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_05.24.2018
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown May 24, 2018 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. B Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n the proc es s and s tand ard s related to a C ertific ate o f Appropriateness (Co A) for the reloc ation, remo val o r demo lition of a his toric struc ture. Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Historic and Do wnto wn P lanner. Legislativ e Regular Agenda C Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Ap ril 26, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certific ate o f App ro p riatenes s for: 1) A Building Height Exc ep tion of 5-feet 3-inc hes fro m the 15-foot maximum b uilding height req uirement to allo w a build ing height of 20-feet 3-inches , at the p res c ribed 10-fo o t rear setb ac k o f the und erlying zo ning d is tric t per Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC) Sec tion 4.08.080.C; 2) A Building Height Exc ep tion of 3-feet 9- inches fro m the 15-fo o t maximum building height requirement to allow a build ing height o f 18-feet 9- inches , at the p res cribed 6-foot side s etb ac k of the underlying zoning dis tric t p er Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC) Sec tion 4.08.080.C; 3) Demolitio n o f an additio n at the rear of the residential s tructure; 4) Page 1 of 71 Res id ential Reno vatio n and 5) Residential Additio n, for the property loc ated at 501 S. Elm S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of 0.16 ac . Glas s coc k Additio n, Bloc k 31, Lot 8 (COA-2018-009). Madison Tho mas , Do wntown Histo ric Planner E Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f c o nc ep tual d es ign for the reno vatio n and additio n to a residential p ro perty loc ated at 1227 Churc h St – Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP Do wntown & His toric P lanner F Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r: 1) A 2-fo o t 6- inches setbac k mo d ificatio n fo r the existing res id ential struc ture to eliminate the existing no n-c o nforming situatio n per UDC Sec tion 4.08.080.C.2; 2) A Building Height Exc ep tion o f 2-feet 6-inches from the 15- foot maximum build ing height req uirement to allow a b uilding height of 17-feet 6-inc hes, at the p res crib ed 6-fo o t s etb ac k of the underlying zoning d is tric t p er Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC) Sec tion 4.08.080.C ; 3)R es id ential Renovation and 3) Res idential Ad d ition, fo r the property lo cated at 1227 Church Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f 0.2 ac . Cody Additio n, Blo c k 1, Lot 16 (COA-2018-003). Madison T homas , Do wntown Histo ric P lanner. Th is item has been p u lled from the a g enda a n d will b e con sid ered at a fu ture d a te. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 2 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 24, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and dis c us sion on the p ro cess and s tandards related to a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (CoA) for the relo c atio n, removal or d emo litio n o f a histo ric s tructure. Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric and Downto wn Planner. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1- Demolition Proces s Exhibit Exhibit 2- Chapter 7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Demolition cont.Exhibit Exhibit 4- Demolition Subcommittee Recommendation Report Exhibit Exhibit 5- HARC Approval Criteria Exhibit Page 3 of 71 Page 4 of 71 City of Georgetown page 70 Demolition/RelocationDemolition is forever, and once a building is gone it takes away another piece of the city’s charac-ter. Demolition of an historic building or resource should only be an action of last resort. HARC can delay or deny requests for demolition while it seeks solutions for preservation and rehabilitation. HARC should not allow the demolition or reloca-tion of any resource that has historical and/or architectural significance unless one or more of the following conditions exist and if, by a finding of HARC, the proposed demolition or relocation will materially improve or correct these conditions: 1. The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or the occupants, as determined by the Building Official.2. The resource is a deterrent to a major im-provement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all neces-sary planning and zoning approvals, financ-ing, and environmental clearances.3. Retention of the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a gov-ernmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship; and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.4. Retention of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community. HARC should consider the following when evalu-ating proposals to demolish or relocate historic resources: 1. Does the resource proposed for demolition or relocation have architectural and/or historical significance?2. What would be the effect on surrounding buildings of demolition or relocation of the resource?3. What would be the effect on the Overlay District as a whole of demolition or relocation of the resource?4. What would be the effect on safeguarding the heritage of the city of the demolition or relocation?5. What has been the impact of any previous inappropriate alterations?6. Has the owner offered the property for sale?7. Has the owner asked a fair price?8. Has the property been marketed for a rea-sonable time?9. Has the property been advertised broadly in a reasonable manner?10. Has the owner sought the advice of a profes-sional experienced in historic preservation work?11. What would be the effect of open space in that location if the lot is to be left open?12. What will be done with the empty lot?13. What would the effect of any proposed re-placement structure be to the community?14. What is the appropriateness of design of any proposed replacement structure to the Overlay District? Page 5 of 71 City of Georgetown page 80 7.12 When use changes demand that struc-tures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider mov-ing the structure to a compatible location. • This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in another neighborhood. 7.13 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition.• Demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be avoided.• Demolition of a building that contributes to the historic or architectural significance of a locally or nationally designated district should not occur, unless:+ Public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure;+ The building has lost its architectural and historical value/significance and its removal will improve the viability of the neighborhood;+ A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will improve the appearance of the neigh-borhood; or+ The denial of the demolition will result in a substantial hardship on the applicant as determined by the process outlined in the City’s Unified Development Code. When adapting a residence to a commercial use, respect the residential character of the building by preserving the overall form of the building, the front porch and front yard character. • Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to any de-construction or demolition. The owner shall be responsible for providing the record, which shall include, but is not limited to, photographs, architectural drawings, and deed records, if available. This record shall be deposited with the Planning and Develop-ment Department.• A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.• If a demolition is approved, work with HARC to identify salvageable materials and poten-tial buyers or recipients of salvaged materi-als. The removal of all salvageable building materials before demolition is encouraged, through a proper demolition by deconstruc-tion method as determined by HARC at the public hearing, and may be required depend-ing on the significance of the building.• Preserve historic garages and other second-ary buildings where feasible.• Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, etc.) 50 years or older may be appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structure members).• Relocating buildings within the Overlay Dis-tricts may be appropriate if compatible with the district’s architectural character through style, period, height, scale, materials, setting, and placement on the lot.• Relocation of a building out of the Overlay Districts should be avoided unless demolition is the only alternative.• See also Unified Development Code Sec-tion 3.13 for demolition or relocation criteria, standards, and procedures. Page 6 of 71 HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBER: MEETING DATE: MEETING LOCATION: APPLICANT: SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: COMMENTS Applicant: Subcommittee: What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that should be made to the structure for re‐occupancy? Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure to its original design? Page 7 of 71 File Number: Meeting Date: Page 2 of 2 May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored? May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages? Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style, architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme? Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones? Other comments RECOMMENDATION Approval Approval with Conditions: Disapproval Based on: Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date Page 8 of 71 Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval. F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: a. Loss of Significance. i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship. i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or relocated; and ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. Page 9 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 24, 2018 SUBJECT: Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the Ap ril 26, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes _HARC_04.26.2018 Backup Material Page 10 of 71 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Terri Assendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice- Chair; Amanda Parr (alternate); Kevin Roberts (Alternate) and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Karl Meixsell; and Catherine Morales; Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Call to Order by Chair Browner at 5:30 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Present at this time were Browner, Romero, Hood and Bain. Policy Development/Review Workshop B. Presentation and discussion of the role and value of the Texas Historic Commission Certified Local Government Program - Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Madison introduced Madeline Clites, Texas Historical Commission CLG Program Administrator. The program offers technical assistance, and she gave examples of what that means. Networking and Training are big elements of their program. Hood asked for possible assistance with demolition requests and how to handle that. He also asked about the promotion of the historic resources survey. Clites reported that their office offers more in-depth training and can provide specific trainings or workshops as requested. The presentation was posted with the agenda. Parr, Morales and Assendorf-Hyde were added to the attendance during the presentation. Georgetown has more than three times the number of historic protected properties than cities of similar size. She also said it would be wise to look into the Historic Landmark status for certain properties. See education and training opportunities in presentation. Legislative Regular Agenda C. Consideration of the Minutes from the April 12, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Romero, second by Bain to approve the minutes. Approved 7 – 0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a single story residence located at 705 W. 10th, bearing the legal description of 0.2896 ac. Lot 7, Block H South San Gabriel Urban Renewal (unrecorded). – Madison Thomas, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner Presentation by Thomas of the case. The demolition subcommittee recommends approval of the demolition request. Staff also recommends approval of the demolition based on the findings . This low priority structure does not conform to the current building code and structural deficiencies render the repositioning of the home infeasible. The HARC Demolition Page 11 of 71 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 Subcommittee including the HPO and Chief Building Official conferred on 2/28/2017 and reaffirmed the applicant’s summary of structural issues. If HARC approves the demolition, staff recommends that HARC consider requiring the creation of a historical archive including archival-quality photo-documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer as described in the Unified Development Code, 3.13.030. E.3 (b). The applicant, Michelle Baran, spoke for the owner and reiterated the items that have led to the request for the demolition. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Bain, second by Romero to approve the COA-2018-005 for demolition with no conditions. Hood explained that the structure is beyond repair, but wants it noted that every time there is a demolition a piece of Georgetown’s history is gone. He wants the commission to understand the consequences. Motion approved 7 – 0. E. Presentation and discussion of conceptual alterations and changes of a two (2) story office building located 511 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 26, Lots 5-6. – Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Waggoner introduced the conceptual case. He shared the applicable Design Guidelines. The applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the building and reconstruct a larger addition. This property is a high priority structure listed on the Resources Survey. Drawings were provided to show the proposal of the event space. Gary Wang, the architect of this project, presented additional information. The height of the existing house structure is approximately 23 feet at the wall height. . The height of the new addition at the wall height, is approximately 23+ feet also, but the roof height adds another 15 feet. They proposed to use diagonal wood shingles on the new portion, to set apart the new from the old horizontal wood siding. Assendorf Hyde asked what was being demolished. Wang showed the non-historical portion that is proposed to be demolished. Romero asked how this would impact the neighbor to the back. Wang says the building will be set back 10 feet from the property line, per the setback requirements. Waggoner explained the notices that will be sent at demolition request. Parr asked what portion of the original structure is being maintained. Wang says most everything, including the structure, the chimney, the siding, keeping the upper story, but changing the north side to add a window and doors. The front door is proposed to change. Assendorf-Hyde asked about the fence height. Wang says it is supposed to be a privacy fence. Assendorf-Hyde and Parr ask about moving the fence line that is obstructing the view of the original house. Wang says it can be discussed to lower the portion of the fence that is in front of the house. He reminds the commission that Tamiro II across the street will be a tall structure and the fence is to protect the privacy of this space. Parr also suggested doing something to break the solid wall of the fence, stating it is not pedestrian friendly. Hood understands the need for privacy but the carport is an icon for this house and suggests reducing the size of the fence, but likes the crisp look of the orange brick that matches the house. Page 12 of 71 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 Browner asked the commission to review all the guidelines in regards to this project. Chapter 6 – the main entry is proposed to now be on 6th Street, instead of the original Main Street entry. Staff see the main entrance as still on Main Street with the service or secondary entrance on 6th Street. Staff can’t guarantee that the change of the north side structure won’t change the survey priority, but can guarantee that the project will meet the local guidelines. The street facing facades will not be changing. The existing siding is to remain and just be repaired. Hood asked if the addition has to be as tall as it is proposed. Wang says many ideas were tried but they want this height. Commissioners are concerned about the scale of the addition. Guideline 7.3 is mentioned as a way to discuss the scale, to look at the roofline of the new building in contrast to the existing. 7.10 defines the roofline and Hood discussed the difference in a hip roof with a smaller rise in comparison to the shed roof with a larger slope. Wang says the proposal is a stronger look and they liked it. Wang explained that the new structure had a different hierarchy and the new addition needs that strength. Justin Bohls, property owner, took the podium to explain. He explained that with his experience from another event center, they want to increase the light and block the sound at the same time. This area is approximately 30 feet wide and needs the pitch and height of the new space. Bain says in 7.3 and 7.9 it states the addition should remain subordinate to the main structure and he feels that this addition is too big and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood and does not meet that criteria. Waggoner reviews the elements from Chapter 13. He feels there is a variation in material. Hood believes that the applicant has met the intent of 13.3, variation in materials, with the addition of the secondary entrance and separation from the main structure. 13.4 relates to mass and scale, by varying the building height with setbacks and façade heights. Romero feels that this is going to affect the level of priority and feels that it meets the guidelines. Morales does not think the monolithic fence meets the character of the street, with the materials or the ten foot height. Parr asked if the fence could be reduced to 8 feet instead of the 10. Hood agrees. Bohls explains that they are dealing with privacy events and wants to insure that. Hood says they need to consider the human scale at the sidewalk level and still offers privacy. The commissioners generally concurred. 13.4 states building heights of larger projects should provide variety, how does that apply? Hood is concerned about the east side elevation. Wang says that elevation is 99 feet long. Hood likes the design but feels it is not consistent with the guidelines. Assendorf-Hyde agrees that the east side is also lacking articulation. Bohls says there is a ten foot buffer where they will plant trees and install a brick wall fence as requested by the neighbor. They are also trying to insulate for the sound buffering. Hood suggests changing the elevation of the roof and the east wall to add the articulation and improve the massing of that east side. Wang and Bohls thanked the commission for their comments. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) of a four (4) story commercial retail and office building at 204 E. 8th St., bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 – 8. – Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Sofia Nelson presented a general overview and history of the project. Madison Thomas reviewed the guidelines and the different elements of the development and how they either Page 13 of 71 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 comply or do not comply. She was asked to review first those guidelines that are not complied with. Matt Synatschk spoke representing the developer. They feel they have met the comments from the commissioners at the concept review and comply with the majority of the guidelines. Bain asked how they complied with 13.3, a new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot width. Synatschk feels they have broken up the modules with the parking garage and the front module, and then other modules as defined by the plaza, and the steel tower element and staircase. Bain says it still looks like one large building. Synatschk stated that did not work with the original plan and they felt like the commissioners did not like it so they attempted something different. Bain asked why staff recommend approval if items did not comply. Nelson explained that staff identifies where the project meets and where it doesn’t. They use the guidelines and also the UDC for review. They recommended approval because they felt that the developer met the criteria that were outlined in the concept review by the commission. Parr says she still has a difficult time with the lack of modulation. Parr asks why the back corner is 42 feet tall. Synatschk states it is a result of the ground elevation. Parr and Romero asked about the windows on the back of the building that looks down on the neighbors and event center. There is concern that there is not a transition from the large building to the smaller structures. They request possibly smaller windows, or even higher from the floor, to obstruct