential s tructure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.D; 2) a 10’ setback encroac hment along the west property line of the required 15’ setback to allow for a residential s tructure 5’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion Page 1 of 125 4.08d.080.D; 3) a building height exception along the north property line of 8-feet 1-inc hes from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inc hes, at 10-feet from the property line per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.C ; 4) a building height exception along the west property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inc hes, at the 5- feet from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.C ; 5) a building height exception along the s outh property line of 8-feet 1-inc hes from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inc hes, at the 20-foot s ide setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.C , for propos ed residential infill development on the property located at 1310 Maple S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.66 ac . S nyder Addition, Bloc k 33, S 1/2 (C O A-2018-058). Madis on T homas , AI C P, Downtown and Historic P lanner D P ublic Hearing and possible action o n a reques t for a C ertificate o f Appropriateness for a residential addition and reno vatio n for the property loc ated at 705 E. 3rd S treet, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 1.32ac . S hell Addition, Block 4, (C O A-2018-061). Madison T homas, Downtown and Historic P lanner E Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Adjournment C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid meeting. ____________________________________ R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary Page 2 of 125 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 28, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion of the Minutes from the January 24, 2019 HAR C meeting. Madis on T homas , His toric and Downtown P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NA S UB MIT T E D B Y: Karen F ros t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 125 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: January 24, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Amanda Parr Lawrence Romero; Shawn Hood, and Terri Asendorf-Hyde. Absent: Catherine Morales Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; Kim McAuliffe, Main Street Manager and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm. He explained that item E, 1310 Maple Street has been pulled from the agenda by the applicant. Commissioner Hood read the meeting procedures. A. Consideration of the Minutes from the December 13, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Bain, second by Hood to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 6 – 0. B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a commercial addition and 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 Thomas presented the staff report. This property was reviewed conceptually last fall and suggested changes have been made. The addition will be at the back of the building, the east side of the building which will step down to the parking lot area. The applicant lowered the height of the roofline to me less than the dome and has made the upper story more transparent with more windows. Some of the first floor windows are now proposed to be doors. This structure is not historic, but the location is and staff finds that this project complies or partially complies with all approval criteria. The “partial applies” relates to the metal siding which is a proposed material. The applicant, Josh Beran, spoke and explained that they were open to changing the bronze metal siding to a different material. The roof portion is standing seam metal. From the south side of the building, the gables are not visible. The applicant handed out a drawing that showed new elevations with limestone on the lower four feet and wrapping the corner, extending the stone back to the metal wall panels. A sample was shown to the commissioners. The blue portions will be on the columns and accents on the walls of stucco. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing. Page 4 of 125 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: January 24, 2019 Larry Olson, E. 9th Street, appreciates the changes made to the design. Asks for the metal to be toned down some. The applicant showed a copy of the metal sample and explained that the shade of the metal will change with the light that is shining on it and can be both darker and lighter depending on the angle, and is textured to have a variation in color, giving a more antique look. Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Motion by Parr to approve the project with the condition that 2nd floor cladding is changed to a color metal that is commonly seen on historic commercial buildings such as the window frames on the existing structure and/or the two domes that are in Area 1. Second by Romero. Approved 6 – 0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 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 Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant did not wish to speak. Chair Browner opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the public hearing. Motion by Romero to approve the application for COA-2018-055 as presented. Second by Bain. Approved 6 -0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 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. Madison Thomas, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner. Waggoner presented the staff report and explained why this project was being reviewed again. The project was allowed to replace 8 over 8 windows to a 6 over 6 window style. Staff feels this is appropriate in this type of home and neighborhood. Waggoner explained that the residential renovation was approved, but they added two new dormers which altered the street facing façade and was not originally approved. Staff finds that the changes proposed, the addition of the dormers and change of the windows, comply with design criteria. Matthew McConnell answered questions. He explained that originally there was a window on the second story above the garage, not a dormer. The owner explained that they changed the windows to be consistent around the house. He explained the dormer would look into his neighbor’s back yard as theirs looks into his. The siding on the addition will be different than the siding on the original portion of the house. Chair Browner opened the public hearing. Page 5 of 125 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: January 24, 2019 Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, wants the commissioners to consider the size of this house looking into the neighbor’s yard and is concerned about the loss of privacy. Chair Browner closed the public hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Waggoner explained that the guidelines do not directly regulate the setbacks, the UDC regulates that. However, the Guidelines describe the appropriate mass and scale and the impact of the addition on the primary structure. He say the addition does not negatively affect the character of the district. Romero is concerned about the addition, making the roofline even bigger than what was originally approved with the extra mass added to the Myrtle Street. Waggoner confirms that Romero’s comment is in regards to Guideline 14.2. Parr agrees with Romero. Hood feels the additional massing is in a place that is not going to add as much impact as the drawings indicate. Hood suggests that moving the horizontal window higher to increase the privacy to the residents and the neighbors. The applicant explained they added the dormers to make head space in the upper story which will allow two beds to be installed in that room. Motion by Hood to accept COA-2018-065 as submitted by the applicant with the 6 over 6 windows and the addition of the dormers, with the condition that the windows set in the dormers are measured at three feet wide by one and a half feet tall, and the top of the window is set at seven feet nine inches at the header height from base floor and six feet three inches for the sill height from base floor. Second by Bain. Approved 4 – 2 (Romero and Parr opposed.) E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 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). Madison Thomas,AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner. This item was pulled at the applicant’s request. The applicant wished to revisit the design of the project. F. Updates, questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson announced that Karen Frost would no longer be serving the Board as the staff liaison, she is moving to the City Secretary’s office as the Assistant City Secretary. Frost was appreciated for her years of service to the commission and to the community. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Romero, second by Bain. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 6 of 125 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 28, 2019 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible action o n a req uest fo r a C ertificate o f Appropriatenes s fo r a R esidential Addition for the property loc ated a 1501 C hurch S treet, bearing the legal des c rip tion o f 0.22 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Bloc k D(P T ), (C O A-2018-032). Madis on T homas , Downtown and His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is propos ing an addition at the rear of the existing his toric struc ture. A portion of the addition will create a new street-fac ing faç ade along S . C hurch S t. and another will be fac ing E. 15th S treet. T he exis ting historic home, built in 1930 is a medium priority on the Historic R es ourc e S urvey and is approximately 1,000 s q.ft. T he single-story s tructure has a jerkinhead roof, with asphalt s hingles, vinyl s iding and wood 1/1 windows . T he proposed addition is approximately 600 s q. ft. with an additional 100 s q. ft. c overed porch, propos ed at the rear of the existing struc ture. T he addition will inc lude a sec ond floor loft area with the new roofline matc hing the peak height of the existing roofline but with a lower slope to allow for a partial s econd-s tory. T he proposed addition will c ontinue the s tyle of cladding, but will be a hardie material. T he existing vinyl s iding has a 4” exposure and the propos ed hardie will have a 7” expos ure to create a s light visual difference between the exis ting and new addition. T he windows will als o be 1/1 wooden windows . S TAF F R E C OMME N D AT ION S taff finds that the proposed addition loc ation, material differentiation, height and massing meet the Design G uidelines. T he des ign respec ts the his toric integrity of the exis ting building and it does not have a s ignificant visual impac t on the his toric struc ture. S taff recommends approval of the street facing addition. