Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_HARC_07.11.2019
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown July 11, 2019 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. The H i stor ic and A rc hi tec tur al R evie w C ommi ssion, appointe d by the M ayor and the C ity C ounci l, is re sponsible for hear ing and taki ng final ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppr opr i ate ne ss base d upon the C ity Counc il adopte d Downtown D esign Guidelines and Unifie d De ve lopme nt Code. Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s: · S taff P re se ntation · A pplic ant P r esentation (L i mi te d to te n minute s unl e ss state d othe rwise by the C ommission.) · Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant · C omments from C itize ns * · Applic ant Re sponse · C ommission De libe rative P roc ess · C ommission A ction * Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the r oom, to the re cor di ng sec re tary before the ite m the y wi sh to addre ss be gins. E ach speaker wi ll be pe r mitte d to addre ss the C ommissi on one ti me onl y for a maximum of thre e minute s. L egislativ e Regular Agenda A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst B P ublic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a C ertificate of Appropriatenes s for the New C ons truction of a S ingle-F amily R esidence at the p ro p erty loc ated at 805 E. 8th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of C lamp ’s Ad d ition (R evised), Blo ck H (E/P T ). (2019-41-C O A) – C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner C P ublic Hearing and possible ac tion o n a req uest fo r a C ertificate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r a R esidential Alteration at the property lo cated at 313 E. 7th S t. b earing the legal desc rip tion G las s coc k Addition, BLO C K 16, Lot 3-4, 2 (P T ), AC R ES 0.45 (2019-32-C O A) D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Page 1 of 66 Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting 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 _________________, 2019, 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 66 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 11, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2019 regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Minutes 6.13.19 Backup Material Page 3 of 66 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: June 13, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 13, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Amanda Parr; Lawrence Romero Absent: Pam Mitchell; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Call to order by the Vice-Chair at 6:04 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the May 23, 2019, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve the meeting minutes as presented by Parr, second by Asendorf-Hyde. Approved (6–0). B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Residential Addition and Alteration at the property located at 806 E. University Ave., bearing the legal description of SNYDER ADDITION, BLOCK 3 (CTR/PT), ACRES .421, (2019-12-COA). – Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner Staff presentation was provided by Thomas. The applicant is requesting to add approximately 850 sq.ft. of living area to the existing approx. 1,586 sq. ft. home, slightly more than half of the existing square footage of the existing structure. The historic home is one story and in an effort to retain the integrity of the primary structure, the proposed project will also be a one-story, 23’ wide addition located on the east side and rear of the existing home which will create a new street facing facade. Approx. 15’ of the new facade will be setback 5’ from the front plane of the existing home, with the additional new façade setback approximately 31’ from the existing front façade. The façade of the addition will carry the same hardie material as the original home but will have a vertical siding as opposed to the horizontal siding on the original house. These subtle changes in material as well as the slight setback from the façade of the original home will help differentiate it as a new addition. The roofline of the addition will be slightly taller (2’) above the roofline of the original home. This is due to the need for redesign of the roofline of the new addition and the portion of the existing home. A portion of the existing roof was poorly designed and created a dead valley that leaks and is rotting. The taller design portion will help relieve that issue. The height of the new roofline will not detract from the roofline of the original structure. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Vice-Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Page 4 of 66 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: June 13, 2019 Motion to approve 2019-12-COA as presented by Nunn, second by Parr. Approved (6-0). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential alteration of the front porch and a 4’ setback encroachment at the smallest portion, along the west property line into the required 10’ setback, allowing for a residential structure 6’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; for the property located at 1214 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description of Cody Addition, Block I, Lot 9 (E/Pt), Acres .14 (2019-18-COA). – Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner Staff report presented by Thomas. The applicant is proposing to alter the existing porch which is identified on the Historic Resource Survey as already having modifications to the porch balustrade, supports and the front door. The applicant is requesting to remove the existing porch and replace with a new porch that is approx. 2’ larger in the depth of the porch, replace and redesign the roof, and replace the porch supports. This is a result of the front porch cracking and sloping in towards the house. The porch foundation is currently concrete, and the proposed new porch will also be concrete. The existing posts are simple unembellished wood posts, the replacement ones will be similar in design, only slightly larger. The roofline of the existing porch is attached to the slope of the roof on the house, however due to the location and design the applicant has expressed concern for potential issues for separation and leaking. The applicant is proposing a new porch roofline that is similar in design but is located higher up on the roof of the existing structure. It is important to make sure the proposed porch elements correspond with the architectural style of the house, and are similar to what is currently there, as discussed on page 54 of the Design Guidelines. This style of home has a small, simple and unembellished style porch, the proposed changes are in keeping with that style and design. Commissioner Browner had a question regarding the use of crushed rock with the driveway. Thomas provided clarification regarding the requirements for driveways to be paved with an improved surface. Commissioner Parr commented that she appreciates the care taken to preserve the Heritage tree. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Vice-Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve 2019-18-COA as presented by Asendorf-Hyde, second by Morales. Approved (6-0). D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed infill development for the property located at 203 Forest Street, bearing the legal description of Porter, N. Sur., Acres 1.46 (2019-15-COA). – Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner Staff report presented by Thomas. The applicant is proposing to build sixteen structures with a mix of 750 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. on the 1.46 acre lot. The structures will be distributed throughout the site, leaving room for drive aisles, parking and landscaping. The site has significant slope and the buildings siting and design accommodates the varying topography. The proposed site is located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay, which allows a design to adjust to the context of Page 5 of 66 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: June 13, 2019 its surrounding character. The design of this proposed project will mimic the context of the surrounding residential neighborhood and will retain open space reflective of the neighboring parks. The subject property is an undeveloped lot located on the corner of W. 3rd Street and Forest St. The property is a corner lot that that backs up to a public parking lot and detention area on the east, Blue Hole Park to the north and across Forest St to the west, are single-family residential homes. The property is in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District with a portion in the Downton Master Plan identified Transition Area. This Overlay designation can have both a commercial or residential type context based on its location. Ideally, it is meant to provide a transition between the low density residential homes and the higher commercial area downtown. The Downtown Master Plan recommends development such as multi-family housing. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. Public Speaker, Larry Olson, commented that the propose project fits nicely into the neighborhood. He commends the use of smaller, lower, more detached buildings. He appreciates the diversity of the design of various units, and although they may be similar in their proposed look, they are different. He also appreciates that none of the buildings are higher than 25 feet, although the UDC indicates a maximum height up to 40 feet. Mr. Olson recommends approval of the proposed project. Public Speaker, Larry Brundidge, commented that the materials used are not in conformance with other properties of other neighborhoods in the city. The use of horizontal corrugated metal does not contribute to the character of the town. He feels different materials should be used in these buildings. He asks the applicant to reconsider the use of materials. Vice-Chair Romero also invited the applicant to provide his comments. The applicant thanked the public speakers for their comments. He also commented that the site is narrow and long, and he worked to position the buildings to match with the site. He commented that the cottage look is accepted because that is what is understood. The proposed project will include the use of materials to provide a clean aesthetic, and metal transition and color blending. Commissioner Brown asked how many native heritage trees are on the property. The applicant indicated there is only one and it is staying in place. It will serve as the focal piece of the property, and they will try to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde had a question about the metal roof. The applicant demonstrated several material samples of what will be used for the project, and further explained the use of materials to provide clean aesthetics. Commissioner Morales also had a question regarding the use of dark colors and concern due to the weather and climate. The applicant explained they are using a prefinished roof, and the roof will be a light grey, not black color. Vice-chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve 2019-15-COA as presented by Browner, second by Nunn. Approved (6-0). Page 6 of 66 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: June 13, 2019 E. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Madison Thomas’ last day will be June 25, 2019. Nelson thanked Madison for her work. Current planners will work on historic items to ensure this work is reviewed until the historic planner position is filled. Commissioner Browner also thanked Thomas for her work. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Parr, second by Morales. Meeting adjourned at 6:52pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr , Secretary Page 7 of 66 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 11, 2019 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a req uest for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for the New C onstruc tion o f a S ingle-F amily R es idenc e at the property located at 805 E. 8th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of C lamp’s Additio n (R evis ed ), Blo c k H (E/P T ). (2019-41-C O A) – C helsea Irb y, S enior P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: Overview of Applicant's Request: T he applic ant is req ues ting to cons truct a 3,792 sq. ft. single-family struc ture on a vacant lo t in the O ld Town O verlay District. T he proposed s truc ture will have two street fac ing fac ad es – Eas t 8th S treet and Holly S treet. P er S ec tion 3.13 o f the Unified Development C o d e, HAR C is the d ecision-making body for all new cons truction (infill development) in the O ld Town O verlay District. Public Comments: S taff has not rec eived any public comments. S taff F indings: T he propos ed struc ture c o mp lies with the zo ning standards o f the R es id ential S ingle-F amily (R S ) dis tric t and the Downto wn and O ld To wn Design G uidelines . T he proposed design has both horizontal and vertical articulation, the use of various roof pitches, as well as multiple roof lines and building materials. T he primary building material is H ardiplank lap siding with brick and metal accents. T he roof material is composition asphalt shingles. T he proposed windows are vinyl, two over two divided light, two paned, and vertically- oriented. Other architectural features include window awnings, covered front porch, trim elements, and a chimney. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid all required fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material Exhibit 4 - Materials Backup Material Page 8 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-41-COA – 805 E 8th Street Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: July 11, 2019 File Number: 2019-41-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the property located at 805 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of Clamp’s Addition (Revised), Block H (E/PT). (2019-41-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name : Miller Residence Applicant: Kyle & Megan Miller Property Owner: Kyle & Megan Miller Property Address: 805 E 8th Street Legal Description: Clamp’s Addition (Revised), Block H (E/PT) Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: Demolition (Permit 2018-45486) HISTORIC CONTEXT In 2018, the medium priority structure on the property was deemed a dangerous structure by the City’s Building Official. The structure was demolished after receiving a demolition permit. APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting to construct a 3,792 sq. ft. single-family structure on a vacant lot in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure will have two street facing facades – East 8th Street and Holly Street. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, HARC is the decision-making body for all new construction (infill development) in the Old Town Overlay District. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed structure meets the setback standards for the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning district. The proposed structure has a floor-to-area ratio of 0.29. The proposed design has both horizontal and vertical articulation, the use of various roof pitches, as well as multiple roof lines and building materials. The primary building material is Hardiplank lap siding with brick and metal accents. The roof material is composition asphalt shingles. The proposed windows are vinyl, two over two divided light, two paned, and vertically-oriented. Other architectural features include window awnings, covered front porch, trim elements, and a chimney. Page 9 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-41-COA – 805 E 8th Street Page 2 of 5 APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT STAFF ANALYSIS 14.01 - 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. Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks. Complies The proposed structure complies with the setbacks and building height. 14.03-14.06 N/A These guidelines are related to large-scale projects and are not applicable to single-family infill construction. 14.07 - Maintain views to the courthouse In certain circumstances views to the courthouse shall be taken into consideration when designing a new building or addition. A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the courthouse. Complies The property is not in the Courthouse view shed. 14.08 - Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Brick and stone are preferred for new construction. New materials should appear similar in character to those used traditionally. For example, wooden siding, brick, and stone should be detailed to provide a human scale. New materials should have a demonstrated durability in the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade materials used in new construction are more susceptible to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or brick. Complies HardiPlank lap siding is proposed for a majority of the structure. Brick is proposed as the base for the porch columns and on the side of the front porch gable. Page 10 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-41-COA – 805 E 8th Street Page 3 of 5 14.09 - 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. N/A Single-family infill construction. 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 design is primarily Hardiplank lap siding. The UDC was recently updated to allow the use of in-kind materials for Low and Medium Priority structures. While this proposed structure is not on the historic resource survey, the UDC update establishes the use of in-kind materials. 14.11-14.22 N/A These guidelines are related to additions and existing buildings. 14.23 - Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building and neighborhood. The primary goal should be preserving the original residential character, appearance, and scale of the structure. Building uses that are closely related to the original use are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the interior or exterior of the structure. Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors. Complies The structure will be used for a single-family home which is compatible with the neighborhood. 14.24 - When use changes demand that structures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider moving the structure to a compatible location. This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in the neighborhood or another neighborhood. Historic structures should be relocated within Georgetown whenever possible. N/A Single-family infill construction. 14.25 - Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition. Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to demolition. This shall include photographs and architectural drawings. N/A Single-family infill construction. Page 11 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-41-COA – 805 E 8th Street Page 4 of 5 A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience. • See UDC Section 3.13 for provisions related to proposed demolition and/or relocation of historic structures. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed structure complies with the zoning standards of the Residential Single-Family (RS) district and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the request. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 12 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-41-COA – 805 E 8th Street Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings Exhibit 4 – Materials SUBMITTED BY Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Page 13 of 66 E 7 T H S T E L M S T A S H S T E 5 T H S T E 4 T H S T E 2N D S T E 6T H S T S M Y R T L E S T P I N E S T S C H U R C H S T S C O L L E G E S T M A P L E S T H O L LY S T E 11 T H S T E 1 0 T H S T WAL N UT S T E 3 R D S T E 8 T H S T SOUTHWESTERN BLVD W E S L E Y A N D R S M I T H C R E E K R D S O U L E D R S E R V I C E R D E 9 T H S T M C K ENZIE DR R E T R E AT P L O L I V E S T E 9T H 1 /2 S T PI N E S T E 3R D ST H O L L Y S T E 11 TH S T WA L N U T S T E 8 T H S T E 9T H S T E 1 0 T H S T E 8 T H S T E 9 T H S T 2019-41-COAExhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Feet Page 14 of 66 Page 15 of 66 Page 16 of 66 Page 17 of 66 7 Integrity is ingrained IN EVERYTHING WE DO. UNMATCHED INVESTMENT IN MANUFACTURING SCALE AND PRODUCT INNOVATION • Largest manufacturer of fiber cement in North America • 5x more capacity than our largest competitor • More than 100 process and product quality checks • 100+ scientists and engineers provide dedicated resources for continuous innovation in manufacturing and product development • More U.S. fiber cement patents than any competitor HardiePlank® lap siding Arctic White HardieTrim® boards Arctic White Page 18 of 66 9 HardieShingle® Straight Edge Cobble Stone* HardieTrim® boards Arctic White HardiePlank® lap siding Cobble Stone For timeless beauty BEGIN WITH THE FINISH. Our finishes help eliminate stress and reduce costly weather delays when it’s too cold or damp to paint for extended periods. Now there’s no reason to question whether or not sub-optimal painting conditions will negatively affect your paint job. In fact, there’s no longer any need to paint on-site during installation. ColorPlus Technology finishes are fully cured in a controlled environment and arrive on your job site ready for year-round installation. *Not all colors, sizes and textures are available in all areas. For more details, visit jameshardiepros.com Page 19 of 66 10 For complete confidence wrap your ENTIRE EXTERIOR WITH JAMES HARDIE. HardieShingle® Siding* HardiePlank® Lap Siding ColorPlus® Technology Iron Gray* HardiePanel® Vertical Siding & HardieTrim® Batten Boards ColorPlus® Technology Pearl Gray* Page 20 of 66 12 Sleek and strong, HardiePlank® lap siding is not just our best-selling product – it’s the most popular brand of siding in America. With a full spectrum of colors and textures, homeowners can enjoy