Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.12.2022Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown May 12, 2022 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 28, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural C ommittee - Kimberly S penc er, Development Administration P rogram Manager C C onceptual R eview of a req ues t fo r a C ertificate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for an additio n that c reates a new, or adds to an existing s treet facing for at the property loc ated at 1503 Elm S treet, bearing the legal desc ription o f .35 ac res , Bloc k 10 (W /P T ), Hughes Addition. (2022-3-C O A) – M eredith J ohnson, consultant D P resentation and dis cus s ion of the process for determining height in the O ld Town and Downtown O verlays – Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. – Long R ange E P resentation and dis cus s ion of the role of a subcommittee of the HAR C for review of projects - Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . -Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting Page 1 of 76 I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 76 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 12, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the April 28, 2022, regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural C ommittee - Kimberly S pencer, Development Adminis tration P rogram Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Kimberly S penc er, P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 76 Page 1 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice-Chair; Lawrence Romero; Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis, Jennifer Powell, Alton Martin. Alternates in Attendance: Pierce P. Macguire, and Williams “Jud” Harris. Staff present: Tadd Phillips, Interim Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Meredith Johnson; Kimberly Spencer, Dev. Admin. Program Manager Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:03 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager Chair Walton proposed minor edits to the minutes. Board Liaison, Kimberly Spencer made necessary edits and reprinted the corrected minutes for commissioners approve and sign. Motion by Commissioner Davis to approve minutes with proposed edits to this item as stated, seconded by Commissioner Lawrence. Approved unanimously 7-0. Chair Walton requested to switch item C with item D at this time. Page 4 of 76 Page 2 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 C Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6' 10" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east) property line; a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition (2022-10- COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range. Meredith Johnson presented the item for conceptual review. Johnson noted that the posted caption had an error present, and the presentation caption is the correct caption below: Conceptual review for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6’ 6" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 21’6” at the side (east) property line; a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition. Johnson shared that the applicant is looking for feedback on the following requests: garage addition, awning and stairs to the front façade, height modification for garage addition, and a setback modification for front facade addition. The questions they are seeking feedback on are the following: 1. Does the garage relate to the nearby structures in character and form, and size (massing and scale) per Design Guideline 3.5.K? 2. Are the proposed window materials appropriate for the home per Design Guideline 3.5.G.3? 3. Does the entryway addition compatible with the character of the house per Design Guideline 3.5.K? 4. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing? Johnson presented on the history and historical registry survey status. She shared that the home was identified as a low priority structure on the 1984, the 2007, and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys. This is most likely due to the condition of the home and the amount of original material that exists, in this case does not exist. For example, the two front windows on the home were exchanged between the 1984 and the 2007 survey as the 2007 survey identified that the windows had been made larger as part of the replacement. The windows on the front of the home, as seen in the 1984 survey photo, were likely the original windows based on their simplicity however the 1984 survey does not provide sufficient detail to determine. Johnson proceeded to provide additional context for the setbacks. The proposed alterations to the front facade of the home would encroach 4 feet into the 20-foot front set back. Given this encroachment the applicant is seeking a 16-foot front setback to accommodate the propose front projection. Johnson goes on t clarify that the proposed garage addition will not encroach on front and side setback. Page 5 of 76 Page 3 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Johnson continues to share the proposed alterations in detail. The proposed window replacement reverts to the simplified one over one styles, as illustrated by the 1984 survey photo, the proposed windows should also be considered as a non-historic material replacement for a non-historic material as the Historic Resources Surveys show that the original windows were replaced after 1984. The proposed mudroom and entryway addition, a 4’ by 6’ addition at the front of the property, is a utilitarian addition to the primary structure that will not detract from this low priority’s significance. The mudroom will add some additional depth and interest to the front of the home as well as provide a livability update to the structure. The proposed garage addition is a two-story structure that will be setback from the front entrance of the home by 10’. The setback combined with the entryway addition will result in the garage and the front door to be separated approximately 14’ total. Additionally, the design of the proposed garage shares features with the primary, such as a shared roof style and roof materials as well as shared windows styles. The shared features demonstrate that the two structures are related. The proposed garage is different from the primary structure in height, from peak to peak, is q4 feet taller than the primary, and in exterior materials by using a vertical board and batten siding while the primary structure uses horizontal boards only for an exterior material. The material differences define the relationship further by highlighting the differences between the two structures: The vertical boards correlate to the taller structure will the horizontal boards correlate to the shorter, primary structure. Johnson presents on the various approval criteria and notes that based on the findings, staff recommends denial of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6' 8" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east) property line. On the contrary, staff recommends approval for a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition. Applicant was present, however did not wish to present or approach the podium at this time. Chair Walton asks Johnson to review the setback requests. Johnson clarifies that the existing set back is 20’. Once they make additions, they will then be encroaching 4’ into the 20’. They are requesting a 16’ rear setback. Commissioner Davis asks for clarity on function of space above the garage and if there will be stairs. Applicant John Lawton approached the podium to share that there will be stairs that come up from the rear/interior of the building and that a floorplan will be forthcoming, however, it is essentially just one large room. Commissioner Romero asked for clarification on proposed material of the windows and why it partially complies. Johnson shared that the applicant is