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit Page 7 of 125 A S H S T P I N E S T M A P L E S T S M A I N S T E L M S T E 1 5 T H S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E E 1 3 T H S T SCENIC DR RAILROAD AVE S C O LL E G E S T W 1 7T H S T W 8 TH S T W 1 0T H S T E U N I V E R S I T Y AV E E 1 8 T H S T E 1 9 T H S T E 8 T H S T OL I V E S T F O R E S T S T W 11T H S T S M Y R TL E S T W 1 8 T H S T S A N J O S E S T R O C K S T W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E W 21ST ST L E A N D E R S T WAL NUT S T W 1 6 T H S T E 2 1ST ST E 1 0 T H S T E 1 1 T H S T H A R T ST E 1 6 T H S T TIM B E R S T VINE ST E 1 4TH ST WEST ST W 15TH S T B R U S H Y S T LA U R E L S T A LLE Y H O G G S T E U B A N K S T K N I G H T S T PAIGE ST B R I D G E S T E 2 0TH ST W 1 4 T H S T SO ULE D R W 1 3 T H S T W 9T H ST E 2 2 N D S T C A N D E E S T J A M E S S T E 1 7TH S T E R U TERSVIL L E D R E 9 T H S T Q U A IL V A L L E Y DR E 1 9 T H 1 /2 S T A N N I E P URLDV H O L L Y S T M C K E N Z I E D R GE ORGE ST W 1 9 T H S T E 9 TH 1 /2 ST T I N B A R N A LY C O F F E E S T STONECIR W R U T E R S V I L L E D R E 1 0T H S T A N N I E P U R L D V V I N E S T E 2 1 S T S T W 1 9 T H S T E 2 0 T H S T E 1 7TH ST S M Y R T L E S T E 9 T H S T W 18TH ST E 11T H ST H A R T S T W 16TH ST W 18TH ST E 1 4T H S T A L L E Y E 1 6TH ST E 1 6TH ST E 1 4 T H S T W 9 T H S T WA L N U T S T E 1 7 T H S T E 9 T H S T COA-2018-032Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 750 1,500Feet Page 8 of 125 Page 9 of 125 Page 10 of 125 Page 11 of 125 Page 12 of 125 Page 13 of 125 Page 14 of 125 Page 15 of 125 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:1501 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:123881 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042855Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction 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: vinyl siding) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:790 ID:552 *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:123881 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Though the cladding has been replaced, the resource has enough architectural detail to convey its significance. Latitude:30.630568 Longitude -97.675142 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: East Page 16 of 125 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:1501 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:123881 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos SoutheastPhoto Direction Shed SoutheastPhoto Direction Page 17 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 1 of 10 Meeting Date: February 28, 2019 File Number: COA-2018-032 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Residential Addition for the property located a 1501 Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.22 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D(PT), (COA-2018-032). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Albiser Residential Addition Applicant: Jamie Albiser Property Owner: Brian Albiser Property Address: 1501 S. Church Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.225 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D(PT) Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: HARC approved a previous COA in 2017, for a larger addition that added second floor space on the existing structure. This new application is seeking less space through a new design. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: est. 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 an addition at the rear of the existing historic structure. A portion of the addition will create a new street-facing façade along S. Church St. and another will be facing E. 15th Street. The existing historic home, built in 1930 is a medium priority on the Historic Resource Survey and is approximately 1,000 sq.ft. The single-story structure has a jerkinhead roof, with asphalt shingles, vinyl siding and wood 1/1 windows. The proposed addition is approximately 600 sq. ft. with an additional 100 sq. ft. covered porch, proposed at the rear of the existing structure. The addition will include a second floor loft area with the new roofline matching the peak height of the existing roofline but with a lower slope to allow for a Page 18 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 2 of 10 partial second-story. The proposed addition will continue the style of cladding, but will be a hardie material. The existing vinyl siding has a 4” exposure and the proposed hardie will have a 7” exposure to create a slight visual difference between the existing and new addition. The wind ows will also be 1/1 wooden windows. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is also proposing an addition to the rear of the structure. The addition will include 600 sq. ft. of living space, and an approx. 100 sq. ft. porch. The addition is placed at the rear of the existing structure, and requires minimal alterations to the existing structure. It will extend a new façade approximately 11’ along 15th Street to the north, with a setback from the existing structure almost 15’. A new façade along S. Church St. will also be created, extending approximately 5’ from the original structure and an additional 7’ for the porch to the south. This new façade is setback from S. Church St. the length of the existing house , approximately 51’. The roofline will match the existing type and peak, with a lesser slope to allow for a partial second story. The Design Guidelines direction on additions: “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 Design Guidelines direction on an addition’s size in relation to the existing structure as well as how the visible portions will change the character of the surrounding neighborhood: “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 Page 19 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 3 of 10 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.” The new addition is located at the rear of the existing structure, will create minimal façade extensions, and use a roofline that is not taller than the existing roofline peak. However, the proposed pitch of the roofline on the addition is a lower pitch, creating a higher roofline than the original one. The materials proposed will be hardie siding, which using a siding is appropriate because the original house has siding. The windows proposed will be the same material and design as the original house with wood 1/1 windows. Some of the other homes in the block also have partial second stories and differing roofline slopes. 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 new addition is attached at the rear of 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 addition is designed to be visually distinctive from the original home, and the placement allows it to be added without damaging the design of the original home. It is designed in such a way that it could be removed in the future and could be returned to its original state. Page 20 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 4 of 10 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 proposed location of the addition at the rear of the home is ideal. The siding will be differentiated, in that the exiting home has a 4” exposure, with the new addition to have a 7” exposure. The roofline will remain at the same height, however the addition will have a lesser pitch to accommodate for a partial an upper floor. 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 addition is positioned so that it is setback from the two street facing facades. It is set back from the front façade as far as the existing structure extends. It is also setback from the side street façade as far as the existing house extends. The setback and jog in the foundation help identify this as an addition and minimalize its visual impacts. The roofline will remain at the same height, however the addition will have a lesser pitch to accommodate for a partial an upper floor. This change makes the roofline of the addition Page 21 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 5 of 10 higher and more prominent than the roofline of the existing home. A roofline with the same pitch would be a more subtle way to distinguish between the new addition and the original. 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 The addition will be attached onto the existing exterior walls, with a door to connect the two. Minimal changes to the existing structure will occur. 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. N/A  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. Complies The siding will be hardie on the new structure with a 7” reveal to create a cohesive, yet differentiated look from the existing vinyl 4” reveal siding. The windows on the structure will be the same wood material and 1/1 design to create consistency in window design. 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 Partially Complies The proposed shed roof, is compatible with the existing front-gabled roof. The shed style roof compliments the similar angles of the gable with peak height of the roof remaining the same. This change makes the roofline of the addition higher and Page 22 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 6 of 10 building. more prominent than the roofline of the existing home. A roofline with the same pitch would be a more subtle way to distinguish between the new addition and the original. CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed.  See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and protecting historic building materials. Complies 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.  Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.  Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.  Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. Complies The new addition will have hardie siding, the existing structure currently has vinyl. 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.  Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance.  Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The addition is being placed at the rear of the existing structure with minor changes the existing home to add the addition. 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building.  An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.  An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate. Complies, The siding will be hardie on the new structure with a 7” reveal to create a cohesive, yet differentiated look from the existing vinyl 4” reveal siding. The windows on the structure will be the same wood material and 1/1 design to create consistency in window design. 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 Complies The proposed location of the addition at the rear of Page 23 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 7 of 10 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. the home ideal. The siding will be differentiated, in that the exiting home has a 4” exposure, with the new addition to have a 7” exposure. The roofline will remain at the same height, however the addition will have a lesser pitch to accommodate for a partial an upper floor. 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 The addition is positioned so that it is setback from the two street facing facades. It is set back from the front façade as far as the existing structure extends. It is also setback from the side street façade as far as the existing house extends. The setback and jog in the foundation help identify this as an addition and minimalize its visual impacts. 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 The addition will be attached onto the existing exterior walls, with a door to connect the two. Minimal changes to the existing structure will occur. 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. Complies The siding will be hardie on the new structure with a 7” reveal to create a cohesive, yet Page 24 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 8 of 10  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. N/A  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. differentiated look from the existing vinyl 4” reveal siding. The windows on the structure will be the same wood material and 1/1 design to create consistency in window design. 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 addition is positioned so that it is setback from the two street facing facades. It is set back from the front façade as far as the existing structure extends. It is also setback from the side street façade as far as the existing house extends. The setback and jog in the foundation help identify this as an addition and minimalize its visual impacts. 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 shed roof, is compatible with the existing front-gabled roof. The shed style roof compliments the similar angles of the gable with peak height of the roof remaining the same. 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 The addition will attached onto the existing exterior walls, with a door to connect the two. Minimal changes to the existing structure will occur Page 25 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 9 of 10 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 The addition will attached onto the existing exterior walls, with a door to connect the two. Minimal changes to the existing structure will occur 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; Partially Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 26 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-032] – 1501 S. Church Street Page 10 of 10 Two signs have been posted on the property. Staff has not received any public 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 Page 27 of 125 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 28, 2019 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for 1) a 20’ s etbac k enc roachment along the north property line of the required 30’ setback, allowing for a res idential struc ture 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.D; 2) a 10’ s etbac k enc roachment along the wes t property line of the required 15’ s etbac k to allow for a res idential struc ture 5’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.D; 3) a building height exc eption along the north property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches , at 10-feet from the property line per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.C ; 4) a building height exc eption along the wes t property line of 8-feet 1-inc hes from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches , at the 5- feet from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.C ; 5) a building height exc eption along the south property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches , at the 20-foot side s etbac k of the underlying zoning dis tric t per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.C , for proposed res idential infill development on the property loc ated at 1310 Maple S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.66 ac. S nyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 (C O A-2018-058). Madison T homas, AI C P, Downtown and His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is propos ing to c onstruc t two, two-s tory multi-family residential s tructures on the property located at 1310 Maple S treet, on a lot that also contains a s ingle-family home. T he applicant is not propos ing any changes to the existing single family s tructure. T he two s tructures will b e plac ed at the rear o f the lo t o n the wes t corner. O ne s truc ture will b e adjac ent to 14th S treet with fro nt yard s in b etween the street and the s tructure. A drive aisle with c o vered and open parking will be loc ated between the fro nt s tructure and the s ec o nd s truc ture that is loc ated on the north- west p o rtion o f the lo t, c lo s er to the adjac ent railro ad trac ks and the adjac ent p ro p erty that has a multi- family s tructure. HAR C R eview: -New building cons truction (infill development) -S etbac k enc roachment -Height exc eption HP O /S ite P lan R eview -S ite layout -Landsc aping -S idewalk design -P arking S taff recommend s approval o f the projec t. S taff recommend s approval of the req ues ted exc ep tions as the applicant is propos ing to plac e the struc ture c lo s er to the adjac ent railroad track and adjac ent multi-family s tructure to red uc e the impac t to the surro und ing s ingle-family res id ential s tyle homes . T he applic ant is also providing architec tural features s uc h as the p itc hed ro o fline and materials, board and b atten s id ing that c an Page 28 of 125 be s een o n the adjac ent his toric s ingle-family ho mes . T here are a mix of heights b etween one-s tory and two-s tory s tructures within the area and surro und ing b lo ck, the proposed struc ture will be two-s to ries , and will b e p lac ed to ward the rear of the lot to reduce vis ib ility fro m the s treet and adjac ent s ingle-family res idential struc tures . P UB LIC C OMME N T S As of the date of this report, s taff has received three comments, 2 in opposition and 1 in favor of the propos ed projec t. Additionally, public c omments assoc iated with the initial des ign are als o attac hed. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit Exhibit 5- Public Comment for revis ed design (28FEB)Exhibit Exhibit 5- Public Comment for revis ed design (28FEB)Exhibit Exhibit 6- Staff Report Exhibit Exhibit 7 - Public Comment on initial design (24JAN)Exhibit Page 29 of 125 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com February 15, 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. We presented the project in its previous form at December’s Conceptual Review. While we understood that this previous design would be supported by the majority of the Commission, we later met with the owner and neighboring residents. And although the previous design was within the “guidelines” for building upon this site, due to these residents’ concerns (about the height and roof line), we met again with city staff and decided to redesign the project. The updated design takes the previous three-story building and drops it down to two floors. Gable roof forms are used in order to keep a scale more compatible with a residential neighborhood. The structure is able to be lowered from three to 2 stories by deleting the garage level from the previous design. In order to achieve this, we are here requesting an exception to one specific guideline as it relates to setback at the North, where the project backs into the other MF-2 property, and the West, where the site is flanked by the railroad tracks. A small “air-space” exception is also requested at the South per setback exceptions in 3.13.030 D (to be discussed at the meeting), but there is also an alternate that requires less of an exception (see page 24). By eliminating the garages, the northern (back) units are pushed North to accommodate some diagonal parking in between. Included here are pages to further describe the rationale for the proposed project’s design: 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 Design Plan: The project proposes two new buildings while the existing 2-story home remains on site. Page 4, 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 5, MF-2 vs. Old Town Overlay Comparison and Proposed regulations. Page 30 of 125 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC / 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 / Ph: 512.819.6012 Page 6, 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 7, Section for proposed design: We are requesting the ‘airspace’ exception per drawing here so overhang of gable and extend above building. Page 8, Front Units facing 14th Street: Plans Page 9, Detailed Elevations: Materials as noted Page 10, Detailed Elevation: Optional Stucco 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 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 Page 24, Perspective: Alternate “Screen” Design in lieu of solid walls between terraces at second floor. We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on February 28. 