the complete office view, to give more privacy to the people below. Peter Dana, 1101 Walnut St, first expressed concern that the signs posting this public meeting were not up most of the time. He also expressed concern about the modulation. He expressed that he does not feel this is special, and that it does not comply with enough of the guidelines to be approved. Pam Mitchell, 1017 S. College, with additional time donated by Scott Firth, 1403 Olive. Ms. Mitchell states this development has not changed enough to be approved and there are still egregious items with this project. The scale and mass are not consistent with the surroundings. There is no articulation on the east side. She showed pictures of surrounding scaled buildings. She is also concerned about the heritage trees and calculates that they cannot be replaced. She also discussed the backdrop to the courthouse in the courthouse view from IH 35. She does not believe the project exhibits the values of the community. Susan Firth, 1403 Olive, submitted a letter and reiterated her points, asked for denial of this project. William Harris, 1607 E 19th Street, loves this neighborhood and wants this corner to be better. He points out that adding the bricked in windows are against the design guidelines. This project looks like it belongs in Dallas. Larry Brundidge, Pine Street, has met with the developer and does not oppose the project but does not approve it either. Concerned about the conceptual review that was given and that the commission has not given the developer good suggestions. He says the commission has a responsibility to pay attention and be honest with the applicants. Barbara Price, 1504 Barcus, volunteers in Old Town, asks the commission to not approve this project and to find something that will contribute to the neighborhood. She asks the Page 14 of 71 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 commission to consider the impact of this decision. She thinks this would be better in another location. Ann Seaman, 810 S. Church Street, is concerned about the portions that do not comply. Design Guidelines regarding scale are not being met for this Area 2, a transitional area. Appreciates the comment about losing a piece of history when demolition permits are given and when large buildings dwarf the neighborhood. Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Synatschk spoke again and explains that the structure lost in this location gave an opportunity for development and they are allowed to build to 40 feet by right and to have 95% impervious coverage. Readyhough spoke about the impervious cover and says they will be pouring pervious concrete in the parking area, which although the building will cover the property 98% the calculation will be 95%. They feel they meet the intent of the guidelines. Madison reminds the commission to use the guidelines in their findings. Browner asked about the changes that were made and presented on the dais. Synatchk said the brick arches were added, as a representation of the historic light and water works building. They also enclosed the south end to insure the fire code was met. Staff has not reviewed those changes. Commissioners discussed the project. Motion by Assendorf-Hyde to deny the application as presented based on the DG 13.3, it does not comply and the building is too large for the lot size; 13.6 the building is intentionally not modulated; 13.18 the building does not convey a sense of scale in the transition zone; it does not comply with UDC Section 3.13.030 E New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. And H; The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.. Second by Morales. Approved 5 -2. (Hood and Romero opposed). Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Bain, second by Morales 9:53 pm. ________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 15 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 24, 2018 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certificate of Ap p ropriatenes s fo r: 1) A Build ing Height Exc eptio n o f 5-feet 3-inches from the 15-fo o t maximum build ing height requirement to allow a b uilding height o f 20-feet 3-inc hes, at the p res c rib ed 10-foot rear s etbac k of the underlying zoning district p er Unified Development Code (UDC) Sec tio n 4.08.080.C; 2) A Building Height Exceptio n o f 3-feet 9- inc hes fro m the 15-foot maximum b uilding height req uirement to allo w a building height of 18-feet 9-inches , at the presc ribed 6-foot side s etbac k o f the underlying zoning district per Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC) Sec tio n 4.08.080.C; 3) Demolitio n of an ad d ition at the rear of the res id ential s truc ture; 4) Residential Renovation and 5) Res id ential Ad d ition, fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 501 S . Elm Street, bearing the legal desc riptio n o f 0.16 ac. Glassc o ck Ad d ition, Blo ck 31, Lo t 8 (COA-2018-009). Mad is o n Thomas , Downto wn His to ric Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant is proposing a demolitio n, reno vatio n, addition and an exc ep tion. The ap p lic ants are p ro p o s ing to reloc ate the exis ting 1,050 s q . ft. his toric s tructure and p o rch within the s ame lo t to allo w for the 2,183 s q . ft. addition. T he ap p licants are p ro p o s ing to d emo lis h a rear additio n to allow a new ad d itio n to the rear. The ap p licants also p ro p o s es an ad d ition to the eas t of the home alo ng Elm Street (north elevatio n). C hanges to the exis ting s truc ture includ e a porc h relo c atio n, wind o w rep lacement(s), roof material change o n the porc h, paint color change and remo val o f exis ting boxed windows . Public Comments To d ate, Staff has no t received any inquiries . Findings Staff find s that the proposed relo catio n o f the struc ture is ap p ro p riate and that the d es ign and loc ation of the pro p o s ed additio n on the eas t faç ad e generally meets the Des ign Guidelines Criteria, however the p ro p o s ed changes to the porc h roof material, the applic ants d es ire to rep lace all wind o ws, and garage ad d ition (mas s and s c ale) do not meet the criteria. T he renovations to the roof of the existing porch, with the proposed material change, do not maintain the character of the existing porch. T he request to use metal for the roofing does not meet the Design Guidelines of finding a material that is the same or similar to the original nor does it match the material of the main structure. T he request to replace all of the existing wooden windows does not meet the preservation principals in the Design Guidelines Chapter 3 and Chapter 6, which prioritize maintenance over replacement. T he removal of the wood siding on the rear and east elevations to allow for the proposed additions should be salvaged and reused if possible. A letter of intent for salvageable materials should be provided detailing the amount of salvageable material and the proposed end use. T he proposed garage addition does not meet the Design Guidelines Criteria and exceeds the UDC requirements for height at the setbacks. T he proposed two- story addition requesting two exceptions to height requirements at the rear and side setbacks is not appropriate to the context of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of a portion of the rear of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the other requests with the conditions that the porch roofing material be changed to match the roofing material and color of the historic structure, that the wooden windows on the street facing facades (3) Page 16 of 71 be repaired instead of replaced, that the proposed addition is moved to meet the height requirements at the prescribed setbacks. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applic ant has paid the all ap p lication fees . SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP Histo ric and Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans (renderings )Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 5 - His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Exhibit 6 - Staff Report Exhibit Exhibit 7 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit Exhibit 8 - HPO Report Exhibit Page 17 of 71 E 7 TH ST EL M ST R O C K S T S M A I N S T A SH ST E 5 TH ST E 4 TH ST E 2 N D S T WE S T S T E 6 TH ST S A U S TI N AV E SCENIC DR H O LLY ST W 8T H S T PI N E ST S M Y R T L E S T S C H U R C H S T S C O L L E G E S TW 1 0 T H S T W 9T H S T M A P L E S T W 6 T H S T W 4 T H S T W 11 T H S T WA L N U T S T FOR E S T S T W 7T H ST W 3R D S T E U N I V ER S IT Y AV E E 1 0 T H S T E 1 1 T H S T MA R T I N L U TH E R KI N G JR S T E 8 T H S T N C O L LE GE S T W E S L E Y A N D R W 5T H S T SOUTHWESTERNBLVD SO ULE D R E 3 R D S TBLUEHOLEPARKRD S M I T H C R E E K R D B R EN D ON L EE L N W 2 N D S T N A U S T I N AV E E 9 T H S T S E R V I C E R D RAILROAD AVE E R U T E R S VILLEDR M C K E N Z I E D R O L I V E S T SAN G A B R I E L V IL L A G E BLV D E 9 TH 1/2 S T T I N B A R N A LY MONTGOM ERY ST F O R E S T S T E 9 TH ST PIN E ST E 1 0T H S T WA L N U T S T E 3 R D S T E 8 T H S T H O L L Y S T W 2 N D S T E 9 T H S T COA-2018-009Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 18 of 71 1 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services/HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC Submission for CoA The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 February 23th, 2018 The Project Scope Summary: This applica on is for a CoA rela ng to the remodeling and addi on to the exis ng structure at 501 South Elm Street. The home was originally built in 1940. The style of the original home is a minimal tradi onal with a cra&sman porch element. In other words, the home is a mix of styles. The home is currently classified as Medium Priority and had previously been classified as Low Priority in the 1984 survey. The home was erected near the center of the lot which prevents building any usable addi ons to the structure. To create more usable space the home will be moved to the intersec on of the North and West building setback lines, approximately 5 feet to- wards Elm Street and 7 feet towards 5th Street. In addi on to being relocated, the structure will be raised approximately 8 inches to provide a more adequate crawl space. When the house is moved, the front porch will be removed and then rebuilt with the same configura on as the original. The exis ng (not original) porch columns will be replaced with style appropriate square col- umns. Originally, the area at the back (East) of the house was a covered porch as evidenced by the sloping floors and change in