requesting to replace the current windows with vinyl. She further clarified that the current windows have already been replaced in the past at an unknown time and the proposed windows wouldn’t technically be replacing “original” to the home windows. Page 6 of 76 Page 4 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Chair Walton clarifies that in the instance the current windows are broken they can be replaced with a like material window. if window is broken, can they replace with like window? Waggoner confirmed, yes, they can replace it. Chair Walton notes that item F can be noted as N/A since it does not apply. Chair Walton also comments on the height of the proposed structure. The height of the current home is 17’ and what is being propose is 21’. Walton notes there is slightly conflicting information on height of the proposed structure and notes that they would need more clarity to fully consider this item. Applicant John Lawton addressed the board to explain that the existing structure and the purposed structure are attached and that the of height differences are the way they are to properly address runoff and allow for compliance as it pertains to leaks, standing water, and to ensure drainage is shedding away from the second floor that's being added. Lawton also speaks to the proposed usage of the addition and the height of the surrounding structures as well as the church parking lot. Commissioner Burns notes that the garage is out of scale in terms of height, the proposed window materials would be better if it were wood, however, since they technically are not original to the home windows, there is not a requirement for wood windows. Burns notes that the entryway is not compatible with the character of the home, and the board and baton is also not compatible with horizonal siding of the home. Commissioner Nunn inquires if there is space to do a one-story addition to the back. Lawton shares that there is a tree present that they wish not to disturb or remove. Lawton also addresses concerns regarding compatibility noted by Burns. Shares that the feedback he’s received in the past from HARC was to distinguish new from old. Nunn clarifies that criteria was for historical structures and the subject property is not historical. Johnson asked for clarification on the feedback regarding the entryway. Burns shares that the home is symmetrical, and the proposed changes are not symmetrical. Waggoner clarifies what they will be looking into based on the feedback. Staff needs to clarify definition for item A and note N/A for item F. Waggoner further clarifies on the height of the proposed structure as it relates to the existing structure. Staff will provide a more through description of actual height vs. measured height as it relates to the calculations from a zoning perspective. Waggoner notes they will be considering the size and scale and feedback regarding the board and baton siding. Lawton clarifies if he was to drop the top floor by 2’ if that would that make any difference? Chair Walton notes that they are primarily speaking to the guidelines around the addition and ensuring that the proposed structure does not dominate the existing structure. No motion required with Conceptual Reviews D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade, a 7’ 6 1/2" encroachment into the required 10’-0” rear setback to allow a detached garage 2' 5 1/2"inches from the rear (west) Page 7 of 76 Page 5 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 property line; a 21' encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 4' from the side street (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022-12-COA) - - Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range. Nathaniel Waggoner presented the staff report. He notes that the demolition of the existing low priority garage was approved at the 4.14.22 HARC meeting. At that HARC meeting, the Commission also provided feedback on the additions and setback modifications. The Commission asked the applicant to consider moving the garage east out of the side setback as well as consideration of looming impacts on the residence to the north. Waggoner presents on the history of the subject property, noting that the 2016 historic resource survey identifies this property as a craftsman style home in a modified L plan which was built in 1913 by the Belford Lumber Company. He shares that the home is listed as the Laura Wileman house on the 2016 historic resources survey and proceeds to share the history of Laura Wileman and the progression in ownership of the home. Waggoner continues by providing information on the setback modifications and design of the garage addition. He notes that the proposed structure will be in the similar location and be similar in square footage to the existing (to be demolished) structure. Additionally, the structure will be 15’ which is half the height of the primary structure and will have matching brick to the primary structure. Waggoner also noted a few similar properties in the area south of 16th Street and along 16th Street that the has a garage that is facing the street that is within the 25’ setback. Based on staff’s investigation into the second storying looming, staff found that the windows are from the second-floor addition are not looming. As for moving the garage over further out of the rear setback, the proximity of the existing eave still creates concern with only 2’11” between the existing structure and the proposed structure. Any movement would impact the existing eave. Based on staff findings, they recommend approval of both the addition the additions to the first a second floor as well as the addition of the garage, and the accompanying setback modifications to the rear and the street facing setback. Applicant present, however, had nothing to add to the presentation. Commissioner Davis expressed concern on watershed off the roof into the neighbor’s yard as it relates to the proposed roofline. He shared that gutters and down spouts would need to be in place to avoid watershed impact to the neighbors. Architect Gary Wong provided clarification on garage placement and rotation to achieve applicant’s desired outcome and to address Commissioner Davis’ concern. Commissioner Nunn inquired about slide 14 (the west elevation) on whether the rear windows were looming into the backyard. Waggoner clarified that analysis is performed on properties which are parallel (if one property is exceeding the rear of an adjacent property) to each other, not necessarily properties which are facing each other. It’s further discussed that this type of looming that Nunn is questioning is not addressed in the code. Page 8 of 76 Page 6 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Motion to approve item as stated by Commissioner Burns seconded by Commissioner Davis Approved unanimously 7-0 E Discussion and possible action to appoint a subcommittee of the HARC for review of projects - Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Waggoner presented item E. In anticipation of several complex downtown infill projects staff would like to ask the Commission, as part of their review and approval process if they would find value in having a subcommittee, look at that project, in conjunction with staff and help staff answer questions around clarity of what's being requested, or clarity around the design guidelines themselves, or any particular technical issue so that as these projects come forward, staff is presenting a clear picture to the committee so that they can take action. This could potentially be done on an as needed (per project) basis or for the review of several projects. Chair Walton opened the floor for questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Romero asked about the logistics of how this subcommittee would function and provide feedback since they sit on the commission. Waggoner shared that it would be similar to the demolition subcommittee in that a