protection from the elements and the versatility to make their dream home a reality. From Victorians to Colonials, HardiePlank lap siding sets the standard in exterior cladding. A classic look for THE HOME OF THEIR DREAMS. HardieTrim® boards Arctic White HardiePlank® lap siding Arctic White Page 21 of 66 14 HardiePanel® vertical siding delivers style and substance. When combined with HardieTrim ® boards, it achieves the rustic board-and-batten look that defines cottage charm. The covered seams contribute to a well-insulated home. Its crisp, clean lines make HardiePanel vertical siding a smart choice for strong, contemporary designs. True to the tradition of PERFORMANCE AND BEAUTY. HardieTrim® Batten Boards Evening Blue* HardiePanel® vertical siding Evening Blue* Page 22 of 66 15 SELECT CEDARMILL© SMOOTH STUCCO Thickness 5/16 in Size 4 ft x 8 ft 4 ft x 9 ft 4 ft x 10 ft Prime Pcs/Pallet 50 50 50 Pcs/Sq 3.2 2.8 2.5 Thickness 5/16 in Size 4 ft x 8 ft 4 ft x 9 ft 4 ft x 10 ft Prime Pcs/Pallet 50 50 50 Pcs/Sq 3.2 2.8 2.5 Thickness 5/16 in Size 4 ft x 8 ft 4 ft x 9 ft 4 ft x 10 ft Prime Pcs/Pallet 50 50 50 Pcs/Sq 3.2 2.8 2.5 SIERRA 8 Thickness 5/16 in Size 4 ft x 8 ft 4 ft x 9 ft 4 ft x 10 ft Prime Pcs/Pallet 50 50 50 Pcs/Sq 3.2 2.8 2.5 *Not all colors, sizes and textures are available in all areas. For more details, visit jameshardiepros.com Page 23 of 66 19 5/4 & 4/4 HARDIETRIM® BOARDS HARDIETRIM® BATTEN BOARDS 4/4 BOARDS 5/4 BOARDS Thickness 1 in Length 12 ft boards Width 3.5 in 4.5 in 5.5 in 7.25 in 9.25 in 11.25 in Thickness .75 in Length 12 ft boards Width 3.5 in 5.5 in 7.25 in 9.25 in 11.25 in RUSTIC GRAIN© RUSTIC GRAIN© * Thickness .75 in Length 12 ft boards Width 2.5 in Prime Pcs/Pallet 190 SMOOTH SMOOTH ROUGHSAWN* 4/4 BATTEN BOARDS Pallet counts vary by region. For more details, visit jameshardiepros.com/trim *Limited Availability **Not all colors, sizes and textures are available in all areas. For more details, visit jameshardiepros.com Page 24 of 66 Make your next home stand out with our Statement Collection™ products. Carefully curated by our design experts specifically for your market, the collection brings together the most popular James Hardie ColorPlus® siding and trim styles, textures, and colors. This stunning selection is locally stocked and designed for simplicity - making it easier than ever to get a beautiful, long-lasting home exterior. STATEMENT COLLECTION ™ 22 KHAKI BROWN KHAKI BROWN MONTEREY TAUPE MONTEREY TAUPE TIMBER BARK TIMBER BARK ARCTIC WHITE ARCTIC WHITE COBBLE STONE COBBLE STONE Trim and Soffit Color Offering Panel and Batten Board Color Offering BOOTHBAY BLUE EVENING BLUEGRAY SLATE AGED PEWTER IRON GRAY MOUNTAIN SAGENIGHT GRAY LIGHT MIST LIGHT MIST EVENING BLUE PEARL GRAYMONTEREY TAUPE TIMBER BARK NAVAJO BEIGE NAVAJO BEIGE KHAKI BROWNARCTIC WHITE COBBLE STONE ColorPlus® Technology Plank Color Offering Page 25 of 66 23 Selecting a color? Request a product sample at jameshardiepros.com/samples SELECT CEDARMILL© Width 8.25 in Exposure 7 in ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 210 SELECT CEDARMILL© Size 4 ft x 10 ft ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 50 BATTEN BOARDS 4/4 RUSTIC GRAIN© 4/4 RUSTIC GRAIN© Thickness .75 in Length 12 ft boards Width 2.5 in ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 190 Thickness .75 in Length 12 ft boards Width 3.5 in 5.5 in 7.25 in ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 322 184 138 VENTED CEDARMILL© NON-VENTED CEDARMILL© Size 12 ft x 16 in ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 156 Size 12 ft x 16 in ColorPlus Pcs/Pallet 156 SOUTH CENTRAL Page 26 of 66 Landmark, shown in Weathered Wood LANDMARK® SERIES SHINGLES Featuring StreakFighter® & NailTrak ® Technologies Page 27 of 66 LANDMARK® COLOR PALETTE Burnt Sienna*Cobblestone Gray Georgetown Gray*Heather Blend* Moire Black*Resawn Shake* 8 Page 28 of 66 Colonial Slate Cottage Red Hunter Green Mission Brown Silver Birch Weathered Wood* *Available in Max Def Blend. 9 Page 29 of 66 Page 30 of 66 Page 31 of 66 1.866.259.6263 meridianbrick.com CANNON Henderson Architectural SeriesPage 32 of 66 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 11, 2019 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for a R esidential Alteration at the property lo cated at 313 E. 7th S t. b earing the legal d es criptio n G lassc o ck Addition, BLO C K 16, Lot 3-4, 2 (P T ), AC R ES 0.45 (2019-32-C O A) IT E M S UMMARY: Overview of the Applicant's Request: T he applic ant is s eeking to make alteratio ns to the attic spac e by ad d ing 1,051 sq. ft. of hab itable spac e. T his ad d ition would c reate a change in the eas t and no rth gables o f the roof. T he applic ant is also propos ing to mo d ify windows on the end of the gables . P er the ap p lic ant, the F ire C o d e requires operable windows d ue to the ad d ition o f habitab le attic spac e, F ire C ode requires o p erab le windows. T he proposed changes effect two street-facing façades – south along 7th S treet and east along E lm S treet. T hese changes require review and approval by H AR C . P ublic Co mments: To date, staff has not rec eived any public comments. Staff's Findings: T he changes to the north and eas t gab les will create c hanges to the south and eas t street-fac ing faç ades , res pectively. Ac c ording to the applic ant, the proposed alterations will retain the exis ting colors and materials, includ ing the wood siding, the wood s hingles on the gables, the wooden d etails und er the eaves , the asphalt roof shingles , and the wood eaves and trim. T he no rth and eas t gables are proposed to inc reas e in s ize and height, b ut are in sc ale with the struc ture. T he roof p itc hes will b e maintained . T he alteratio ns create a rid geline o f 35’. Ho wever, this is in compliance with the build ing height req uirements of the UDC and the Des ign G uid elines as the height is meas ured us ing the average height b etween the eaves and the ridgelines. T he s tructure has a c ons is tent eave height of 14’-9 ¾” ab o ve finis hed grade. As meas ured b y the UDC , the o verall build ing height is proposed to inc reas e 2’-2 ¼”. T he p ro p o s ed windows , acc o rd ing to the applic ant are need ed to s atis fy F ire C o d e, are p ro p o s ed as 3’x5’ s ingle-hung wood windows. T he proposed windows will d iffer from the original wind o ws. T he removal of the windows and the rep lac ement with a different style does not meet the c riteria o f C hapter 14 of the Des ign G uidelines in regard to pres erving his to rical features . T he o riginal wind o ws are c harac ter defining in their s tyle. T he applicant has s tated the replac ement wind o ws will be s alvaged wood windows and that many optio ns fo r the wind o ws were c o nsidered d uring the des ign proc es s . Incorporating the wind o ws into another p art o f the hous e may not meet the Des ign G uidelines , bec ause it would c reate new window openings. T he applicant plans to keep the windows on-s ite, in c as e the addition is ever revers ed. T he applicant feels that the replac ement of the wind o ws helps to stay in c o mp lianc e with the S ec retary of the Interior S tandards by differentiating the addition/c hange in a subtle and reversible way. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid all required fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner Page 33 of 66 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Backup Material Page 34 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 1 of 9 Meeting Date: July 11, 2019 File Number: 2019-32-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Residential Alteration at the property located at 313 E. 7th St. bearing the legal description Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 16, Lot 3-4, 2 (PT), ACRES 0.45 (2019-32-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name : Leake House Residential Alteration Applicant: Britin Botstick, Stewardship Strategies, LLC Property Owner: Jennifer White Property Address: 313 E 7th Street Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 16, Lot 3-4, 2 (PT), ACRES 0.45 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Construction Date: 1908 Current/Historic Name: Will and Mary Leake House Stylistic Influences: Queen Anne Plan: Modified L-Plan Other: Stoop and walk replaced (noted on the 2007 HRS) Historic Resource Survey Designations: • 2016: High • 2007: High • 1984: High Other Designations: National Register of Historic Places APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is seeking to make alterations to the attic space by adding 1,051 sq. ft. of habitable space. This addition would create a change in the east and north gables of the roof. The applicant is also proposing to modify windows on the end of the gables. Per the applicant, the Fire Code requires operable windows due to the addition of habitable attic space, Fire Code requires operable windows. The proposed changes effect two street-facing façades – south along 7th Street and east along Elm Street. These changes require review and approval by HARC. Page 35 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 2 of 9 STAFF ANALYSIS Background The Queen Anne style is typically a richly deco-rated style with many variations, most often with an asymmetrical design. Queen Anne houses commonly have steeply pitched roofs that have irregular shapes. They frequently have towers, turrets, wrap-around porches, and other romantic complex details. The style was based on “decorative excess” and variety. This excess was made possible by power tools and mass-produced trim work. Characteristics include: • Steep roof • Complicated, asymmetrical shape • Front-facing gable • One-story porch that extends across one or two sides of the house • Round or square towers • Wall surfaces textured with decorative shingles, patterned masonry, or half-timbering • Ornamental spindles and brackets • Bay windows • Stained glass decoration According to the 2016 Historic Resource Survey, this property is an excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity. Materials The changes to the north and east gables will create changes to the south and east street-facing façades, respectively. According to the applicant, the proposed alterations will retain the existing colors and materials, including the wood siding, the wood shingles on the gables, the wooden details under the eaves, the asphalt roof shingles, and the wood eaves and trim. Roof The north and east gables are proposed to increase in size and height, but are in scale with the structure. The roof pitches will be maintained. The alterations create a ridgeline of 35’. However, this is in compliance with the building height requirements of the UDC and the Design Guidelines as the height is measured using the average height between the eaves and the ridgelines. The structure has a consistent eave height of 14’-9 ¾” above finished grade. As measured by the UDC, the overall building height is proposed to increase 2’-2 ¼”. Windows The proposed windows, according to the applicant are needed to satisfy Fire Code, are proposed as 3’x5’ single-hung wood windows. The proposed windows will differ from the original windows. The removal of the windows and the replacement with a different style does not meet the criteria of Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines in regard to preserving historical features. The original windows are character defining in their style. The applicant has stated the replacement windows will be salvaged wood windows and that many options for the windows were considered during the design process. Page 36 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 3 of 9 Incorporating the windows into another part of the house may not meet the Design Guidelines, because it would create new window openings. The applicant plans to keep the windows on-site, in case the addition is ever reversed. The applicant feels that the replacement of the windows helps to stay in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards by differentiating the addition/change in a subtle and reversible way. 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 (WINDOWS AND ROOFS) STAFF ANALYSIS 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 proposed window replacements on the east elevation are larger than the existing windows. The number and arrangement of window openings are being preserved. 6.13 – Preserve the functional and decorative features of an historic window or door. × Features important to the character of a window include its clear glass, frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation, location, and relation to other windows. Features important to the character of a door include the door itself, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms, and flanking sidelights. Historic screen and storm doors should be preserved and maintained. Does Not Comply The original windows that are proposed for removal are decorative features of the structure. The windows appear to be stained glass, which are defining features of a Queen Anne structure. 6.14 - Maintenance of windows. × Wash windows. × Clean debris from windows. × Replace loose or broken glass in kind. This will reduce air leaks. × Replace damaged muntins, moldings, or glazing compound with material that matches the original in shape, size, and material. Does Not Comply There is not any proposed window maintenance. Page 37 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 4 of 9 × Repair window hardware or replace with materials that match the original in scale and design. If the replacement hardware does not match the original design it should be simple, unobtrusive, and compatible with the style and building’s period of significance. × Install weather-stripping. This will enhance energy conservation significantly. Maintain the interior views, so that either merchandise or furniture can be seen. 6.15 - Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9- wooden-windows.htm N/A There is not any proposed maintenance of wood windows features. 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 double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the building’s architectural style are inappropriate. 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. Does Not Comply The addition to the structure is elective, which requires operable windows due to Fire Code. The applicant proposes to use salvaged wood trimmed windows; however, the proposed windows do not match the characteristics of the original windows which play a role in the character of the structure. 