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 31 of 125 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 32 of 125 Design Concepts for Review by HARC Maple Condominiums February 28, 2019 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 33 of 125 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 MF-2) ALPINE APARTMENTS (MULTI-FAMILY MF-2) DEAD END SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY CITY-OWNED PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE 1Site MapFEBRUARY 28, 2019 N Page 34 of 125 2Existing Neighbors ALPINE APARTMENTS MID-CENTURY PARK APARTMENTS FEBRUARY 28, 2019 Page 35 of 125 25 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 20' SIDE SETBACK APPROX LOCATION OF HERITAGE TREE MA P L E S T R E E T 14TH STREET 15' BUILDING SEPARATION N 15' SIDE SETBACK ONE-WAY DRIVE ONE-WAY DRIVE NEED PARKING FOR ADDITIONAL 3 CARS PLANTERS PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION APROX 4504 SQ FT PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION APROX 4504 SQ FT EXISTING 2-STORY HOME EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PORCH PROJECT INFORMATION: LOT AREA - 28791 SQ FT ZONING DISTRICT - HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (MF-2) OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT PROPOSED USE - MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA - 1976 SQ FT EXISTING FAR - 0.07 PROPOSED CONST AREA W/O CARPORT: 9010 SQ FT PROPOSED FAR W/O: 0.38 PROPOSED CONST AREA W CARPORT: 10143 SQ FT PROPOSE FAR W CARPORT - 0.42 DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A006 N 3 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 36 of 125 25 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 20' 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 FIRE LANE OPTIONAL SIDEWALK FROM MAPLE 15' SIDE SETBACK COVERED PARKING AREA COMMUNITY PARK / PLAYGROUND AREA 30' SETBACK ONE-WAY DRIVE ONE-WAY DRIVE SCREENING NEED PARKING FOR ADDITIONAL 3 CARS PLANTERS DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A006 BACK BUILDINGS FRONT BUILDINGS PARKING SPACES 4 N FEBRUARY 28, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 37 of 125 5MF-2 vs Old Town Overlay Comparison, ProposedFEBRUARY 28, 2019 MF-2 - HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESTRICTIONS OLD TOWN OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED DESIGN HEIGHT 45 FEET MAX HEIGHT 30 FEET MAX HEIGHT 18’-6” @ CEILING AT SECOND FLOOR 27’-8” @ TOP OF GABLE SETBACKS FRONT SETBACK - 25 FEET STREET FACING SIDE SETBACK - 20 FEET SIDE SETBACK TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - 15 FEET OR 30 FEET REAR SETBACK - 15 FEET NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FRONT SETBACK - 25 FEET STREET FACING SIDE SETBACK - 20 FEET (WITH “AIR SPACE”) SIDE SETBACK TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - 10 FEET REQUEST- ED REAR SETBACK - 5 FEET REQUESTED DENSITY NO FAR REQUIREMENT 24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE 0.66 ACRES = 15.8 DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED 0.45 FAR 12,956 SF ALLOWED (INCLUDING EXISTING) 10 DWELLING UNITS POSSIBLE 10,986 SF PROPOSED (INCLUDING EXISTING) 12,119 SF PROPOSED WITH CARPORTS (INCLUDING EXIST.) 8 DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED HEIGHT / SETBACKS NO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION @ SETBACK LINE 15 FEET MAX HEIGHT @ SETBACK LINE, ADDITIONAL 5 FEET HEIGHT PER 3 FEET SETBACK - SEE DIAGRAM REQUESTED SETBACKS PER DRAWINGS 1310 MAPLE MF-2 VS OLD TOWN OVERLAY COMPARISON Page 38 of 125 20 ' 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' - 0" 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 30' - 0" MAX AE 33' - 0" 6Setback Requirements 1/8” = 1’-0” SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER OLD TOWN GUIDELINES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 14TH STREET Page 39 of 125 M. BATH 000 MAST. BEDROOM 000 CORR. 000 LIVING 000 KITCHEN 000 DINING 000 14TH STREET 15' - 0" 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 30' - 0" MAX AE 33' - 0" 20 ' 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 14TH STREET M. BATH 000 MAST. BEDROOM 000 CORR. 000 LIVING 000 KITCHEN 000 DINING 000 'AIR SPACE' SETBACK EXCEPTION REQUESTED 7Proposed Design-Section 1/8” = 1’-0” BACK BUILDING14TH STREET FRONT BUILDING FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 40 of 125 W/D LOCATION 2W/D LOCATION 1 DASHED LINE INDICATES STAIR SHIFT MASTER CLOSET OPTION 1 DASHED LINE INDICATES HEAD HEIGHT RESTRICTION RAILING 1 A320 ROOF TERRACE K L K M 2 A320 e BEDROOM 2 130 IJJ B MILLWORK CLOSET HALL 135 K H J L I BATH 131 B B B OQ M P N M. BATH 134 CANOPY HN B C ACCENT A410 2 3 MASTER BEDROOM 132 CLOS. 133 D H I ISLAND (18)RISERS @7-9/32", W/ 11" TREADS d D B A E C F a b c KITCHEN 121 2 A320 1 A320 LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE C' A B A C C D D F A EA A A G A ACCENT D'KITCHEN 121 LIVING 120 DINING 122 PWDR 123 TALL MILLWORK ISLAND G B A4101 PLANTER @ BACK UNITS D DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A2108 N FEBRUARY 28, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 41 of 125 9Detailed Elevation of Units 3/16” = 1’-0” WOOD FENCE CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL FEBRUARY 28, 2018 WOOD ACCENT WALL WHITE BOARD+BATTEN BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER BOX FRONT UNITBACK UNIT BUILDING HEIGHT PER UDCBUILDING HEIGHT PER UDC Page 42 of 125 10Detailed Elevation of Back Units/Alternate 3/16” = 1’-0”FEBRUARY 28, 2018 BLACKENED STEEL CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER BOX OPTIONAL STUCCO BUILDING HEIGHT PER UDC Page 43 of 125 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 EXISTING STRUCTURE “BACK” UNITS BEYOND 1114th Street Elevation - Rendered Page 44 of 125 Maple Street Elevation - Rendered “FRONT” UNITS BEYOND EXISTING STRUCTURE “BACK” UNITS BEYOND 12FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 45 of 125 BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER BEYONDFENCE CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING LINE OF CARPORT IN FOREGROUND ALTERNATE SCREEN SET BACK ALTERNATE SCREEN SET BACK DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31013 For Information Only FEBRUARY 28, 2018 0 5 10 20 Page 46 of 125 FRONT UNITS BEYOND WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF 12 10 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING DASHED LINE INDICATES CARPORT WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF FENCE BLACKENED STEEL PLANTER BOX 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING ALTERNATE SCREEN SET BACK ALTERNATE SCREEN SET BACK DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31114 For Information Only 0 5 10 20 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 47 of 125 CANOPY WOOD ACCENT WALL ACCENT MATERIAL 12 10 WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING CARPORT EXISTING STRUCTURE WHITE BOARD+BATTEN 12 10 27' - 8" T.O. ROOF 10' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 0' - 0" GROUND FLOOR 18' - 6" SECOND FLOOR CEILING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A31215 For Information Only 0 5 10 20 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 48 of 125 16Model View - For Information Only CARPORTS 14TH STREET FEBRUARY 28, 2018 NEW PARK AREA Page 49 of 125 17Model View - For Information Only EXISTING STRUCTURE MID-CENTURY PARK APARTMENTS 14TH STREET FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 50 of 125 18Model View - For Information Only EXISTING STRUCTURE 14TH STREET FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 51 of 125 19Model View - For Information Only 14TH STREET EXISTING STRUCTURE FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 52 of 125 20Model View - For Information OnlyFEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 53 of 125 GR O U N D F L O O R F . F . 0' - 0 " GR O U N D F L O O R C E I L I N G 9' - 0 " a . f . f SE C O N D F L O O R F . F . E 10 ' - 6 " a . f . f SE C O N D F L O O R C E I L I N G 18 ' - 6 " a . f . f GA B L E R O O F P E A K 27 ' - 1 0 " a . f . f ST R U C T U R A L R I D G E - SE E S T R U C . RA F T E R S FL A S H I N G ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F RO O F M E M B R A N E RO O F S H E A T H I N G FA C I A , PA I N T E D BE A D B O A R D SO F F I T , PA I N T E D AC C E N T W O O D SI D I N G VA P O R B A R R I E R SH E A T H I N G WO O D S T U D W I T H IN S U L A T I O N GW B WI N D O W T R I M GL A Z I N G WA L L P R O F I L E BE Y O N D HE A D E R B Y S T R U C . ME T A L R A I L I N G WE S T C O A T DR I P E D G E GW B C E I L I N G BE A M P E R S T R U C . IN S U L A T I O N VE R T I C A L B O A R D + BA T T E N S I D I N G VA R O R B A R R I E R SH E A T H I N G WO O D S T U D WI T H I N S U L A T I O N WI N D O W T R I M GL A Z I N G ST R U C T U R A L H E A D E R WO O D B A S E , PA I N T E D WO O D F L O O R I N G FL O O R S H E A T H I N G CO N C . FO U N D A T I O N PE R S T R U C . WI N D O W T R I M DR I P E D G E RO O F P R O F I L E BE Y O N D GR A D E P E R C I V I L DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 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 © 2019 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A61021 0 1 2 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Page 54 of 125 22MaterialsFEBRUARY 28, 2018 BLACKENED STEEL BOARD + BATTEN ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS Page 55 of 125 23Perspective View - For Information OnlyFEBRUARY 28, 2018 OPEN UNDER GABLE Page 56 of 125 24Alternate “Screen” Design - For Information OnlyFEBRUARY 28, 2018 OPEN UNDER GABLE Page 57 of 125 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:1310 Maple St 2016 Survey ID:125070 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R047460Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 4/23/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1917 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: porch posts replaced?) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:1130 ID:735 *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:125070 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.631857 Longitude -97.668312 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: West Page 58 of 125 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:1310 Maple St 2016 Survey ID:125070 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos NorthwestPhoto Direction NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 59 of 125 Page 60 of 125 Page 61 of 125 Page 62 of 125 Page 63 of 125 Page 64 of 125 Page 65 of 125 Page 66 of 125 Page 67 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 1 of 10 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 1) a 20’ setback encroachment along the north property line of the required 30’ setback, allowing for a residential structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; 2) a 10’ setback encroachment along the west property line of the required 15’ setback to allow for a residential structure 5’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; 3) a building height exception along the north property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at 10-feet from the property line per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C; 4) a building height exception along the west property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 5- feet from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C; 5) a building height exception along the south property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 20-foot side setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C, for proposed residential infill development on 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, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner 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: Conceptual on 12/13/2018 APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct two, two-story multi-family residential structures on the property located at 1310 Maple Street, on a lot that also contains a single-family home. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing single family structure. Page 68 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 2 of 10 The two structures will be placed at the rear of the lot on the west corner. One structure will be adjacent to 14th Street with front yards in between the street and the structure. A drive aisle with covered and open parking will be located between the front structure and the second structure that is located on the north-west portion of the lot, closer to the adjacent railroad tracks and the adjacent property that has a multi-family structure. HARC Review: -New building construction (infill development) -Setback encroachment -Height exception HPO/Site Plan Review -Site layout -Landscaping -Sidewalk design -Parking 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 concrete 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 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 feasibility of moving the three (3) story structure to the rear of the lot. The applicant explained the driving considerations behind the placement as the impact to parking and the desire to include a front yard. The Commission requested perspective drawings to clarify the relations in building height and visibility. Page 69 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 3 of 10 STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property is located west of the intersection of 14th and Maple Street on a block that contains a one-story single family structure built as well as a two (2) story, multi-family structure and a railroad track. The property is currently a corner lot that takes up half a block. It is adjacent to a lot with a two story multi-family structure constructed in 1965, two streets and a railroad. Outside of the block, the general area contains primarily one-story single family homes, a two story single family structure constructed in 1909 and another two story multi-family structure, dead-end street and undeveloped lot. Siting and General Design The applicant is proposing to add two structures, each approximately 4,504 sq. ft. on the western and northern portions of the approx. 28,700 sf lot. The applicant is proposing to keep some open space at the northeast portion of the lot along Maple St. Each structure will contain 4 dwelling units for a total of 8 new dwelling units on the property. The drive aisle and parking spaces are proposed at both the rear of the lot adjacent to the railroad tracks and the middle of the lot adjacent to the two story multi-family structure. Both proposed structures will have a pitched roof and siding, similar to the nearby architecturally and historically significant structures. There are also proposed carports with similarly pitched rooflines. The application is requesting setback encroachment (discussed in detail later) to the north property line a 10’ setback, and to the west, a 5’ setback adjacent to the railroad tracks. There are site design aspects of the project, not subject to review from HARC, that have not been finalized. These site planning issues will be addressed during site plan review. Should the site design requirements require modification of HARC approved items, the application will require review by HARC. 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 door inset and the second floor front façade is a wood accent wall. As stated, wood siding is a typical siding material, used historically, however the applicant is requesting for the wood to remain unpainted, which is a more modern use of the historic material. The Design Guidelines speak to additions and how “additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions that introduce compatible contemporary design are both acceptable”. 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 adjacent multi-family structures use siding and brick as a siding material. The proposed structures will also have tall rectangular windows, blackened steel planters, balconies and inset entry doors. 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. The second floor front facades will have a more modern, larger set of windows, similar to the size of the door. Page 70 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 4 of 10 There will also be a wood accent wall around the inset front door and on the front façade of the second story. The placement of materials and architectural elements such as windows, balconies, and doors on the structure help express a traditional building and lot width. Front Elevations The front elevations of both structures are the same. The elevation is approximately 84’ in length and is approximately 23’ 1” tall. The façade is broken up in four modules through repetition of architectural elements such as the windows, balconies, doors, roofline and material changes. North Elevation The north elevations will also have board and batten siding. The majority of the façade will have windows. Some of the windows located on the first floor will be 1/1 with all of the windows on the second floor single pane. There will be a mix of heights and sizes. The repetition of these windows create modulation in the design. The peaked roofline also provided a differing height and modulation. East and West Elevations These elevations will look very similar. The board and batten siding materials seen on the first floor of the front facades are carried over on both sides of the buildings for the entire facade. The east façade will have an inset a window to the plane that also contains the wood accent wall. There are multiple tall rectangular windows on the first and second floor on both facades. Exceptions: The applicant is requesting two different exceptions to the Unified Development Code. The first request relates to the required setbacks. The north setback to the adjacent multi -family property is 30’ because the adjacent property is considered a residential use. Both of the properties share the same zoning and use intensity. The request is to allow residential structures to encroach into the 30’ setback by 20’, creating a 10’ setback between the property line and the residential structures. The second setback encroachment request is to allow the residential structures closer to the west property line, adjacent to the existing railroad tracks. The required setback is 15’, the applicant is requesting a reduction of 10’ to allow for a 5’ setback. The applicant is requesting this allowance to place the structures on the property closer to similar adjacent uses, and further from adjacent street and single - family residential homes to reduce the possible visual impact. The approval criteria is shown below: D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District. 2. HARC may take into consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a setback exception: Page 71 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 5 of 10 a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; i. Reserved. j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. The applicant is also requesting to modify the height at the setback. The applicant is requesting a proposed height of 23’ 1” to accommodate for the height of the pitched roofline at the requested setbacks. The structure adjacent to the north and west property lines with the requested 10’ and 5’ setbacks are requesting a height of 23’ 1” as well as the facade of the structure adjacent to 14th Street that is at the required 20’ setback. The façade adjacent to 14th Street does have a step back within the building façade of approximately 3’; however the roof edges and building edges remain at the same plane. The applicable section of the ordinance states: C. Building Height. 2. Maximum building height at the prescribed setback of the underlying base zoning district shall not exceed 15 feet. For each additional three feet of setback from the property line, the building may increase in height by five feet. However, a Certificate of Page 72 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 6 of 10 Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow building heights in excess of this requirement. The criteria HARC uses to evaluate the request is below: C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height Exceptions. 1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District; b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing, and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A visual analysis that identifies: i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the character of the district; and b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings. 3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. Page 73 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 7 of 10 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 The proposed structures will be placed well beyond the contextual front setback that is established by the existing historic house and placed behind the historic house on the lot. Proposed structures exhibit a similar side 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.  