public meeting would be held, and minutes would be recorded. However, overall feedback from the committee is being sought so that we can identify and narrow down the role of the subcommittee. Commissioner Davis asks clarification on how having a subcommittee is different than what is already being accomplished in our regular commission meetings? Waggoner notes that the project under consideration will be larger in scale and more complex. Chair Walton states that he’d like the commission to not work with staff directly, but rather assess the pre-conceptual. Walton sees value in putting together review meetings ahead of the commission meeting to review staff’s findings and provide feedback in that format prior to the item being resented to the full board so that the items in question are not continually postponed. Commissioner Davis and Romero expressed concerns over ethics and would like to make sure there is clarity on how this would impact the full board when these items are presented in that format. Alternate Commissioner Harris clarified on the need for recusal if this subcommittee was utilized. Waggoner clarified that if the subcommittee is assessing conceptual reviews, there would not be an issue with recusal. Harris continues to share his support of a subcommittee based on prior experience with certain projects in the past where items came back to the committee several times and resulted in there being a sense of pressure to get something done. If there were prior iterations, the sense of pressure or urgency would be minimized, which would result a more desirable outcome for the city. Page 9 of 76 Page 7 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 F Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. -Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Waggoner presented Tadd Philips as the Interim Planning Director and shared that Council approved design financials for that parking garage, and we're moving forward with a development agreement to continue with the real estate transaction. Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on the timeline for the conceptual design for parking garage? Waggoner shared that the first step would be an Administrative Exception for height, a site design and then staff would bring the item forward. Waggoner will keep the commission apprised of these developments as more information is provided. Chair Walton served on the original citizen design committee for the parking garage and expressed concerns over conflict-of-interest. Waggoner clarified that since the award was given on Tuesday night at Council they will likely be starting with a new design. No further Questions/Comments. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Powell. Approved unanimously 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Page 10 of 76 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 12, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onc eptual R eview o f a reques t fo r a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r an ad d ition that c reates a new, o r ad d s to an exis ting s treet facing for at the property loc ated at 1503 Elm S treet, bearing the legal des cription o f .35 ac res , Bloc k 10 (W /P T ), Hughes Addition. (2022-3-C O A) – M eredith J ohnson, consultant IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is req ues ting to cons truct an approximate 1,603 sq. ft. o ne and one-half s tory additio n to the existing garage and reduce the exis ting garage s q . ft. fro m 682 sq. ft. to 439 sq. ft. A p o rtion of the addition is s etbac k from the primary façade of the exis ting garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7’ 8”. T he ad d ition has a gab led ro o f with an actual height of 22’. T he additio n is propos ed to c onnec t to the primary s tructure b y a 20 ft. breezeway. T he garage additio n inc ludes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibac ker lap s iding to match the p rimary s tructure. T he windows are proposed to b e twic e as tall as they are wide with the exception of the s hed dormer windows on the s outh elevation. At the April 14, 2022 meeting the C ommission provided the applicant the following feedbac k on their conceptual plans: - C oncern for looming with full 2nd s tory bedroom windows - Design G uideline s ection 3.4.C .3 - C oncern for mas s ing, s cale and form -Design G uidelines 3.5.C - C oncern arc hitectural character, mass, sc ale and materials are not c ompatible with the his toric character of the primary struc ture - Des ign G uidelines 3.5.K - Inc lusion of architec tural features of exis ting building - Design G uidelines 3.5.K.5 S inc e the 4.14.22 meeting, the applicant has revised their plans in the following ways : -R educ ed the total square footage of the addition from 2,623 s q. ft., to 1, 603 sq. ft. -R educ ed the height of the addition from 25' to 22’ -R educ ed the 2nd story of the addition to a half s tory and including dormers -Intent to inc lude architec tural details of the primary struc ture into the addition s uc h as windows , railing, eave details, and roof forms . At this meeting, the applic ant is s eeking the following feedbac k from the C ommis s ion before finalizing their des ign: - Did the design res pond to concerns for looming - Des ign G uideline sec tion 3.4.C .3? Page 11 of 76 - Did the design res pond to concerning for mas s ing, s cale and form - Des ign G uidelines 3.5.C ? - Is the addition c ompatible to the primary struc ture in terms of architec tural c harac ter, mas s , s cale and materials, particularly the dormer des ign - Des ign G uidelines 3.5.K? - Design G uidelines 3.5.3.E.2.b (s treet fac ing) and 3.5.E.2.c (s ide fac ing) direc t s ize and roof proportions . Are the dormers on the south elevation of the addition s treet or s ide fac ing? F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 3 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit Pres entation Pres entation Applicant Pres entation Pres entation Page 12 of 76 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: May 6, 2022 File Number: 2022-3-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing for at the property located at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition, Block 10 (W/PT). AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1503 Elm Street – Garage Addition Applicant: VAL Inc. LLC, c/o Vitoria Wallace Property Owner: Randall C. Stroud & Liza E. O’Connor Property Address: 1503 Elm Street Legal Description: .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: Detached Garage (2013), Conceptual Review 4.14.22 for addition Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1916 (HRS) Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✔ Garage addition ✔ Breezeway addition STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The subject property is a single-story, medium-priority residential structure with 1,863 sq. ft. of interior space and a 761 sq. ft covered porch that wraps around the west and southern facades and include columns with decorative caps supporting the roof. The eaves are deep overhangs and include decorative trim. The primary structure includes double-hung windows with screens. The structure has an estimated construction date of 1916 but does not provide a building style or identified plan, according to the 2016 Page 13 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 2 of 11 Historic Resources Survey. The 1916 Sanborn map depicts the primary structure as an L -shaped house with two additions that alter the plan to become its current rectangular shape. There are three outbuildings, 1 of which appears to be the existing garage facing 15th Street. The existing 537 sq. ft. garage facing 16th Street was constructed in 2013 in a similar location to the original garage first depicted in the 1916 Sanborn map. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting to construct an approximate 1,603 sq. ft. one and one-half story addition to the existing garage and reduce the existing garage sq. ft. from 682 sq. ft. to 439 sq. ft. A portion of the addition is setback from the primary façade of the existing garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7’ 8”. The addition has a gabled roof with an actual height of 22’. The addition is proposed to connect to the primary structure by a 20 ft. breezeway. The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibacker lap siding to match the primary structure. The windows are proposed to be twice as tall as they are wide with the exception of the shed dormer windows on the south elevation. Justification for Requests: The applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing detached garage. The addition will increase the garage from two to four cars, will be connected to the primary structure via a breezeway, and will add significant living space and vehicle storage to the property for the owner’s family. Technical Review: The subject property is located on ½ of Block 10 and is dimensionally a corner lot with three street-facing facades. The proposed addition, connected to the main structure via a 20’ breezeway, is set back from the character-defining façade (Elm Street). The addition is placed appropriately on the lot with the primary structure located toward the center of the lot. The location of the addition maintains the existing pattern of 16th Street between Elm and Ash Streets as there are primary and detached garage structures built at the property lines. The actual height of the addition, 22’, is subordinate in height to the primary structure, which measures 25’ at the ridge. The primary structure constitutes 2,625 sq. ft. (which includes the 761 sq. ft covered front porch). The addition, including the breezeway, will add a total of 1,763 sq. ft. to the primary structure. The properties to the east are a single-story home and a home with a partial second story. Residences south of the subject property along Elm Street are predominately single-story bungalow-style structures. North of the property, beyond 15th Street, are homes with a variety of stories. Two-story residences north of the subject property with the University-Elm National Register District are Victorian and Queen Style homes. The mass associated with the addition is concentrated along the southern and eastern property lines. Along the southern façade, the looming effect will not be as pronounced given the separation of the properties by 16th Street however the façade does include windows that extend beyond the rear of the building south of 16th Street. Page 14 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 3 of 11 Windows along the southern elevation are single hung vinyl windows, are twice as tall as they are wide and are the same sill height on each floor, and are laid out symmetrical in each bay. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 15 of the 33 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.4.C Relationship to Neighbors C.3 Looming guidelines a. When a 2-story addition is added onto the rear or side of an existing home, and the addition extends past the rear wall of an adjacent house there may be no windows placed on the second floor that exceeds the rear of the neighbor's rear wall. The exception is that windows are allowed if the sill height is 65 inches or greater. b. When an addition is made to an existing garage or accessory structure, or a new building added in the rear the new windows and doors must face into the rear yard and not into the side or rear neighbor's property. Partially Complies The south elevation (16th Street) extends past the rear wall of the property at 1603 Elm and contains windows however the sill heights along the south façade are greater than 65” and the two properties are separated by a public street (16th Street ) right-of-way width of 20 feet. 3.4.D Location of Garages or Carports D.1 It is preferred that garages/carports be detached at the rear of the property. Does Not Comply The garage will be attached to the house via a new breezeway addition. D.2 It is preferred with an attached garage or carport that the garage entrance does not face the street. Partially Complies The proposed addition will be added to the existing detached garage, which fronts the southern property border of 16th Street. 16th Street is a public street, however, given the width and lack of continuity across Page 15 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 4 of 11 multiple blocks, acts as an alley. Along 16th Street there are examples of other garages with street-facing entrances. D.4 Garages typically contain one or two cars in Old Town. When an owner requires more than a two-car garage, the garage should be placed behind the house. Partially Complies The proposed project will increase the garage capacity from two cars to four cars. The garage is set behind the house from the front view off of Elm Street, but will still be partially visible from this view. The driveway will lead directly into the garage. 3.4.E Parking Configuration and Driveways Driveways and parking require a great extent of hard surface which can have a detrimental effect on the historic character of a district. Large expanses of concrete, brick, or crushed granite are not part of the historic character. Partially Complies The new driveway along 16th Street is proposed to measure 907 sq. ft. and will add about 35’ to the length of the existing driveway. The proposed materials are undetermined. E.3 Driveways are typically single- width in Old Town. The new driveway should be single width at the curb cut and continue at a single width until one reaches a length suitable for one car to park in front of each garage door or carport space. Partially Complies The proposed driveway is not single width at the curb however the depth of the new driveway, 25’, does allow for one car to park in front of each garage door. Along 16th Street, east of Ash there is a range of widths of parking areas. 3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form A variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue to exhibit a variety of sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in the neighborhood. Partially Complies The neighborhood surrounding 1503 Elm is comprised of a variety of heights for both original structures and additions. The proposed addition is a lesser height (22’) than the primary (historic) structure at 25’ tall. C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale that would appear as if one or two persons could lift the material. Partially Complies The 1st-floor addition does not exceed 15’ and the height of the 2nd-floor addition does not exceed 12’ measured as the average height of the eaves and ridgelines of the gabled roofs. The increase from a two-car garage to a four-car garage, however, significantly alters the look and feel of this street-facing garage by adding an additional Page 16 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 5 of 11 Monumental proportions are not appropriate. garage door to the facade, which does not reflect human scale. The new garage door will be recessed 7’8”. 3.5.F Porches F.15 Decks All decks should be on the rear of the structure and not visible from the street level. Wooden, elevated decks above the first-floor level are not appropriate. Complies There is a proposed deck in the rear yard. As depicted from the west elevation, it will not visible from street level. G.2 Windows b. The windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and should have the same sill and head height on each floor of the building. The exception is Modern Ranch houses. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure. Accent or feature windows are excepted. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane) that faces the street. Partially Complies Windows along the southern, western, and eastern facades are proposed to be single-hung vinyl windows. These windows are twice as tall as they are wide, with the exception of the two windows within the shed dormer. All windows are the same sill height on each floor. The windows on the southern facade, facing 16th Street, are laid out symmetrical within the gabled and shed dormers. The window shape and placement pattern is copied from the windows on the existing garage, as illustrated on the first floor of the western elevation. 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Partially Complies The additions maintain a rectangular plan, similar to the primary structure. The addition incorporates siding and windows similar to the primary. The primary structure is 2,625 sq. ft. (which includes the 761 sq. ft covered front porch) and the proposed addition will be 1,763 sq. ft. The addition proposes a siding similar in profile to the existing structure. Decorative architectural features of the eaves and ridge vents seen on the original structure are intended for the addition. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the Partially Complies The primary structure is a single-story with a ridge height of 25’, 1,863 sq. ft. of interior space, and a 761 sq. Page 17 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 6 of 11 original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. ft covered front porch. The proposed addition will be add 1760 sq. ft. to the primary structure A portion of the addition is set back 7’8” from the existing garage’s frontage. This move will help the addition to blend in with the frontages along 16th Street and will help to prevent the addition from overwhelming the street. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Complies The addition is distinguishable through the use of different window materials and patterns and rectangular shapes compared to the original “L” shape of the primary structure. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Partially Complies The addition’s architectural details will mimic architectural features of the primary structure’s features and will remain simple. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character-defining elevation. Complies The subject property has three street-facing facades. The addition is proposed along 16th Street, while a public street, acts more like an alleyway for Blocks 10 and 11. The two-story addition will be visible from Elm, Ash, and 15th Streets. Elm Street is the character defining street for this property. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one-story houses. Does Not Comply Block 10, (bounded by Elm/16th/15th) and 11 (bound by Elm/Ash/E. 17 ½ S) do include single- and two-story contributing structures with the majority of single- story residences south and two-story residences north of the subject property in the University-Elm National Register District. Because the subject property is situated within half of block 10, the width of the property, when connected via a breezeway to the garage addition will be wider and taller than other properties along Elm Street that are situated on smaller lots with the exception of the property located across the street at 1506 Elm. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is Partially Complies Addition is set approximately 27’ feet from the Elm Street (primary) façade. Page 18 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 7 of 11 sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. There is room to the immediate rear of the structure for an addition, but the location of the addition to the rear may not support the use as a garage. d. 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. Complies The applicant proposes to connect to the primary structured connected by a 160 sq. ft breezeway. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Complies The addition is a setback approximately 27’ from the character-defining façade. g. Where an addition is proposed to be connected to the main structure via a breezeway, the breezeway must be of compatible character and materials to the main structure and is limited in length to 20 feet, unless site conditions such as tree locations are determined to require an increased length. Complies The larger addition is linked via a breezeway with compatible characteristics. The proposed additions are setback from the primary, character-defining façade by approximately 27’. The connecting breezeway is 20’ in length and shares the pitch, shingle, and roof form of the garage. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Partially Complies The garage addition includes a cross gable that runs parallel to 16th Street and is compatible in form and pitch with the gabled roof of the primary structure. The addition’s half story includes a combination of gabled and shed roof dormers. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Complies The garage addition includes a cross gable that runs parallel to 16th Street, a series of gabled and shed dormers; compatible in form with the gabled roof of the primary structure. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies Page 19 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 8 of 11 Applicant proposes to match the slope of the primary structure appears at 10/12. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies The shed dormer on the north elevation and the gabled and shed dormers on the south elevation are symmetrically proportioned in terms of widths and dormer depths, though the type of dormer roof differs. K.5 Second Story Additions Consider adding dormers to create second-story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Complies Addition includes dormers on the north and south elevations. K.6 Design of additions should be compatible with the primary structure. Partially Complies The addition is compatible in window style, siding, decorative eave details. The addition is subordinate in height and utilizes roof form and pitch similar to the primary. The addition is however nearly the same size as the primary. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. Partially Complies Both the primary building and the addition make use of gabled roofs with asphalt shingles and the siding proposed is of a similar profile to that of the original structure. The addition’s roof does not appear to include overhangs as the does the primary. The addition’s half story includes dormers with a shed roof not present on the primary structure. b. Match window types, shapes, and proportions similar to those of the original structure. Partially Complies The primary structure windows are double-hung one- over-one patterns. The addition proposes single hung, vinyl windows in a one-over-one pattern. c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing buildings. Partially Complies In their letter of intent, the applicant proposes to repeat the decorative ridge feature of the primary structure and the existing garage. The addition does not include the depth but does include detailing of the eaves of the primary structure. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Complies Siding and trim are the same profile. Page 20 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 9 of 11 b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibacker lap siding to match the primary structure and asphalt shingles are proposed to match the primary structure. c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. Complies The proposed materials are compatible with the primary structure in size, color, and general proportion, but the addition will be simple in design and will include some architectural features as the primary such as the decorative eaves. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. Complies The proposed additions repeat existing gable forms and materials. The connecting breezeway includes a break in the roofline between the primary structure and the addition. Windows of the addition are single hung, two-over-two while and the primary double- hung, one-over-one with screens. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant complies with 1 out of 8 of these criteria. SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies Staff reviewed the application and deemed it complete. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Partially Complies The proposed driveway exceeds the maximum of 24’ allowed by the Construction Standards and Specifications of the City of Georgetown. Page 21 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 10 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Partially Complies Proposed project complies with applicable SOI Standards, which include: 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Proposed addition is compatible in siding materials, roof form and pitch, and location. The proposed addition is not in compliance with Guidelines for window materials. The addition is subordinate in actual height to the primary and is equivalent in square footage of the primary. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies The structural integrity of the building is preserved as the building is attached via a breezeway. The size of the addition will have an impact on the site and the primary structure. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies Block 10, (bounded by Elm/16th/15th) and 11 (bound by Elm/Ash/E. 17 ½ S) do include single- and two-story contributing structures with the majority single-story residences south and two-story residence north of the subject property in the University-Elm National Register District. Because the subject property is situated within the half of block 10, the width of the property, when connected via a breezeway to the garage addition will be wider and taller than other properties along Elm Street that are situated on smaller lots with the exception of the property located across the street at 1506 Elm. Page 22 of 76 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-3-COA – 1503 Elm Street Page 11 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected Partially Complies The location of the addition along 16th Street will limit the visibility of the structure from 15th Street. The addition will be visible from Elm Street and the overall height of the structure 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and the character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable No signs are proposed. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys Page 23 of 76 Location 2022-3-COA Exhibit #1 S C OL LEGE ST E 15TH ST E U B A N K S T E 17TH ST K N I G H T S T S C H U R C H S T AS H S T E 16TH ST E L M S T S M Y R T L E S T E 16TH ST S M Y R T L E S T E 14TH ST E 17TH ST GE O R G E S T 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 24 of 76 1 1/2 STORY ADDITION 1 -903 SF 2 -700 SF ELEVATED 1 STORY, EXISTING HOUSE 1,864 SF 1 STORY EXISTING GARAGE 396 SF 25' CITY SETBACK 15' PRIOR CITY SETBACK 10 CITY SETBACK 15' CITY SETBACK 20' CITY SETBACK EXISTING COVERED PORCH BREEZEWAY PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 16 T H S T . ( A L L E Y ) 15 T H S T . ELM ST. (FACING NEIGHBOR) EXISTING SHED 508 SF NEW DECK EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY 18' X 25' ROOF LINE ABOVE EXISTING SHED 50 SF EXISTING MAIN ENTRY EXISTING CHAINLINK EXISTING CHAINLINK PRINT: LETTER (8.5 X 11) DRAWING NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 1503 ELM ST. -ADDITION 1503 S Elm St, Georgetown, TX 78626 04/30/22 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN N Page 25 of 76 DN DN 22' - 0" EXISTING GARAGE NEW ADDITION DORMER, GABLE ROOF 25' - 0"22' - 0" EXISTING NEW 1 2 SITE -KEY PLAN EXISTING NEW PRINT: LETTER (8.5 X 11) DRAWING NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 1503 ELM ST. -ADDITION 1503 S Elm St, Georgetown, TX 78626 04/28/22 1" = 10'-0"1 SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) - 16TH ST. 1" = 10'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) - ELM ST. N Page 26 of 76 DN DN 22' - 0" BREEZEWAY TO EXISTING DORMER, SHED ROOF DOOR OVERHANG NEW ADDITION EXISTING GARAGE 22' - 0" BREEZEWAY TO EXISTINGDORMER, GABLE ROOF DORMER, SHED ROOF DOOR OVERHANG 1 2 SITE -KEY PLAN EXISTING NEW PRINT: LETTER (8.5 X 11) DRAWING NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 1503 ELM ST. -ADDITION 1503 S Elm St, Georgetown, TX 78626 04/29/22 1" = 10'-0"2 SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) - BACKYARD 1" = 10'-0"1 REAR ELEVATION (EAST) - BACKYARD N Page 27 of 76 PRINT: LETTER (8.5 X 11) DRAWING NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 1503 ELM ST. -ADDITION 1503 S Elm St, Georgetown, TX 78626 04/30/22 CONCEPT VIEWVIEW STUDY GOOGLE SNAPSHOT Page 28 of 76 1 6 T H S T . (A L L E Y ) ELM ST. EXISTING NEW PRINT: LETTER (8.5 X 11) DRAWING NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 1503 ELM ST. -ADDITION 1503 S Elm St, Georgetown, TX 78626 04/30/22 Page 29 of 76 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:1503 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:125860 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042807Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1916 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:900 ID:622 *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:125860 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.630566 Longitude -97.673838 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Southeast Page 30 of 76 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:1503 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:125860 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos EastPhoto Direction Ancillary EastPhoto Direction Page 31 of 76 2nd Conceptual Review - 1503 Elm St. 2022-3-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission May 12, 2022 Page 32 of 76 2 Project Location City GIS Map Page 33 of 76 3 Item Under Consideration 2022-3-COA –Conceptual Review •Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing for at the property located at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition. Page 34 of 76 4 4.14.22 Conceptual Feedback 1.Concern for looming with full 2nd story bedroom windows -Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3 2.Concern for massing, scale and form -Design Guidelines 3.5.C 3.Concern architectural character, mass, scale and materials are not compatible with the historic character of the primary structure -Design Guidelines 3.5.K 4.Inclusion of architectural features of existing building -Design Guidelines 3.5.K.5 Page 35 of 76 5 Feedback Requested 1.Did the design respond to concerns for looming -Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3? 2.Did the design respond to concerning for massing, scale and form -Design Guidelines 3.5.C? 3.Is the addition compatible to the primary structure in terms of architectural character, mass, scale and materials, particularly the dormer design -Design Guidelines 3.5.K? 4.Design Guidelines 3.5.3.E.2.b (street facing) and 3.5.E.2.c (side facing) direct size and roof proportions. Are the dormers of the south elevation addition street or side facing? Page 36 of 76 6 Changes Following 4.14.22 Conceptual Reduced the total square footage of the addition from 2,623 sq. ft., to 1, 603 sq. ft. Reduced the height of the addition from 25 'to 22’ Reduced the 2nd story of the addition to a half story and including dormers Intent to include architectural details of the primary structure into the addition such as windows, railing, eave details, and roof forms. Page 37 of 76 7 Looming –Windows Removed Page 38 of 76 8 Requested Feedback: Looming Looking east Looking south Page 39 of 76 9 Inclusion of Architectural Features of Existing Building Page 40 of 76 10 4.14.22 5.12.22 Reduced Existing Garage Sq. footage Page 41 of 76 11 4.14.22 5.12.22 Reduced 2nd Floor Sq. Footage 1460 sq. ft 700 sq. ft Page 42 of 76 12 4.14.22 5.12.22 Reduced Height, Reduced to 1 ½ Story w/dormers 25’ 22’ Page 43 of 76 13 Dormer Design Based on Orientation Page 44 of 76 14 Roof Compatibility Page 45 of 76 24 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 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; Partially Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially 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 Page 46 of 76 25 Feedback Requested 1.Did the design respond to concerns for looming -Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3? 