6.22 - Preserve the original roof form of an historic structure. In residential areas, most roof forms are pitched, such as gabled and hipped. Most commercial buildings, on the other hand, have flat, or slightly sloping roofs. Avoid altering the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Retain and repair roof detailing. All architectural features which give the roof its fundamental traits, such as dormer Complies The general form and roof pitches are being retained. Existing materials and detailing are also being preserved. There are not any new ornamental features being proposed. Page 38 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 5 of 9 windows, cupolas, cornices, brackets, chimneys, cresting, and weather vanes, shall be retained. Often repairing a basically sound roof can be much less expensive than a complete replacement. If a new roof is necessary, try to match the color, material, and pattern of the old as closely as possible. A roof may be re-roofed with substitute materials, such as asphalt or composite shingles that resemble the original style, if the original materials are determined to be beyond repair, are no longer available, or the historic roofing has been previously removed or covered. Skylights shall not be added where they are visible from the public right-of-way. Skylights should be placed at the rear rooflines or behind gables or dormers. Do not install new ornaments unless it can be shown that they historically existed on the roof. Roof alternations such as adding a greenhouse, roof deck, solar panels, vents, and mechanical and electric equipment are not recommended if they would be visible from the street. These items should be made less noticeable by minimizing the size and using subdued colors. CHAPTER 7 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE- USE, ADDITIONS, AND ALTERATIONS STAFF ANALYSIS 7.01 - 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. Partially Complies Overall, the Queen Anne character is retained and does not imply an earlier period. However, the replacement of the windows removes a historic feature that is specific to Queen Anne style. 7.08 - 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 original materials and features will be preserved. Page 39 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 6 of 9 CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT STAFF ANALYSIS 14.07 - Maintain views to the courthouse In certain circumstances views to the courthouse shall be taken into consideration when designing a new building or addition. A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the courthouse. Complies The property is not in the Courthouse view shed. 14.09 - 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. N/A Single-family infill construction. 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. Partially Complies Overall, the Queen Anne character is retained and does not imply an earlier period. However, the replacement of the windows removes a historic feature that is specific to Queen Anne structures. 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 addition to the structure retains the scale, materials, and character of the structure. The addition is proposed towards the rear of the structure. 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. Partially Complies The new addition alters the roof and removes two character defining windows. The removal of these windows may be appropriate as the distinguishable characteristic of the addition. However, the addition could also be made distinguishable through the use of a different siding on the expanded gables and the windows could be replaced to Page 40 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 7 of 9 • See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. match the originals as closely as possible. The original windows could be retained and incorporated into the design of the operable windows, perhaps at the top of the window. 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 Two character defining windows are being removed. 14.16 - An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and architectural style 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 façade. × Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Partially Complies The addition to the structure retains the scale, materials, and character of the structure. Dormers on the new second story are not proposed. 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 general form and roof pitches are being retained. Existing materials and detailing are also being preserved. There are not any new ornamental features being proposed. 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. Partially Complies All architectural features of the structure are being protected with the exception of two original windows. 14.20 - An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided. Partially Complies All architectural features of the structure are being protected Page 41 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 8 of 9 Addition of a porch may be inappropriate with the exception of two original windows. 14.21 - An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does the following: An addition should be set back from the primary, character-defining façade, to preserve the perception of the historic scale of the building. Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract attention from the historic façade. The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a subtle way. Complies The expansion of the roof maintains the form and character and uses the same materials. The increase in size of the gables creates a subtle difference. 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. Does Not Comply The proposed replacement windows to not replicate the original windows. 14.23 - Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building and neighborhood. The primary goal should be preserving the original residential character, appearance, and scale of the structure. Building uses that are closely related to the original use are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the interior or exterior of the structure. Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors. Complies The structure will continue to be as a single-family home. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Page 42 of 66 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-32-COA – 313 E 7th Street Page 9 of 9 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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 The proposed changes to the gables and roof are consistent with the character of the structure and maintain the overall form. The changes are also reversible. Per the applicant, the replacement windows are necessary for the elective addition to meet Fire Code. The replacement windows are different in size and style, but help to differentiate the addition/change to the structure. Staff recommends approval of the request. 