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. Complies The undeveloped area in the north-east corner of the lot will remain a natural area with the applicant proposing park like features. The area facing 14th Street will include a traditional landscaped front 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. Partially Complies Page 74 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 8 of 10  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 Neither structure step down towards the street or smaller, surrounding structures however both structures are proposed at two-stories with a pitched roofline. It is not typical for structures that are two-stories in height to step down. Both structures have been located in the north- west corner of the lot closest to the adjacent larger, two- story structures and further from the single-family homes to lessen the impact of the proposed structures. 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. Complies The applicant is proposing two new separate structures. The façade height of the modules are varied by using a pitched roofline. Considering the existing context of the area, 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: - 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 Complies The design has utilized material changes and architectural detailing to create a modular effect on the building. The repetition of these architectural elements and the vertical trim piece creates a visual separation every 20’. The pitched roofline helps to visually create a modulation and expresses the modulation three-dimensionally. The front door is inset as well as Page 75 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 9 of 10 larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building. the second floor façade plane is setback approx. 2.5’ enhancing the variation. 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.  Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.  Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.  Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. Complies The applicant is proposing white, board and batten siding for the first floor and sides, with a wood siding for the first floor door insets and second story. The board and batten is a traditional siding material as is the wood siding, however the non- painted wood is a modern use of that traditional material. 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; Partially Complies, requesting exceptions 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; N/A 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; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Page 76 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-058] – 1310 Maple St. Page 10 of 10 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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 of the project. Staff recommends approval of the requested exceptions as the applicant is proposing to place the structure closer to the adjacent railroad track and adjacent multi - family structure to reduce the impact to the surrounding single-family residential style homes. The applicant is also providing architectural features such as the pitched roofline and materials, board and batten siding that can be seen on the adjacent historic single-family homes. There are a mix of heights between one-story and two-story structures within the area and surrounding block, the proposed structure will be two-stories, and will be placed toward the rear of the lot to reduce visibility from the street and adjacent single-family residential structures. As of the date of this report, staff has received three comments, 3 in opposition and 1 in favor of the proposed project. Additionally, public comments associated with the initial design are also attached. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans and Renderings Exhibit 5- Public Comment related to the revised design Exhibit 6 – Staff Report Exhibit 7- Public Comment related to the previous design SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner, AICP PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 77 of 125 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 78 of 125 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 79 of 125 1 Madison Thomas From:Danielle Saunders <musictherapy_ds@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:31 PM To:Madison Thomas; Karen Frost; District1; District6 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 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? Page 80 of 125 2 - 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 81 of 125 Page 82 of 125 Page 83 of 125 Page 84 of 125 Page 85 of 125 Page 86 of 125 Page 87 of 125 1 Madison Thomas From:Steve Raich <sraich92@alumni.nd.edu> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 4:11 PM To:Karen Frost; Madison Thomas; District1 Subject:1310 Maple and General Direction of GT Hello, I am writing to you today to express my sincerest discontent with the fact that there are plans in the works to tear down a historic home on Maple Street and replace it with a 3 story condo. This is ridiculous. This is not only a neighborhood but a very historic neighborhood where the prices of our homes were significantly impacted by what was around them when we purchased. This is not Austin. This is Georgetown. We all chose to live here for a reason. We cannot allow an eight-unit condo to take the place of a home built in the early 1900s. I could go on and on but I think you understand my position. Additionally, something needs to be done to slow this sort of thing until we can get our arms around this growth. Maybe we need to rezone. I don't know much about this stuff, but something needs to be done. I am looking to y'all to help with that. Jamming a condo in the middle of a neighborhood does nothing for the people of this town and only benefits those who are currently not residents - the builder and those that will fill that building. When are we going to start worrying about the citizens of our city who support it with their tax dollars and their love for Georgetown? Steve Raich 1209 Olive Street 512-632-6065 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 88 of 125 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 28, 2019 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible action on a req uest fo r a C ertific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r a residential addition and reno vatio n fo r the property loc ated at 705 E. 3rd S treet, bearing the legal desc rip tion of 1.32ac. S hell Addition, Bloc k 4, (C O A-2018-061). Madis on T homas , Downtown and His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is proposing to b uild two ad d itions at the rear o f the exis ting home and modify three exis ting windows. T he following lis t s pecifies the spec ific work proposed by the applic ant: · New addition to the rear (kitchen). – Approximately 35 sq. ft. of enc los ed entry spac e will be added to the northern portion of the house by the kitc hen. · New addition to the rear (master addition). - A new, 616 s q. ft. addition will be added to the rear of the struc ture parallel to the exis ting p o rtion that is believed to be an ad d ition made in the 20th century that hous es the kitchen. · Removal of three existing windows (street facing): Two o n the s econd floor of the his toric home where the new ad d ition is go ing will need to b e remo ved, and o ne exis ting o n the right elevatio n (kitchen) is requested to be replaced with a smaller window. P ortions of the reques t are reviewed by s taff per UDC 3.13.010, inc luding: S taff R eview: Non-street facing additions Demolition of non-historic additions O ther elements of the reques t are review by HAR C per UDC 3.13.010, including: S treet fac ing additions R eplacing historic architec tural feature with a non-his toric arc hitectural feature F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit Page 89 of 125 E 7 T H S T EL M S T R O C K S T E U N IV E R S I T Y AV E H O L L Y S T S M A I N S T A S H S T SCENIC DR E 5 T H S T E 4 T H S T S IH 35 NB E 2 N D S T W ES T S T E 6 T H S T S A U S T I N AV E W 8 T H S T W 1 0 T H S T PI N E S T S M Y R T L E S T S C H U R C H ST N C O L L E G E S T S C O L L E G E S T M A P L E S T S IH 35 SB W 6 T H S T W 4 T H S T N A U S T I N AV E W 11 T H S T S IH 35 FWY NB S IH 35 FWY SB WA L N U T S T FO R E S T S T T H O M A S C T W 7 T H S T W 3 RD S T ENTR 261 NB E 1 0 TH S T E 1 1 TH S T M A R T IN LUTHE R K I N G J R S T SOUT H W E STERNBL VD EXIT 261 S B L O W E R P A RK RD E VA LL E Y S T E 8 T H S T N M Y R T L E S T S M I T H C R E E K R D N C H U R C H S T EMORROWST W M O R R O W S T W L W A L D E N D R WE S L E Y A N D R W 5 T H S T P I R A T E D R N M A I N S T SO UL E DR H A V E N L N E 3 R D S T W 9T H ST S E R VI C E R D B L UE HOLE PARK RD P I R A T E C V WSPR I N G S T B R E N D O N L E E L N W 2 N D S T J O H N C A R T E R D R B E R G I N C T E R U TERSVIL L E D R E 9 T H S T RAILROADAVE R U C K E R S T M C K E N Z I E D R R E T R E A T P L E 9 T H 1 /2 S T T I N B A R N A LY E 9 T H S T E 1 0 TH S T W 5 T H S T W 9 T H S T H O L L Y S T E 8 T H S T PI NE S T WA L N U T S T E 3 R D S T COA-2018-061Exhibit #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 90 of 125 LE T T E R O F I N T E N T 70 5 E . 3 rd St r e e t , G e o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 Th e N o r m a n F a m i l y In t r o d u c t i o n / P r o j e c t O v e r v i e w We a r e v e r y e x c i t e d t o h a v e p u r c h a s e d o u r n e w h o m e a t 7 0 5 E . 3 rd St , a n d lo v e t h e h i s t o r i c l o o k a n d f e e l – th i s i s wh y w e b o u g h t t h e h o u s e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e ! W e a r e e x c i t e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e a e s t h e t i c a n d s p i r i t o f t h e h o u s e a s w e la u n c h s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s t o m o v e o u r f a m i l y i n t o o u r “ f o r e v e r h o m e ” . Th e s e p r o j e c t s w i l l c r e a t e a mo r e f u n c t i o n a l l i v i n g s p a c e f o r o u r f a m i l y , p r e s e r v e t h e h i s t o r i c l o o k a n d f e e l o f t h e ho u s e t h a t w e o r i g i n a l l y f e l l i n l o v e w i t h , a n d e n s u r e w e h a v e a d e q u a t e r o o m f o r o u r f a m i l y a s i t c o n t i n u e s t o g r o w (c u r r e n t l y a t 4 a n d h o p i n g f o r m o r e ! ) . 