2.Did the design respond to concerning for massing, scale and form -Design Guidelines 3.5.C? 3.Is the addition compatible to the primary structure in terms of architectural character, mass, scale and materials, particularly the dormer design -Design Guidelines 3.5.K? 4.Design Guidelines 3.5.3.E.2.b (street facing) and 3.5.E.2.c (side facing) direct size and roof proportions. Are the dormers of the addition street or side facing? Page 47 of 76 Revised Plan for 1503 Elm St. Based on HARC Input HARC Meeting: April 14, 2022 Coversheet (novusagenda.com) Page 48 of 76 HARC issues with 1503 S. Elm St. (4/14/2022) •The addition was not considered subservient to the original home •2 story versus 1 story of original; •Size of addition overpowered the original home •Height of addition use to be higher than original home; 4/14/22 version was equal to the home at 25’ •Size of driveway for the new garage was larger than allowance of 24’ •Very few architectural features of the original home were brought forward in the addition. •Roof pitch •Roof lines •Windows •Railing •Size of living addition was too large at 1460 sq ft Page 49 of 76 Evolution of Designs: 4/14/22 versus 5/12/22 Page 50 of 76 E V O L U T I O N Plan Existing Structure 4/14/22 Version 5/12/22 Proposal Living Space 1863.74 sqft 1460 sqft 700 sqft Elevation 2 story Full 2 story 1 1/12 (with dormers) Height of Addition 25’25’22’ Roof Pitch 10/12 Varying 10/12 Primary Street View (Elm) -Windows on Ground Floor -Windows on Ground & 2nd Floor -Windows didn’t match primary structure -Increased scale of Roof Line -Windows on Ground floor -Addition windows match style of primary structure -Matching roof line with height 3’ smaller than primary structure Garage Driveway 16’ 6” x 24’-25’x35’ 7 ½”-25’x18’ Page 51 of 76 Plan Existing Structure 4/14/22 Version 5/12/22 Proposal FRONT Elevation (Elm Street) RIGHT Elevation (16th Street) LEFT Elevation –Facing Backyard (toward 15 ½ Street) BACK Elevation (towards Neighbors Facing Ash Street) E V O L U T I O N Page 52 of 76 Primary home in Relation to Area of Addition Option: Raise the garage roof line to match existing home Page 53 of 76 4/14/22 versus 5/12/22 3D Design Page 54 of 76 Architectural Details & Features to be Brought into the New Addition’s Design Architectural Details and Features Addition 1. Eve Detail All gable dormer will receive eve detail consistent with the primary home 2. Railing detail & Columns Columns of the original home will be added to support the breezeway and in the front of the new garage and storage addition 3. Metal roof ridge cap Original metal roof ridge cap and end pieces will be added to the new addition roof ridge. 4. Lighting fixtures and garage door Lighting fixtures and garage door style of the existing garage will be brought into the new garage addition design. 5.Roof lines, pitch and hip roof Roof lines, pitch and hip roof will be married into the new addition design. 6. Color of siding and trim The color of the siding and trim will be married with the existing garage and home. 7. Window style and size Window style and size will be either matched or adjusted relative to size. 7 1 2 3 3 1 45 2 5 6 6 6 6Page 55 of 76 HARC Design Guidelines Relevant Text 4/14/22 Version 5/12/22 Proposal E.2 Dormers a. Dormers are appropriate but must be designed so that there is a relationship to windows on the main building.Not compliant..Design compliant. b. Dormers facing the front should not occupy more than 40% of the roof plane c. Dormers on the side should not occupy more than 60% of the roof plane Not compliant.No dormers on the front Side dormers within allowance! Design compliant. E.3 Roof Pitch Primary roof line should be between 5:12 and 10:12 in slope depending on the style of the house.Not compliant Roof line did not marry primary home. Changed the roof line of the existing garage to match the primary home to match. Design compliant. G.2 Windows b. The Windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and head height on each floor of the building.Partially compliant.Design compliant. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure.Partially compliant Design compliant. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane)Partially compliant Design compliant. e. Gang windows together rather than using one large windowpane window Partially compliant Design compliant. 3.5.I Architectural Details & Features 1. Architectural details such as columns, lintels, sills, rafters, door surrounds and decorative gable ends…should be used. Partially compliant Design compliant. 3. Details should be consistent with the design and style of the primary home.Not compliant.Design compliant. 3.5.K Additions When creating an addition, keep the size of the addition in relationship to the existing structure. If an addition must be larger, is should be set apart from the main structure and connect with a small linking element… Design compliant.Design compliant but more in line with the character of the primary home. k.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Not compliant Design compliant. a. Minimize visual effects of an addition….It should be designed to remain subordinate the main structure.Not compliant.Design compliant. d. While a smaller addition is visually preferable., if a residential addition would be significantly larger than he original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, wind feasible and then link them with a smaller connecting structure. Design was compliant.Design compliant. g. Where an addition is proposed be connected to the main structure via a breezeway, the breezeway must be of compatible character and materials to the main structure and is limited in length to 20’… Partially compliant.Design compliant. K.4 The roof of the new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building…..Typically gable, hip, shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions.. Not compliant.Design compliant. 3.5.A Respect Historic Styles The design of the new structure should respond to the character of existing structures, using them as inspiration as a source of inspiration for new designs. I sure tried but using this direction led to many design HARC issues. Design compliant. G U I D E L I N E S Page 56 of 76 Summary: Existing, Past, Proposed: Description3 Existing Sqft Past (4/14/22) Sqft Reduction to 4/14/22 Plan Proposed (5/12/22) Sqft Total Sqft % Increase Living Space 1863.74 1460 28.8%700 2663.74 37.6% Existing Shed / Storage 559.17 220.5 0%220.5 779.67 39.4% Garage 561.54 682.67 35.7%439.19 1307.04 78.2% Covered Porch/Breezeway 761.54 160.12 0%160.12 921.66 21.0% Driveway 396.46 907.47 33.9%600 996.46 151.3% TOTAL 4142.45 2459.81 59.4%2118.81 6261.26 51.1% Page 57 of 76 HARC, Thank you for your time, guidance and support! Page 58 of 76 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 12, 2022 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion of the proc es s for determining height in the O ld Town and Downtown O verlays – Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir. – Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: T he C ommission has asked staff to c larify the proc es s for determining height. At this meeting, s taff will provide the C ommission a pres entation on the s tandards for determining building heights in acc ordanc e with UDC S ec tion 6.04.030. Height Building height refers to the vertical dis tance between lowest finis hed grade at the edge of the building or the base flood elevation where applicable, and: 1. T he average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, shed, hip, or gambrel roof; 2. T he highes t point of a mans ard roof; 3. T he highes t point of the c oping of a flat roof; and 4. R oof parapets , as desc ribed in S ec tion 7.04.040.D, may exc eed the height limitations of this C ode by no more than ten feet. S ec. 4.08.080. - Standards S pecific to the Old Town Overlay District. 