floor fin- ish. This area was enclosed and converted to u lity and bath rooms during a previous remodel. The exact ming of this remodel is uncertain as there is no evidence of it in the public records found on the Williamson County website, however it does seem to pre- date the one record of improvements apparently done in 1995. This area has been modified and added on to mul ple mes re- sul ng in construc on that is substandard and in need of replacement. There is visual evidence that this part of the house is sepa- ra ng from the main structure. According to County records, the back stoop was replaced or added in 2007. It is also of substand- ard construc on: the decking slopes towards the house rather than away and the supports posts are shimmed and ro9ng. Both enclosed porch and stoop will be removed to allow for construc on of new East addi on. This addi on will include a morning room, screened porch and double garage (with studio above), while the addi on to the South side of the structure will include ex- tended space for a guest bed room and master bath. The exis ng windows are of various styles making it difficult to confirm if they are original to the structure and truly historic in na- ture. They are single pane wood windows in serious disrepair, making it cost prohibi ve to bring them up to current Energy Code compliance. There is evidence of rot, sagging sashes and general misuse where screens have been stapled to the frame. There are currently two “bay” or “box” style windows on the North side of the structure that were added during a previous remodel some- me during the 60s or 70s. They are inconsistent in window size and detailing and detract from the original style of the structure. They will be removed to bring more con nuity to the style of the home. New windows will be Andersen composite fiberglass (100 Series). The lite pa@erns and configura on (three over one) will reflect the original architectural style of the home. The roof of the exis ng structure is currently comprised of composite shingles. New roofing material for the main structure will be composi on shingles while roofing material over the front (West) porch will be Snaplock galvalume metal. The wood siding of the exis ng structure will be patched and repaired with new wood material to match as necessary. This includes the areas where the bay windows are being removed. Siding where the addi ons abute to the original structure will be Hardi-Siding ver cal board and ba@en to create a point of dis nc on. Siding at the garage will be horizontal lap Hardi-Siding with a profile similar to that of the original structure. The main exterior color will be Needlepoint Navy (SW 0032) and the trim will be Classic Light Buff (SW 0050). The front door will be stained to match the brackets at the gable end. These colors are reflected in the renderings in this package. Page 19 of 71 2 The Project Scope Summary (cont.): The height of the garage addi on exceeds the allowable building height of 15 feet at the prescribed setback. Judging from the slope of the site towards the back of the lot, the actual height of the addi on along the side setback (as measured at the midpoint between height of eave and ridgeline) will be 18’-9” and along the rear setback will be 20’-3”. Therefore we are reques ng a vari- ance to this ordinance. While the garage addi on is taller than the original structure, the design is of it retains the character of the original structure as well as the surrounding area. The allowable height is exceeded on the setbacks away from street faces for minimal impact from the street. There is precedence for structures of this height in the immediate area as the structure to the property directly to the east across East 5th Street to the north and across the intersec on to the northwest are all a two story structures. The overall intent of this project is to posi on the house in a more appropriate loca on on the lot while extending the living areas within the home. The overall style will remain the same and will be rounded out with the addi on of architectural details appropri- ate with the overall style. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC. Sincerely, J. Bryant Boyd, AIA Page 20 of 71 3 AERIAL VIEW HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 21 of 71 6 EXISTING SITE SURVEY HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 22 of 71 7 PROPOSED PLAN - N.T.S. EXISTING NEW ADDITION EX I S T I N G NE W A D D I T I O N 20’ BUILDING SET BACK LINE PRORPERTY LINE HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 SOUTH ELM STREET EA S T 5 T H S T R E E T 15 ’ B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K L I N E 10’ BUILDING SET BACK LINE 6’ B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K L I N E BUILDING AREA Remaining Exis ng Structure Front Porch Proposed Addi on 1st Floor East Addi on 1st Floor South Addi on Screened Porch Garage Covered Porch 2nd Floor Guest Suite Total Building Area Floor Area Ra o IMPERVIOUS COVER Total Lot Area Total Covered Area Flatwork Total Impervious Cover Pervious Cover Remaining BUILDING HEIGHT Exis ng Structure New Addi on 860 SF 190 SF 141 SF 363 SF 199 SF 721 SF 115 SF 644 SF 3233 SF 44.9% 7199 SF 2590 SF 586 SF 3176 SF (44%) 4023 SF (56%) 17’ AFF 21’-6” AFF 25’-0” Page 23 of 71 8 West Eleva on along South Elm Street View from Northwest (Intersec on of 5th & Elm) HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 EXISTING NEW ADDITION EXISTING NEW ADDITION NEW ADDITION EXISTING BEHIND REBUILT PORCH Page 24 of 71 9 Arial View from Nouthwest NEW ADDITION EXISTING North Eleva on along East 5th Street HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 BU I L D I N G H E I G H T A T RE A R S E T B A C K = 2 0 ’ - 3 ” Page 25 of 71 10 South Eleva on NEW ADDITION EXISTING South Eleva on HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 BU I L D I N G H E I G H T A T SI D E S E T B A C K = 1 8 ’ - 9 ” BU I L D I N G H E I G H T A T RE A R S E T B A C K = 2 0 ’ - 3 ” Page 26 of 71 11 Exterior Paint Selec ons Main Exterior color —”Needlepoint Navy” Trim Color—”Classic Light Buff” HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 27 of 71 SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS 100 SERIES DURABLE • Virtually maintenance-free • Rigorously tested to deliver years* of smooth, reliable operation • Fibrex material construction provides long-lasting* performance • Durable, low-maintenance finish won’t fade, flake, blister or peel* • Fibrex material is twice as strong as vinyl Andersen® 100 Series single-hung windows allow ventilation through a single operable lower sash that slides up and down. Classic rectangular shapes are available, or use an arched top for added elegance. Made with our revolutionary Fibrex® composite material, 100 Series products are durable, environmentally smart and energy efficient. 100 Series products are available in deep, rich colors that complement virtually any architectural style. For added style, we offer a wide range of grille patterns and patterned glass options. ENERGY EFFICIENT • Weather-resistant construction for greater comfort and energy efficiency • Weatherstripping is designed to seal out drafts, wind and water • Variety of Low-E glass options are available to help control heating and cooling costs in any climate • Many 100 Series single-hung windows have options that make them ENERGY STAR® v. 6.0 certified throughout the U.S. BEAUTIFUL • Clean, attractive corner seams • Six exterior color options • Attractive matte finish interiors available in four colors • Add style with grilles or patterned glass Dark BronzeWhiteSandtoneTerratoneCocoa Bean Black EXTERIOR COLORS *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. “ENERGY STAR” is a registered trademark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Page 28 of 71 For more information, visit andersenwindows.com/100series Fibrex® material combines the strength and durability of wood with the low-maintenance of vinyl. The wood fibers are reclaimed from our own factories, which makes this product sustainable and environmentally responsible. 100 SERIES SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS HARDWARE FRAME OPTIONS 1-3/8" flange setback, 1" flange setback with stucco key or replacement configuration. INTERIOR OPTIONS HIGH-PERFORMANCE GLASS OPTIONS • Low-E glass • Low-E glass with HeatLock® technology • Low-E SmartSun™ glass • Low-E SmartSun glass with HeatLock technology Tempered glass and other glass options are available. Contact your Andersen dealer. PATTERNED GLASS Ideal for letting light into the home while obscuring vision. Available in four attractive patterns. ADDITIONAL FEATURES • Sash lock engages automatically when operable sash is closed • Operable sash has a meeting stile cover with a unique raised profile design, allowing the sash to be opened and closed easily ReedObscure FernCascade Colonial PrairieTall Fractional *Dark Bronze and Black interiors are only available with Dark Bronze and Black exteriors respectively. Printing limitations prevent exact color and finish duplication. See your Andersen dealer for actual finish samples. “Andersen” and all other marks where denoted are trademarks of Andersen Corporation. ©2017 Andersen Corporation. All rights reserved. SS_015 02/17 Optional lift handle matches the window’s interior. Single-hung windows feature hardware that automatically locks when windows are closed. Hardware color matches the window’s interior. Dark Bronze* Dark Bronze Black*White Sandtone New metal Slim Line hardware is available in White, Sandtone, Dark Bronze, Black, Satin Nickel and Antique Brass. GRILLES Choose from the following grille options: • Finelight™ grilles-between- the-glass • Finelight with exterior grilles • Simulated divided light • Full divided light All grille options are available in a variety of patterns. For help finding an Andersen product or dealer near you, please call us at 877.577.7655 or visit andersenwindows.com. Page 29 of 71 65 HardiePlank® Lap Siding Product Description HardiePlank® lap siding is factory-primed fiber-cement lap siding available in a variety of styles and textures. Please see your local James Hardie® product dealer for product availability. HardiePlank lap siding comes in 3657mm (12 ft) lengths. Nominal widths from 133mm (5 ¼ in) to 305mm (12 in) create a range of exposures from 100mm (4 in) to 210mm (8 ¼ in). HardiePlank lap siding is also available with ColorPlus® Technology as one of James Hardie’s prefinished products. ColorPlus® Technology is a factory applied, oven-baked finish available on a variety of James Hardie siding and trim products. See your