1. AD D I T I O N S Th e ho u s e i s c u r r e n t l y 3 -be d r o o m , 2 -ba t h , 2 , 4 8 0 s q f t ; w e p l a n t o a d d a n e x t e n s i o n o n t h e b a c k o f t h e h o u s e t h a t w i l l in c l u d e a n e w m a s t e r b e d r o o m / b a t h r o o m s u i t e , a n d w i l l m a k e o u r h o u s e 4-be d r o o m , 3 -ba t h . W e a l s o p l a n t o a d d a mu d r o o m e n t r y a t t h e k i t c h e n , a n d a b a c k d e c k c o n n e c t i n g t h e t w o s i d e s o f t h e h o u s e . • We w i l l u s e m a t e r i a l s a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n t o m a t c h t h e h i s t o r i c d e s i g n c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b u i l d i n g • Th e u s e o f t h e h o m e w i l l n o t c h a n g e f r o m w h a t i t h a s b e e n u s e d f o r h i s t o r i c a l l y ( s i n g l e f a m i l y r e si d e n t i a l ) • Th e e x t e n s i o n i s n o t v i s i b l e f r o m t h e f r o n t , a n d d o e s n o t i m p a c t s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e s a n d s t y l i s t i c e l e m e n t s of t h e h o m e l i k e t h e f r o n t f a ç a d e , t h e h i g h e s t p a r t o f t h e b a c k f a ç a d e , t h e f r o n t p o r c h . • Fo r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s a s a b o v e , i t p r e s e r v e s t h e ke y , c h a r a c t e r -de f i n i n g f e a t u r e s o f t h e p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g ut i l i z i n g t h e s a m e m a t e r i a l s ( p i n e w o o d si d i n g ), p a i n t c o l o r s , w i n d o w d e s i g n , r o o f l i n e s , e t c . • Th e a d d i t i o n i s s u b o r d i n a t e i n s c a l e a n d c h a r a c t e r t o t h e m a i n b u i l d i n g , a n d t h e h e i g h t i s p o s i t i o n e d be l o w th a t o f t h e m a i n s t r u c t u r e , l o c a t e d i n t h e r e a r s o t h a t i t d o e s n o t i m p a c t t h e p r i m a r y f a ç a d e . • Th e b a c k d e c k w i l l m a t c h t h e m a t e r i a l s a n d c o l o r o f t h e f r o n t p o r c h ( p i n e w o o d , p a i n t e d ) . • We w i l l a d h e r e t o a l l s e t b a c k r e q u i r e m e n t s a s l a i d o u t i n t h e U n iv e r s a l D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e Page 91 of 125 2. W I N D O W S Th e a d d i t i o n s w i l l i n c l u d e n e w w i n d o w s w h i c h w i l l m a t c h t h e e x i s t i n g w i n d o w s i n s i z e , s t y l e , a n d m a t e r i a l s ( w o o d wi n d o w s ) . Fo r e x a m p l e : Page 92 of 125 We w i l l a l s o r e s i z e 3 w i n d o w s t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e a d d i t i o n s : • Ki t c h e n wi n d o w o n t h e l e f t w i l l b e r e s i z e d t o m a t c h e x i s t i n g k i t c h e n w i n d o w o n t h e r i g h t ( s a m e m a t e r i a l s (w o o d w i n d o w s ) , c o l o r , s t y l e ) • 2 u p s t a i r s w i n d o w s w i l l b e r e s i z e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e n e w r o o f l i n e ; t h e y w i l l m a t c h t h e s i z e , m a t e r i a l s (w o o d ) , a n d st y l e o f o t h e r w i n d o w s o f s i m i l a r s i z e Ex i s t i n g : Sa m p l e o f f u t u r e -st a t e : Fo r a l l w i n d o w s , w e w i l l k e e p e x i s t i n g c u s t o m s c r e e n s ( w e a l r e a d y h a v e e x t r a s c r e e n s f r o m p r i o r h o m e o w n e r s t h a t ar e c u s t o m m a d e f o r d i f f e r e n t w i n d o w s i z e s ) . Page 93 of 125 3. F E N C E We p l a n t o e x t e n d / c o m p l e t e t h e e x i s t i n g f e n c e g o i n g a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y , w i t h > 5 0 % t r a n s p a r e n c y an d m e e t i n g s e t b a c k r e q u i r e m e n t s . M a t e r i a l w i l l b e w i r e f e n c i n g . Cu r r e n t f e n c e ( w i l l m a t c h m a t e r i a l s & s t y l e ) : Lo c a t i o n o f f e n c e o n s u r v e y : Page 94 of 125 Co n c l u s i o n Th a n k y o u f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f o u r p l a n n e d i m p r o v e m e n t s . W e a r e c o n f i d e n t t h a t o u r p r o j e c t s w i l l m a i n t a i n th e hi s t o r i c q u a l i t i e s o f t h e h o m e an d w i l l e n s u r e o u r p r o p e r t y en d u r e s as a n i m p o r t a n t p i e c e o f t h e h i s t o r i c f a b r i c o f Geo r g e t o w n . Si n c e r e l y , Du s t i n , L i z , E l l i e , a n d E m m a N o r m a n At t a c h m e n t s • Fl o o r P l a n s • El e v a t i o n D r a w i n g s • Su r v e y • Ad d i t i o n a l d e t a i l e d d r a w i n g s Page 95 of 125 Page 96 of 125 Page 97 of 125 Page 98 of 125 Page 99 of 125 Page 100 of 125 Page 101 of 125 Page 102 of 125 Page 103 of 125 Page 104 of 125 Page 105 of 125 Page 106 of 125 Page 107 of 125 Page 108 of 125 Page 109 of 125 Page 110 of 125 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:705 E 3rd St 2016 Survey ID:124533 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R047341Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 5/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1887 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: None) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:40 ID:5 *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 Casey House ID:124533 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.641324 Longitude -97.670611 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: North Page 111 of 125 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:705 E 3rd St 2016 Survey ID:124533 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NortheastPhoto Direction NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 112 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 1 of 12 Meeting Date: February 28, 2019 File Number: COA-2018-061 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential addition and renovation for the property located at 705 E. 3rd Street, bearing the legal description of 1.32ac. Shell Addition, Block 4, (COA-2018-061). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 705 E. 3rd Street Applicant: Elizabeth Norman Property Owner: Elizabeth Norman Property Address: 705 E. 3rd Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 1.32 ac. Shell Addition, Block 4 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1887 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High 2007 - High 2016 - High National Register Designation: Casey House APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to build two additions at the rear of the existing home and modify three existing windows. The following list specifies the specific work proposed by the applicant: • New addition to the rear (kitchen). – Approximately 35 sq. ft. of enclosed entry space will be added to the northern portion of the house by the kitchen. • New addition to the rear (master addition). - A new, 616 sq. ft. addition will be added to the rear of the structure parallel to the existing portion that is believed to be an addition made in the 20th century that houses the kitchen. • Removal of three existing windows (street facing): Two on the second floor of the historic home where the new addition is going will need to be removed, and one existing on the right elevation (kitchen) is requested to be replaced with a smaller window. Portions of the request are reviewed by staff per UDC 3.13.010, including: Staff Review: Non-street facing additions Page 113 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 2 of 12 Demolition of non-historic additions Other elements of the request are review by HARC per UDC 3.13.010, including: Street facing additions Replacing historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature STAFF ANALYSIS The subject structure is identified as a T-Plan, Queen Anne style home constructed in 1887 on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. It retains a high priority rating as it is an excellent or rare example of its type/ style, has significant associations and retains sufficient integrity. The existing historic structure is located on the entire block bound by E. 2nd St., Pine St., E. 3rd St. and Walnut St. The applicant is requesting to create two additions to the home. The first addition is approximately 35 sq. ft. adjacent to the kitchen. Previously, there were old concrete steps, a door from the kitchen and a wooden patio. The addition will create a new enclosed entry area with wooden siding to match the main house. The roof will be a hipped and complement the existing roof over the kitchen. A door will added as well. This addition will only be visible from E. 2nd Street, the rear façade as the house is on an entire block and surrounded by four streets. The second addition is approximately 616 sq. ft. of living area to the existing, significantly smaller than the existing 2,480 sq. ft. home. In an effort to retain the integrity of the primary structure, the proposed addition will only be one-story and located at the rear. A modern bathroom addition (non- historic made of non-historic materials) will be removed to add on this new addition. The new addition will mirror the other side of the home (historic addition with the kitchen area) with a similar roof style and length. There is a gabled roofline with matched gable detailing. The new addition will match the existing structure with wood siding shingled roof, and single pane4/4 window. The Design Guidelines, Chapter 7, page 69, provides commentary related to proportion: “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 Page 114 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 3 of 12 acceptable.” The picture below is an example of placing an addition in a location so that it is minimally visible. “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.” The placement, size, style and materials used on the additions are appropriate and respectful to the original historic house. Both additions will cause minimal impact to the existing original house with the exception of (3) windows on the original structure. The one-story height of the addition, distinguishes it as an addition from the historic two-story house. Also, the layout of the original house is a T-plan, the addition’s proposed location also distinguishes it as an addition, similar to the historic addition on the house that currently exists. This addition will not span the entire rear façade of the house, but will be approximately 1/3 of the length of the original house. The applicant is requesting to remove three existing windows on the home and replace with smaller windows. The first window can be seen on the far left of the right (west) elevation this is believed to be a historic addition, where the kitchen is currently located. On this portion of the structure, there are a mix of windows, two are 4/4, one is 1/1 and the other is a smaller, single sash, Page 115 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 4 of 12 single pane window. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing 1/1 window with a smaller single sash, single pane window, like the one right beside it. Overall, the historic house has an existing mix of window styles and sizes. The window changes on the first floor portion where the kitchen is located already has different window sizes and styles next to each other, the window requested already exists and is adjacent to the one they are requesting to replace, the size and style would then match. The two windows on the second story are 4/4 and believed to be original to the home, one is on the east façade and the other on the north facade. The applicant is requesting to replace these windows with the smaller, single sash single pane windows to accommodate the proposed addition. These window openings do not currently exist on the other side of the home. It is unknown if they did originally exist, it is believed that there was a bath on the second floor in that location that was added in the early 20th century, but removed in 1990, and currently there is a one-story historic addition (kitchen addition) that was added in the same location that the new addition is proposed on the other side. There will also be a wooden deck that is placed between the new addition and the existing building that houses the kitchen. The materials and color of this deck will match those of the existing front porch. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. • Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening. • Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been altered over time is encouraged. Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The proportions of these windows contribute to the character of each residence and commercial storefront. Partially Complies The request is to remove three windows and reduce them in size to the single sash, single pane windows. There are examples of these windows on the existing home. The request will create changes to the size of the existing window and enclose a portion of the structure. However, they are not on prominent facades. 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, Partially Complies The windows to be replaced will be replaced with wood windows, like the original; however they will be different Page 116 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 5 of 12 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. Using the same material (wood) as the original is preferred. − 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. − 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. Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they should follow the guidelines for screen doors. sizes and style. Despite this size and style not being in these locations, this type of window can be seen elsewhere on the house. 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. 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. − If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows that are in scale with those seen traditionally. N/A Complies The applicant is not significantly altering the ratio of windows on the home and proposes no changes to the prominent facades, one window proposed to be changes will be visible from Pine Street. 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. Complies The addition is being placed on the rear of the home and will Page 117 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 6 of 12 Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. mirror the existing portion of the home with the modification to 2 existing windows. Changing these windows would not hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building. 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 high priority home will have 3 existing windows modified. None of which are on prominent, character defining facades. 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 proposed addition to the existing home will be a single- story structure to keep the new roofline below the existing two- story one. The addition will be added to the rear of the existing structure and will have a portion that is visible from the street. The materials used on the new addition are compatible to the original building, but the addition is designed in a way that it is compatible, but can be visually differentiated as a new addition. The size of the addition and the proposed location identify it as an addition to the historic structure, however the windows, siding and architectural detailing will all be compatible with the original structure. 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Complies The addition is at the rear and Page 118 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 7 of 12 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. is only a one-story addition. 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. Does not comply The applicant will have to alter two existing windows to accommodate for the addition. They are requesting to use the smaller windows that can be seen on the original home. The same area on the opposite side of this home does not have any windows in these locations. 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 will mirror a historic addition that already exists (where kitchen is located). The rooflines will be similar, with the same roofing materials, siding materials and wooden windows. There will also be a gable to mirror an architectural element that is on the historic structure. The proposed size, height and location of the addition help differentiate it from the original structure. The addition is much smaller in scale than the main home and is comparable in size to another historic addition on the house. The one-story and proposed location at the rear keep the addition subordinate. 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 Complies The original home has a side- gabled roof with a centered gable. The historic addition has Page 119 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 8 of 12 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. a hipped roof. The new proposed addition has a hipped roof with a centered gable, pulling from both existing rooflines. 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 The addition is located at the rear of the structure and the plane will match up with the plane on the existing historic home along Pine Street. 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and protecting historic building materials. Complies 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 Wood siding will be carried onto the proposed additions. 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance. Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The addition is being placed on the rear of the home and will mirror the existing portion of the home with the modification to 2 existing windows. Changing these windows would not hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building. Page 120 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 9 of 12 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 addition to the existing home will be a single- story structure to keep the new roofline below the existing two- story one. The addition will be added to the rear of the existing structure and will have a portion that is visible from the street. The materials used on the new addition are compatible to the original building, but the addition is designed in a way that it is compatible, but can be visually differentiated as a new addition. 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 The addition is at the rear and is only a one-story addition. 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. Does not comply The applicant will have to remove two existing windows to accommodate the addition. They are requesting to use the smaller windows that can be seen on the original home to replace these windows. These windows are not located on the front or primary façade, but do seem to be original to the home. The home as it exists today has multiple styles and sizes of windows. The same area on the opposite side of this home does not have any windows in these locations. Page 121 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 10 of 12 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, 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. Complies The proposed addition will mirror a historic addition that already exists (where kitchen is located). The rooflines will be similar, with the same roofing materials, siding materials and wooden windows. There will also be a gable to mirror an architectural element that is on the historic structure. The proposed size, height and location of the addition help differentiate it from the original structure. The addition is much smaller in scale than the main home and is comparable in size to another historic addition on the house. The one-story and proposed location at the rear keep the addition subordinate. 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 The original home has a side- gabled roof with a centered gable. The historic addition has a hipped roof. The new proposed addition has a hipped roof with a centered gable, pulling from both existing rooflines. 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. Complies Page 122 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 11 of 12 For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided. Addition of a porch may be inappropriate 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. Partially Complies The new addition will propose the resizing of two existing windows. 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; Partially Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A 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 as it is only one-story and has been attached to the home to the rear facade. Staff recommends approval of the street facing addition and the window modifications. The windows being modified are not located on character-defining facades. The alteration of the windows will not remove the historic character of the home. Page 123 of 125 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-061] – 705 E. 3rd Street Page 12 of 12 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 124 of 125 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 28, 2019 S UB J E C T: Updates, C ommissioner ques tions and c omments . S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor IT E M S UMMARY: Update on UDC amendments Appreciation for outgoing c ommis s ioners F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nathaniel Waggoner Page 125 of 125