3. Building Height. 1. Buildings within the O ld Town O verlay District shall not exc eed 30 feet in height. However, a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s may be approved in acc ordanc e with S ec tion 3.13 of the UDC to allow utilization of the height limitation of the underlying zoning dis tric t. 2. Maximum building height at the pres cribed s etbac k of the underlying bas e zoning district shall not exceed 15 feet. F or each additional three feet of s etbac k from the property line, the building may inc reas e in height by five feet. However, a C ertificate of Appropriateness may be approved in acc ordanc e with S ec tion 3.13 of this C ode to allow building heights in exc es s of this requirement. S ec. 4.08.070. - Standards S pecific to the Downtown Overlay District. 1. Building Height. 1. Building height in the Downtown O verlay District shall not exc eed 40 feet, unles s a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s is approved by HAR C in ac cordance with the proc edures s et forth in S ection 3.13 of this C ode. 2. Buildings loc ated along the portion of Aus tin Avenue that lies within the boundaries of the Downtown O verlay Dis tric t s hall be at least two usable stories in height with an overall building height of not less than 20 feet, s ubjec t to compliance with the C ourthouse View P rotec tion O verlay District of S ection 4.10. However, HAR C may approve a C ertificate of Appropriatenes s in ac cordance with the proc edures s et forth in S ec tion 3.13 of this C ode. Page 59 of 76 F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Pres entation Pres entation Page 60 of 76 Height Historic & Architectural Review Commission May 12, 2022 Page 61 of 76 2 Building Height–Downtown Overlay District Sec. 4.08.070. -Standards Specific to the Downtown Overlay District. A.Building Height. 1.Building height in the Downtown Overlay District shall not exceed 40 feet, unless a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by HARC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. 2.Buildings located along the portion of Austin Avenue that lies within the boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District shall be at least two usable stories in height with an overall building height of not less than 20 feet, subject to compliance with the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District of Section 4.10. However, HARC may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. Page 62 of 76 3 Building Height –Old Town Overlay District Sec. 4.08.080. -Standards Specific to the Old Town Overlay District. C.Building Height. 1.Buildings within the Old Town Overlay District shall not exceed 30 feet in height. However, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow utilization of the height limitation of the underlying zoning district. 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 Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow building heights in excess of this requirement. Page 63 of 76 4 Sec. 6.04.030.A Building height refers to the vertical distance between lowest finished grade at the edge of the building or the base flood elevation where applicable, and: 1.The average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, shed, hip, or gambrel roof; 2.The highest point of a mansard roof; 3.The highest point of the coping of a flat roof; and 4.Roof parapets, as described in Section 7.04.040.D, may exceed the height limitations of this Code by no more than ten feet. Building Height Measurement Page 64 of 76 5 Measured Height Side setback Perceived Height Measurement Point Page 65 of 76 6 Questions of the Commission Page 66 of 76 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 12, 2022 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion of the role of a s ubc ommittee of the HAR C for review of projec ts - Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: T he HAR C Bylaws p ro vide that the His to ric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n has the express authority to d elegate review of spec ific projec ts (as d efined by majority vo te of the C o mmis s io n) to a S ubc ommittee of the C ommission c ompos ed of at leas t three members. At April 28, 2022 meeting, the C ommission provided the following feedback to the on the possible formation of a subcommittee: • T he potential role for the C ommis s ion could be to review staff work, not to collaborate. • T he C ommission wants to avoid postponing or denying projects . • Meetings of the S ubcommittee s hould be project spec ific focus of individual cases. • T he C ommission does not want to form a standing s ubc ommittee. • If formed, the C ommission sees value in us ing the S ubc ommittee as a tool to minimize likelihood of rejec tion or pos tponement of HAR C . • T he C ommission shared c onc erns of c onflic t of interest c onc erns tied to the subcommittee reporting bac k to HAR C . • If a S ubcommittee is formed to review spec ific projects , the C ommission would like to establis h a c lear line separating the roles of the subcommittee from staff. • T he full C ommission does not rec ommend that the S ubcommittee provide a rec ommendation or vote on items . • HAR C selec ts members , giving individual expertise cons ideration c ollaboration During the April 28, 2022 meeting, the C ommis s ion as ked if this S ubc ommittee would function a similar manner as the Demolition S ubc ommittee? T he projec t S ubc ommittee for project review would differ from the Demolition S ubc ommittee in two dis tinct ways: 1) T he HAR C Bylaws and the C ity’s Unified Development C ode require the formation of a Demolition S ubc ommittee. T he formation of a S ubc ommittee for the review of spec ific projects is a dis cretionary ac t of the full C ommis s ion. 2) T he C ity’s Unified Development C ode requires that the Demolition S ubcommittee provide a rec ommendation to the full C ommission. Both S ubc ommittees are s imilar in that their meetings will require public notific ation in ac cordance with S tate law. In addition to feedback from the C ommission, s taff has identified additional cons iderations for the formation of a S ubcommittee. T he formation of a S ubcommittee prior to review of the project by the full C ommis s ion will require additional meeting logis tic s and requirements of the C ommission and staff. T he C ommis s ion and s taff agree on the need for the full C ommission to have clear criteria to form the S ubc ommittee. C lear c riteria could emerge during the review of a projec t by the full c ommis s ion. Lastly, the willingness of an applic ant to participate in a S ubc ommittee review is c ritic al. Page 67 of 76 In reviewing the feedbac k from the C ommis s ion and recognizing the potential value a S ubcommittee may provide in review of project spec ific cases, staff rec ommends that applicants and the C ommission c ontinue to use a C onceptual R eview proc es s as part of regularly sc heduled meetings of the C ommission. If during the c ourse of review a spec ific project by the full C ommis s ion, the C ommis s ion finds that focus of a partic ular as pect of a projec t by a S ubcommittee could benefit the applic ant and C ommission, the C ommis s ion is authorized in the Bylaws form a S ubc ommittee. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nathaniel Waggoner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1 – HARC Bylaws Exhibit Page 68 of 76 Page 69 of 76 Page 70 of 76 Page 71 of 76 Page 72 of 76 Page 73 of 76 Page 74 of 76 Page 75 of 76 Page 76 of 76