local dealer for details and availability of products, colors, and accessories. The HZ5® product line is right at home in climates with freezing temperatures, seasonal temperature variations, snow and ice. HZ5® boards are the result of our generational evolution of our time-tested products. We’ve evolved our substrate composition to be specifically designed to perform in conditions found in these climates. To ensure that its beauty matches its durability, we’ve engineered the surface for higher performance, giving it superior paint adhesion and moisture resistance. In addition, we’ve added a drip edge to the HardiePlank® HZ5® lap siding product to provide improved water management in conditions specific to HZ5® climates. Cedarmill ©Smooth Beaded Smooth Colonial Roughsawn Beaded Cedarmill © Colonial Smooth Sloped Edge Nail Line Drip Edge Ge n e r a l Pr o d u c t In f o r m a t i o n Wo r k i n g Sa f e l y To o l s f o r Cu t t i n g a n d Fa s t e n i n g Ge n e r a l In s t a l l a t i o n Re q u i r e m e n t s Ge n e r a l Fa s t e n e r Re q u i r e m e n t s Fi n i s h i n g a n d Ma i n t e n a n c e Ha r d i e T r i m ® B o a r d s / B a t t e n s Ha r d i e S o f f i t ® P a n e l s Ha r d i e P l a n k ® L a p S i d i n g Ha r d i e S h i n g l e ® S i d i n g Ha r d i e P a n e l ® V e r t i c a l S i d i n g Ap p e n d i x / Gl o s s a r y CC M C Re p o r t Page 30 of 71 Page 31 of 71 • Attractive Appearance... Features a classic shadow effect. Lends any home a subtle, even-toned look with the warmth of wood. • Great Value... Architecturally stylish but practically priced. • High Performance... Designed with Advanced Protection® Shingle Technology, which reduces the use of natural resources while providing excellent protection for your home (visit gaf.com/APS/ to learn more). • Highest Roofing Fire Rating... UL Class A, Listed to ANSI/UL 790. • Stays In Place... Dura Grip™ Adhesive seals each shingle tightly and reduces the risk of shingle blow- off. Shingles are warranted to withstand winds up to 130 mph.1 • Peace Of Mind... Lifetime ltd. transferable warranty with Smart Choice® Protection (non-prorated material and installation labor coverage) for the first ten years.2 • Perfect Finishing Touch... Use Timbertex® Premium Ridge Cap Shingles or Ridglass® Premium Ridge Cap Shingles.3 1 This wind speed coverage requires special installation; see GAF Shingle & Accessory Ltd. Warranty for details. 2 See GAF Shingle & Accessory Ltd. Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. The word “Lifetime” refers to the length of coverage provided by the GAF Shingle & Accessory Ltd. Warranty and means as long as the original individual owner(s) of a single-family detached residence [or the second owner(s) in certain circumstances] owns the property where the shingles are installed. For owners/structures not meeting the above criteria, Lifetime coverage is not applicable. 3 These products are not available in all areas. See www.gaf.com/ridgecapavailability for details. Value & Performance In A Natural Wood-Shake Look *Notes on Color Availability: • Arctic White only available in the Shafter area. • Pewter Gray only available in the Baltimore/Myerstown and Michigan City areas. • Timberline® Natural Shadow® Shingles are not available in the Tampa area. 19 Barkwood* Shakewood* Slate* Charcoal* Hickory* Weathered Wood* Pewter Gray* Arctic White*U.S.only ENERGY STAR® CERTIFIED! (White Only) T IMBERLINE® LIFETIME S HINGLES—N ORTH AMERICA’S #1−S ELLING ROOF Where They Fit Within The Lifetime Roofing System 1. Lifetime Shingles 2. Leak Barrier 3. Starter Strip Shingles 4. Roof Deck Protection 5. Cobra® Attic Ventilation 6. Ridge Cap Shingles 1919 hey Fit Within The Lifetime Roofing System me Shingles Barrier r Strip Shingles Deck Protection a® Attic ation Cap les 2 3 4 1 5 6 Page 32 of 71 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:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042564Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/1/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1940 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: porch replaced, new door) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:926 ID:609 *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:124302 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.639019 Longitude -97.673912 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 33 of 71 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:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos WestPhoto Direction SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 34 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 1 of 15 Meeting Date: May 24, 2018 File Number: COA-2018-009 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) A Building Height Exception of 5-feet 3-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 20-feet 3-inches, at the prescribed 10-foot rear setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; 2) A Building Height Exception of 3-feet 9-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 18-feet 9-inches, at the prescribed 6-foot side setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; 3) Demolition of an addition at the rear of the residential structure; 4) Residential Renovation and 5) Residential Addition for the property located at 501 S. Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.16 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 31, Lot 8 (COA-2018-009). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: The Turpin Residence, Demolition, Addition and Remodel Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd, Design Build Property Owner: William and Karen Turpin Property Address: 501 Elm Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: .16 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 31, Lot 8 Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: HARC Conceptual Review December 14, 2017 (plan view only, no renderings or massings were provided). HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: est. 1940 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low 2007 - Medium 2016 - Medium National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No Page 35 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 2 of 15 APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing substantial investment in the subject property. The proposed work includes the relocation of the primary structure within the same lot, demolition, renovation, addition and a height exception. The following list specifies the specific work proposed by the applicant: Relocation of the existing 1,050 sq. ft. historic structure and porch within the same lot. The Unified Development Code specifies this as an administrative review. Demolition of a 165’ rear addition. - The applicant believes that the rear of the home originally had a covered porch, as evidenced by a change in floor finish and the slope of the floors. According to the applicant, this area was enclosed, and converted to utility and bathrooms. There is also visual evidence that this portion is separating from the main structure. The applicant is requesting to demolish this enclosed rear porch to allow for the new addition to connect to the house. The front porch on the main structure will also be moved along with the home and rebuilt in the same configuration. However, the current, non-original porch columns will be replaced with historic style appropriate square columns. The roofing material on the porch is currently composite shingles. The applicant is requesting to change to galvalume metal. New additions to the rear and side. - A new, 2,183 sq. ft. addition is proposed. There is approximately 141 sq. ft. addition that is proposed on the east side of the existing structure which is visible from S. Elm Street. Additionally, the applicant proposes an addition to the south façade of the home that would run parallel to Elm Street (east elevation). This addition will continue the roofline of the existing home, but will have a slight setback and have a change in siding to a vertical hardi siding. The remaining 2,042 sq. ft. at the rear of the existing structure will include a dining room, screened porch, covered porch, two-car garage and a guest suite over the garage. Material changes include window replacement(s), roof material change on the porch, paint color change and removal of existing boxed windows. -The applicant is proposing to replace all of the windows on the existing home, some of which are single-pane wooden windows. The applicant did not provide information on how many are original and how many have been replaced. The request is to replace all existing windows citing Energy Code purposes. The applicant is proposing Anderson 100 composite fiberglass windows; changing the materials from wood to composite fiberglass but retaining the three over one style currently on the home. The existing structure has two box or bay style windows that face E. 5th Street (north elevation). These windows are typical of the 60’s or 70’s era construction and are not original to the home. These box windows will be removed and replaced with windows similar to the style currently on the home. There is currently wood siding on the structure, which will be repaired, if needed, and wood will be used to fill in areas where the box windows will be removed. Building Height Exceptions- The applicant is requesting two exceptions to building height. Allowable building height is 15’ at the prescribed setback. Page 36 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 3 of 15 o The first building height exception request is an exception of 5-feet 3-inches from the 15- foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 20-feet 3-inches, at the prescribed 10-foot rear setback. o The second height exception is an exception of 3-feet 9-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 18-feet 9-inches, at the prescribed 6-foot side setback. Portions of the request are reviewed by staff per UDC 3.13.010, including: Staff Review: Relocation of the structure Non-street facing additions Removal of the boxed windows (not original) Porch roofing change Paint color change Other elements of the request are review by HARC per UDC 3.13.010, including: Replacement of all street facing facade windows Demolition of rear addition Street facing additions Exception to height at rear setback Exception to height at side setback 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 5 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS 5.1 Maintain existing wall materials and textures. Avoid removing materials that are in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Remove only those materials that are deteriorated and must be replaced. Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building that is no longer historic. In many cases, original building materials may not be damaged beyond repair and do not require replacement. Repainting wood, ensuring proper drainage, and keeping the material clean may be all that is necessary. Complies 5.2 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials. Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. Complies Page 37 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 4 of 15 Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair. Also, special masonry repair components may be used. 5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on a primary surface. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material should be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and finish. Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only replace them and not the entire wall. Complies 5.5 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl siding, or panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials on an historic structure. Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick may not be replaced with synthetic materials. See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors, published by the National Park Service. Complies CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening. Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been altered over time is encouraged. Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The proportions of these windows contribute to the character of each residence and commercial storefront. Complies 6.14 Maintenance of windows. Wash windows. N/A Clean debris from windows. N/A Replace loose or broken glass in kind. This will reduce air leaks. N/A • Replace damaged muntins, moldings, or glazing compound with material that matches the original in shape, size, and material. • Repair window hardware or replace with materials that match the original in scale and design. If the replacement hardware does not match the original design it should be simple, unobtrusive, and compatible with the style and building’s period of significance. • Install weather-stripping. This will enhance energy conservation significantly. Maintain the interior views, so that either merchandise or furniture can be seen. N/A Does Not Comply, Replacing wood windows Page 38 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 5 of 15 6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood. • Avoid the removal of damaged wood that can be repaired. • Rebuild or repair portions of existing window frames, sashes, sills, or portions thereof, rather than replacing complete windows unless it is technically infeasible to do so. • See also Preservation Briefs #9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows, published by the National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden- windows.htm Does Not Comply, Replacing wood windows 6.16 Glass in doors and windows should be retained. • If it is broken or has been removed in the past, consider replacing it with new glass. If security is a concern, consider using wire glass, tempered glass, or light metal security bars (preferably on the interior). • Replacement glass may be insulating glass, but it should match the style and color of the original glass. • Replacement glass should match the historic glass - clear, rolled (‘wavy”), tinted, etc. • Removal of historic leaded, art, stained, beveled, prismatic glass, etc. should not be permitted, unless it is damaged and is technically infeasible to repair. N/A 6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original design as closely as possible. • Preserve the original casing, when feasible. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be doublehung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the building’s architectural style are inappropriate. • 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- N/A A screen door should be sized to fit the original entrance opening and the design should be of the appropriate style and period of the building- N/A Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they should follow the guidelines for screen doors. N/A Partially Complies, proposed replacement windows not wood 6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to solid wall. Complies 6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing. • Do not remove original details from a porch. These include the columns, balustrade, and any decorative brackets that may exist. Partially Complies, roofing material Page 39 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 6 of 15 Maintain the existing location, shape, details, and columns of the porch. Missing or deteriorated decorative elements should be replaced with new wood, milled to match existing elements. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. Unless used historically, wrought iron porch posts and columns are inappropriate- N/A Where an historic porch does not meet current code requirements and alterations are needed or required, then retrofit it to meet the code, while also preserving original features. Do not replace a porch that can otherwise be modified to meet code requirements- N/A A missing porch and its steps should be reconstructed, using photographic documentation and historical research, to be compatible in design and detail with the period and style of the building- N/A Most precast concrete steps are not acceptable alternatives for primary façade porches- N/A • Construction of a new non-original porch is usually inappropriate. The construction of a non-original second or third level porch, balcony, deck, or sun porch on the roof of an existing front porch is inappropriate- N/A and color change 6.28 Avoid altering original chimneys. Existing brick chimneys should not be removed or covered with stone, stucco, or other non-original material. If chimneys are damaged or missing they should be restored to their original condition or reconstructed in keeping with the chimney design of the period. Complies CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building. An addition should be made distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should match that of the original building, in appearance, detail, and material. Even applying a new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition. See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. Complies Page 40 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 7 of 15 https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior- additions.htm 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Partially Complies, visible from Elm St. 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Partially Complies, scale and form of the rear addition and east addition of new front facing façade do not support two criteria 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback. Align the new non-residential building front at a setback that is in context with the area properties- N/A New residential buildings should meet the minimum front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if the block has historically developed with an extended setback- N/A Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing façades. Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks. Partially Complies, no sidewalk provided on either Elm St. or 5th Street 14.2 In the front yard, acknowledge the residential character of the area with residential type landscape treatments. Complies 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. Staff requesting salvageable materials list to meet compliance Page 41 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 8 of 15 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged. Complies 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 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. Does Not Comply 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Partially Complies, visible from Elm St. 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Partially Complies, scale and form of the rear addition and east addition of new front facing façade do not support two criteria 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. Complies 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies 14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed. Complies 14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. Complies 14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when additions are proposed. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The subject structure is identified as a 1940s one- story bungalow on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. The property is a corner lot making the long and narrow one-story story bungalow highly Page 42 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 9 of 15 visible on two sides. The subject property is bordered on two sides by low priority structures, 2 of which are single story. Beyond the block the subject is situated, there are a mix of multi-story new construction single and multi-family new construction residences exempt from HARC review given their compliance with zoning district standards (outlined in yellow below). There is insufficient information provided to support the replacement of all of the windows on the structure, particularly those on the street facing facades. The Design Guidelines recommend maintaining historic wooden windows to retain the existing material and character. HARC approval criteria number 3 per UDC Section 3.13.030, provides information on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable . Based on the research and information these briefs provide, energy efficiency is not a strong argument for replacing historic windows. Page 43 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 10 of 15 “A common misconception is that replacing windows alone will result in major energy savings. Although it varies from building to building, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has documented that air loss attributable to windows in most buildings is only about 10% of the total air loss. Studies have shown that window replacement does not pay for itself in energy savings in a reasonable length of time. Moreover, there are ways to improve the performance of historic windows that do not require their replacement. In addition, historic windows can usually be repaired and are, thus, sustainable, while most new windows cannot be repaired, or even recycled, and may wind up in landfills.” https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/3-improve-energy-efficiency.htm The porch located on the front of the existing home proposes a change in roof materials from shingles to galvanized metal. Using materials to match those that have been used historically is the best approach according to the Design Guidelines, if a substitute material is considered, it should be similar in color, design, composition and texture to the original. Changing to a galvalume metal roofing material when the home has a shingle roof neither meets the intention of the guidelines for identifying a substitute material, nor is compatible with the main structure’s roofing material or with the materials used in the surrounding neighborhood. Per page 54 of the Design Guidelines, HARC should take the following into consideration when asked to approve the alteration or addition of a historic porch relating to materials: 1. The proposed new porch is similar to the historic porch in regards to size, style, detail, and shape and will be constructed from historic or appropriate new materials. 