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 and Renderings Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey SUBMITTED BY Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 43 of 66 E 7TH S T EL M S T ROCK S T S MAIN S T ASH ST E 5TH S T E 4 TH S T WE S T S T E 2ND ST E 6TH ST S A U S TI N AVE SCENIC DR W 8TH ST HOLLY ST PINE ST S M Y RTLE S T S CHUR CH ST S CO LLE G E S T W 10TH S T W 9TH S T MAP LE S T W 6 T H S T W 11TH S T W 4TH S T WALNUT ST FOREST ST E 3RD ST W 7TH ST W 3RD ST E 11TH S T E 10TH S T E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E MAR TIN LUT HER K IN G JR S T E 8 T H S T N COLL EG E ST W 5TH ST W E S L E Y A N D R SOUTHWESTERNBLVD SO ULE DR BLUE HOLE PARK RD S M I T H C R E E K R D BREND ON LEE LN W 2ND ST E 9 T H S T N A U S T I N AV E S E R V I C E R D RAILROAD AVE M C K ENZIE DR R E T R E AT P L O L I V E S T E 9TH 1/2 ST SAN G A B R I E L V ILL A G E B L VD MO N TG OM E RY S T E 11TH ST E 3RD ST E 8TH S T PINE ST W 2ND ST W 9 T H S T E 9TH ST FORE S T S T E 8 T H S T E 10TH ST H O L L Y S T WALNUT STW 5 T H S T E 9 T H S T 2019-32-COAExhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 44 of 66 RE: 313 E. 7th Street Certifi cate of Appropriateness Request Dear Members of the Georgetown HARC, Thank you for your consideration of this application for a Certifi cate of Appropriateness for the historic residence at 313 E. 7th Street. The Will and Mary Leake House was constructed in 1908-1909 by the Belford Lumber Company. W. S. leake bought the lot at 313 E. 7th from the heirs of I.A. McFaddin (his widow N. E. McFaddin and their children) for $650.00 on July 22, 1908, and construction of the house presumably began shortly thereafter. C. S. Belford built many homes and commercial buildings in Georgetown, and was known for his high-quality construction and elegant designs. The Leake House is no exception, and the great condition in which it has been maintained is one of the reasons it is a high priority historic structure in the City of Georgetown. The house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 following the 1984 Historic Resources Survey of the City of Georgetown, and has been listed as a high priority structure on the 1984, 2007 and 2016 HRS. It is a subdued example of the Queen Anne style, with less ornamentation than is sometimes associated with that style, but the steep roof pitches, gables, and porches that are features of a Queen Anne. The house was sold in 1944 following the death of Mary Leake. According to the 1916 Sanborn Insurance Map of the City of Georgetown, 313 E. 7th Street was a dwelling, frame building, one story, shingle roof with slate or tin (likely tin) roofs on the back porches. Over time some exterior features of the home have been modifi ed, including new paint colors and new roofi ng materials, rebuilt wooden porches, and stone porch steps. The decorative porch columns, wooden details below the eaves of the gables, and the ornamentation along the ridges of the roof are shown in a photo from approximately 1910 to be original to the house, and would have been consistent with a residence built in the Queen Anne style. The house has been owned by only seven families in its 110-year history. Chad Stielstra and Jennifer White purchased it in the fall of 2017, and have long been saving and preparing toward being the next stewards of their dream home. The family has two young children, and would like to add space for them in what is now the attic space. With adjustments to the roof and to the east and north gable ends, the new second fl oor could accommodate two bedrooms, a bathroom and a playroom. For life safety reasons, the small, decorative attic windows in the gabeled ends would need to be replaced with operable windows, which are indicated on the proposed new elevations. May 23, 2019 Historic and Architectural Review Commission The City of Georgetown 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 M: 306 Gulfstream Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 | E: britin@stewardshipstrategies.com | W: stewardshipstrategies.com STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES Design|Planning|Historic Preservation|Economic Development Page 45 of 66 From the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation: “9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be diff erentiated 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.” The proposed alterations to the east and north facades and to the roof will retain the exisiting materials and colors, including the wood siding, the wood shingles in the gables, the decorative wooden details under the eaves of the gables, the asphalt roofi ng shingles and the wood eaves and trim. The gable windows, which need to be operable, will be 3’-0” x 5’-0” single-hung wood windows. The size and proportion of the new windows is diff erent from any of the other windows in the house, as the typical existing single-hung window size is 2’-10” x 6’-9”. The proportion of the gables, while scaled up from the original, is not out of scale with the house overall, and the steep roof pitches will be maintained. The south and west gables are not part of the alterations and will indicate the original architectural feature design compared with the new, which complies with Standard 9. Per the City of Georgetown Downtown/Old Town Design Guidelines, Chapter 7 Design Guidelines for Adaptive Re-use, Additions, & Alterations: “Design of Alterations Alterations may be considered for historic buildings; however, these alterations should occur in a manner that will not diminish the historic integrity of the property and they should be reversible for future property owners. “Additions Many buildings have experienced additions over time, as need for additional space occurred, particularly with a change in use. An 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.” As the proposed alteration maintains roof pitches, materials and the building footprint and other, simlilar features of the house are preserved, the alteration is both compatible and reversible, per the requirements of the Design Guidelines, and the removed attic windows will be retained. M: 306 Gulfstream Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 | E: britin@stewardshipstrategies.com | W: stewardshipstrategies.com STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES Design|Planning|Historic Preservation|Economic Development Page | 2 Page 46 of 66 Also in Chapter 7 of the Design Guidelines: “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. 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.” The proposed alterations do not change the design character and maintain the Queen Anne features, including the gables and roof pitches, and the historic character will be retained as the changes are to the proportion of two of the gables and to the roof height and the materials will not be changed. John Lawton, Owner of Green Earth Builders, LLC and well-known for his high-quality craftsmanship with remodels, restorations and salvage work for historic homes in Georgetown, has been engaged for this project. He has carefully reviewed the existing structure, the wood framing, the exterior materials, the interior layout, the pitches of the roof, the ability of the existing framing to support living space in what is currently the attic and the construction and framing requirements for the proposed changes. Mr. Lawton’s scope of work for the project contains the following: • No added structure to original house footprint. • Reconfi guration of a bathroom and closet in the back of the entrance foyer for a stair case to the new second fl oor. • On the north east corner of the house along the north side elevation where there is an off set for the shed roof on the north side, the roof edge elevation will change to raise to original house elevation, in line with the elevation of the bottom edge of the east gable roof. This change will also take place on the north west corner of the house where the back porch roof edge elevation will change to match the original elevation of the edge of the roof on the gable on the north side of the house. These changes are made to provide space in the gable end areas for second fl oor bedrooms. The gables on the east and north sides of the house will have a change in the height of the roof ridge line, increasing in height from the new span of roof dimensions. • There will be 2 windows added to comply with codes for bedrooms. • Floor joist to be 14” 230 TJI’s on 24” centers. • Subfl oor and wood fl oors to match existing (longleaf pine). • All walls to be 2” X 4” studs and plate. Roof to be furred down with 2” X 8” rafters to take open span. M: 306 Gulfstream Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 | E: britin@stewardshipstrategies.com | W: stewardshipstrategies.com STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES Design|Planning|Historic Preservation|Economic Development Page | 3 Page 47 of 66 • All exterior trims and cosmetic design to match existing house. • All interior trims to match existing trims. • Stair case to be made as a wrap around with 2 landings. • All woods to match existing (longleaf pine). Building Height Per the project elevation drawings, the elevation of the highest ridge of the roof appears to exceed the 30’ height limit established for the Old Town Overlay District. “Sec. 4.08.080. - Standards Specifi c 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, Georgetown’s Unifi ed Development Code defi nes Building Height as follows: Sec. 6.04.030 - Building Height. A. Measurement. Building height refers to the vertical distance between lowest fi nished grade at the edge of the building or the base fl ood elevation where applicable, and: 1. The average height level between the eaves and ridgeline of a gable, shed, hip or gambrel roof The eave height of the house is consistent for the main roof of the house, with the porch roofs having eaves at a lower height. As shown in the elevation drawings, the existing main roof eave height is 14’-9 3/4” above fi nished grade, with the elevation of the proposed highest ridge line of the roof (hip roof) at 35’- 6 3/4” , giving a proposed building height under the UDC defi nitions of 25’-2 1/4”. The existing building height under the same defi nition is 23’-0”. Setbacks The south and east facades of the house sit 30 feet back from the property line. Sec. 4.08.080. - Standards Specifi c to the Old Town Overlay District. 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 fi ve feet. The property is situated in underlying zoning of RS-Residential Single Family, which requires a front setback of 20’ and a side/rear street setback of 15’. The 30’ setback distance allows for an increase to the allowed maximum height at the 20’ setback distance of 16’-8” for a total height of 31’-8”. The proposed alteration to the east gable end is 28’-1 1/2” at the peak of the gable, with an average roof height level of 21’-5 3/4”, which meets the setback requirements. The existing east gable peak height is 23’-9”. M: 306 Gulfstream Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 | E: britin@stewardshipstrategies.com | W: stewardshipstrategies.com STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES Design|Planning|Historic Preservation|Economic Development Page | 4 Page 48 of 66 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Sec. 4.08.080. - Standards Specifi c to the Old Town Overlay District. E. Floor-to-Area Ratio. The fl oor-to-area-ratio (FAR) within the Old Town Overlay District shall not exceed 0.45, unless a Certifi cate of Appropriateness is approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code. Floor area ratio (FAR) is the relationship between the total amount of usable fl oor area that a building has, or has been permitted to have and the total area of the lot on which the building stands. The ratio is determined by dividing the total or gross fl oor area of the building by the gross area of the lot. Parcel size (lot size): 0.45 acres or 19,602 sf Total existing building area (incl. porches, garages, carports, etc.): 4,259 sf Total proposed additional building area: 1,051 sf Total allowed building area = 19,602 x 0.45 = 8,820.9 sf Total proposed building area = 4,259 + 1,051 = 5,310 sf Included in this application are photos showing the house in approximately 1910 when the house was new, the house in 1984 (Historic Resource Survey images), the house following repairs and during the installation of the current landscaping (prior to 2007), the house as it exists today, and drawings showing the existing elevations and the proposed new elevations. Thank you for your consideration! Best Regards, M: 306 Gulfstream Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 | E: britin@stewardshipstrategies.com | W: stewardshipstrategies.com STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES Design|Planning|Historic Preservation|Economic Development Page | 5 Page 49 of 66 Page | 6 313 E. 7th Street - 1984 HRS Photos Page 59 from Then & Now: Georgetown by Donna Scarbrough Josey, Georgetown Public Library. Decorative elements on the roof ridges and eaves are visible in the 1910 photo and are still in place. Page 50 of 66 Page | 7 313 E. 7th Street - 1984 HRS Photos View from the intersection of E. 7th & Elm Streets, 1984 Historic Resources Survey slide. View from the intersection of E. 7th & Elm Streets, 1984 Historic Resources Survey slide. Page 51 of 66 Page | 8 313 E. 7th Street - Georgetown Public Library Photos (Date Unknown) View from 7th Street. View from E. 7th Street. Page 52 of 66 Page | 9 313 E. 7th Street - Georgetown Public Library Photos (Date Unknown) View from E. 7th Street. Page 53 of 66 Page | 10 313 E. 7th Street - Current Photos East facade South facade Page 54 of 66 Page | 11 313 E. 7th Street - Current Photos East facade detail East facade detail Page 55 of 66 Page | 12 313 E. 7th Street - Current Photos Northeast corner detail Northeast corner Page 56 of 66 Page | 13 313 E. 7th Street - Current Photos Southwest corner detail Southwest corner from E. 7th Street Page 57 of 66 Page 58 of 66 Page 59 of 66 Page 60 of 66 Page 61 of 66 Page 62 of 66 Page 63 of 66 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:313 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:125143 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042482Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1908 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:Builder: Belford Lumber Co. (Notes from 2007 Survey: stoop & walk replaced) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:132 ID:46 *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 Will and Mary Leake House ID:125143 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:30.637776 Longitude -97.674465 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 64 of 66 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:313 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:125143 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NorthPhoto Direction Ancillary WestPhoto Direction WestPhoto Direction Page 65 of 66 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:313 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:125143 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Ancillary NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 66 of 66