2. If inadequate documentation of original porches exists, a new porch should be typical of those built in the style of the historic building. A simplified adaptation may be allowed if physical evidence of the original is non-existent or if the design is prohibitively expensive to recreate. 3. Whether the existing porch materials are being retained, unless it is technically infeasible to do so. The applicant is requesting approximately 2,183 sq. ft. of additional space. Part of the addition will be on the east side of the structure, facing S. Elm Street and will create a new street facing façade. The proposed material is hardie siding instead of wood and it will be placed in a vertical manner instead of horizontally to create a visual distinction between the historic structure and the new one. The addition that is facing Elm St. is slightly setback, but not enough to retain the primary character -defining façade. The new addition, set back slightly and varied in material from the original façade, does not support the prominence of the original structure. Below is an example which demonstrates how an addition, set back from an original structure, maintains the prominence. Page 44 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 11 of 15 The second part of the addition is off of the rear of the existing structure and include an attached two-story garage. The portion attached to the home will have a slightly lower roofline and will be setback along E. 5th Street to distinguish it from the historic structure . The design of this addition with more windows, a screened-in porch and vertical siding will increase the distinction between the existing historic home and the addition. The total proposed additions are over 200% of the original structure, and the two-story garage is requesting two exceptions to the UDC height requirements. The Design Guidelines provide commentary related to proportion: “A historic addition typically was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. The height of the addition was usually positioned below that of the main structure and it was often located to the side or rear, such that the primary facade remained dominate. An addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those in use historically. In some cases, owners simply added on to an existing roof, creating more usable space without increasing the footprint of the structure. This tradition of adding on to buildings is anticipated to continue. It is important, however, that new additions be designed in such a manner that they maintain the character of the primary structure. The compatibility of proposed additions with historic buildings will be reviewed in terms of the mass, the scale, the materials, the color, the roof form, and the proportion and spacing of windows and doors. Additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions that introduce compatible contemporary design could be acceptable.” “An addition to a structure can radically change its perceived scale and character if inappropriately designed. When planning an addition, consider the effect the addition will have on the building itself. When creating an addition, keep the size of the addition small, in relation Page 45 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 12 of 15 to the main structure. If an addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the main structure and connected with a smaller linking element. A design for a new addition that would create an appearance inconsistent with the character of the building, especially an historic one, is discouraged. One also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of a street or neighborhood, as seen from the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case.” The materials and design proposed are appropriate and work well with the existing historic structure, however the mass and scale in context with the original structure and surrounding area does not. The proposed addition space is more than 200% of the size of the original home and the Floor-to- Area Ratio of 45% required by the UDC is maximized. Considering the amount of increase and the need to and honoring the UDC requirements for setbacks and height at setbacks is important to retaining the character and integrity of the historic property. Two-story elements are seen on some surrounding structures, but not on the adjacent home that is most similar in design to the subject property at 501 S. Elm Street. The proposed location, at the rear of the lot, is ideal, however the proposed height at the proposed location does not meet the height requirements. For the attached two- story garage addition, the applicant is requesting two exceptions to building height, which is 15’ at the prescribed setback. The first building height exception request is an exception of 5-feet 3-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 20-feet 3-inches, at the prescribed 10-foot rear setback. The second height exception is an exception of 3-feet 9-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 18-feet 9-inches, at the prescribed 6-foot side setback. When an exception to building height is being requested HARC should consider the following criteria: Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height Exceptions. 1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District; b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing, and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following information: Page 46 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 13 of 15 a. A visual analysis that identifies: i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the character of the district; and b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings. 3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Partially Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies Page 47 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 14 of 15 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Comply 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Comply 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed relocation of the structure is appropriate and that the design and location of the proposed addition on the east façade generally meets the Design Guidelines Criteria, however the proposed changes to the porch roof material, the applicants desire to replace all windows, and garage addition (mass and scale) do not meet the criteria. The renovations to the roof of the existing porch, with the proposed material change, do not maintain the character of the existing porch. The request to use metal for the roofing does not meet the Design Guidelines of finding a material that is the same or similar to the original nor does it match the material of the main structure. The request to replace all of the existing wooden windows does not meet the preservation principals in the Design Guidelines Chapter 3 and Chapter 6, which prioritize maintenance over replacement. The removal of the wood siding on the rear and east elevations to allow for the proposed additions should be salvaged and reused if possible. A letter of intent for salvageable materials should be provided detailing the amount of salvageable material and the proposed end use. The proposed garage addition does not meet the Design Guidelines Criteria and exceeds the UDC requirements for height at the setbacks. The proposed two-story addition requesting two exceptions to height requirements at the rear and side setbacks is not appropriate to the context of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of a portion of the rear of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the other requests with the conditions that the porch roofing material be changed to match the roofing material and color of the historic structure, that the wooden windows on the street facing facades (3) be repaired instead of replaced, that the proposed addition is moved to meet the height requirements at the prescribed setbacks. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) Exhibit 4- Specifications PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 48 of 71 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-009] – 501 S. Elm Street Page 15 of 15 Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner Page 49 of 71 File Number: COA-2017-009 Meeting Date: 5/10/2018 Page 1 of 2 HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-09 501 S. Elm MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May10, 2018 MEETING LOCATION: 501 S. ELM APPLICANT: Heather Donahue, J. Bryant Boyd Architects SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lawrence Romero; Shawn Hood; Glenn Holcomb, Building Official; Mark Moore, Chief Inspector; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; STAFF PRESENT: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary; Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner OTHERS PRESENT: None COMMENTS Applicant: The applicant was present. Subcommittee: What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that should be made to the structure for re-occupancy? The structure has significant foundation issues and is beginning to separate from the main structure. Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure to its original design? No. the area at the back (East) of the house was a covered porch as evidenced by the sloping floors and change in floor finish. This area was enclosed and converted to utility and bath rooms during a previous remodel. May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored? Returning the structure to a covered porch is possible. Page 50 of 71 Page 51 of 71 Page 52 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 24, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and dis c us sion of conceptual des ign fo r the renovation and ad d ition to a res id ential property lo cated at 1227 C hurch S t – Madison Tho mas , AIC P Downto wn & His to ric Planner ITEM SUMMARY: This review will p ro vide d irectio n o n the pro jec t regard ing c o mp lianc e with the Do wntown and Old To wn Design Guidelines . C o nc ep tual review allo ws the o p p o rtunity fo r dialogue with the Commission and staff to d is cus s the c o mp o nents o f the p ro ject, s pec ific ally, the p ro p o s ed addition. The ap p licant is s eeking feed b ack on the following projec t components whic h have b een revised s inc e the las t conceptual review o n 4/26/2018.: Rear ad d ition 1. Churc h S treet faç ad e 2. S. Myrtle S treet faç ad e 3. Varianc e reques t o f 2-fo o t 7-inches to the 15’ height at setb ack FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP Downto wn & His to ric Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Applicable Des ign Guidelines Exhibit Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 and 4 -Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 5- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Page 53 of 71 APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. • Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening. • Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been altered over time is encouraged. • Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The proportions of these windows contribute to the character of each residence and commercial storefront. Partially Complies, window removal and addition of French Doors at the rear of the property, HARC was receptive to this proposed change. 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. • 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. Partially Complies, HARC conceptual feedback was receptive to replacement. 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 Partially Complies, minimal wood windows left and most beyond repair. 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. Partially Complies, Fibrex composite Page 54 of 71 • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be doublehung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. • Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the building’s architectural style are inappropriate. • 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. material proposed instead of wood, and 8/8 style will be retained. Received support from HARC during conceptual. CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. • Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. • An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. • While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. • An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. • Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Partially Complies 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT Page 55 of 71 14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback. Complies 14.2 In the front yard, acknowledge the residential character of the area with residential type landscape treatments. Complies 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. Complies 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged. Complies 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 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 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. • Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. • An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. • While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. • An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. • Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Partially Complies 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. Complies 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies 14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed. Complies Page 56 of 71 14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. Complies Page 57 of 71 Page 58 of 71 1227 CHURCH ST. REMODEL To Whom It May Concern: Owners, Jeff and Lisa Zook purchased this home in 2013 with a dream of moving to Georgetown. And with their last child heading off to college soon, they are finally making this dream a reality. We are looking for your help and support in renovating this home, to allow ample space for their family, while maintaining the character of the home. Siding/Paint: The house is currently covered in vinyl siding. Upon removal of the existing vinyl siding, we discovered that the current wood siding is completely covered by insulation board. We removed a section of the insulation board, to discover that the underlying wooden siding, in that area, is deteriorated to the point of needing replacement. We are proposing to leave the existing wood siding and insulation board, and cover the structure in James Hardie lap siding. Similar to the houses immediately to the right and left, this product will help to preserve the structure and character of the house. The house color will be an off-white, Benjamin Moore Swiss Coffee. Windows: The existing single pane windows leak air and water, and result in high heating and cooling charges. We are proposing to utilize Andersen 100 Series Single-Hung Windows, with 8 over 8 divided glass, to match existing size and location on the house. A patio door has been added to the master bedroom, on the rear of the structure, for additional egress, per the homeowners’ request. We will switch to undivided glass in the rear addition. Demolition of Attached Garage/New Addition: To the east, facing Myrtle Street, the structure has an attached single car garage. Prior to purchase, this portion of the structure had been converted to a utility space and game room. The current condition of this area is substantially deteriorated, as the foundation has failed, resulting in water entering the structure during periods of rain. The flooding has also caused structural damage to the supporting walls. To repair this portion of the structure correctly, the converted garage will need to be removed, and proper foundation installed. Due to the costly nature of this repair, and in an effort to adaptively use the space, we propose to construct an addition, as opposed to simply rebuilding the garage. As identified in Section 7 of the Design Guidelines, the addition will be located to the rear of the structure, and be compatible with the primary building. We will match the existing roof, siding, and paint to complement the existing structure, but also maintain the original character of the home. Page 59 of 71 Due to the location of the existing house beyond the building set-back, and non-conforming nature of the proposed addition, we are requesting an exception to the building height standards. The addition has been designed to meet the minimum 6’ set back; however, the height will exceed the maximum standard of 15’ by 6”. Our plan is not to overwhelm or detract from the character of the historic district, but rather to be compatible to the height, scale, and massing of the neighboring two- story houses, and contribute to the aesthetics of the area. It is our goal, based on the relationship of this structure to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity, to reinforce and preserve the character of the historic district. Impervious Cover Ratio: 42% We greatly appreciate your help and consideration, and look forward to working with you. Page 60 of 71 Page 61 of 71 Page 62 of 71 Page 63 of 71 Page 64 of 71 Page 65 of 71 Page 66 of 71 SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS 100 SERIES DURABLE • Virtually maintenance-free • Rigorously tested to deliver years* of smooth, reliable operation • Fibrex material construction provides long-lasting* performance • Durable, low-maintenance finish won’t fade, flake, blister or peel* • Fibrex material is twice as strong as vinyl Andersen® 100 Series single-hung windows allow ventilation through a single operable lower sash that slides up and down. Classic rectangular shapes are available, or use an arched top for added elegance. Made with our revolutionary Fibrex® composite material, 100 Series products are durable, environmentally smart and energy efficient. 100 Series products are available in deep, rich colors that complement virtually any architectural style. For added style, we offer a wide range of grille patterns and patterned glass options. ENERGY EFFICIENT • Weather-resistant construction for greater comfort and energy efficiency • Weatherstripping is designed to seal out drafts, wind and water • Variety of Low-E glass options are available to help control heating and cooling costs in any climate • Many 100 Series single-hung windows have options that make them ENERGY STAR® v. 6.0 certified throughout the U.S. BEAUTIFUL • Clean, attractive corner seams • Six exterior color options • Attractive matte finish interiors available in four colors • Add style with grilles or patterned glass Dark BronzeWhiteSandtoneTerratoneCocoa Bean Black EXTERIOR COLORS *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. “ENERGY STAR” is a registered trademark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Page 67 of 71 Fibrex® material combines the strength and durability of wood with the low-maintenance of vinyl. The wood fibers are reclaimed from our own factories, which makes this product sustainable and environmentally responsible. 100 SERIES SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS HARDWARE FRAME OPTIONS 1-3/8" flange setback, 1" flange setback with stucco key or replacement configuration. INTERIOR OPTIONS HIGH-PERFORMANCE GLASS OPTIONS • Low-E glass • Low-E glass with HeatLock® technology • Low-E SmartSun™ glass • Low-E SmartSun glass with HeatLock technology Tempered glass and other glass options are available. Contact your Andersen dealer. PATTERNED GLASS Ideal for letting light into the home while obscuring vision. Available in four attractive patterns. ADDITIONAL FEATURES • Sash lock engages automatically when operable sash is closed • Operable sash has a meeting stile cover with a unique raised profile design, allowing the sash to be opened and closed easily ReedObscure FernCascade *Dark Bronze and Black interiors are only available with Dark Bronze and Black exteriors respectively. **Sunburst pattern is only available with Finelight grilles. Printing limitations prevent exact color and finish duplication. See your Andersen dealer for actual finish samples. “Andersen” and all other marks where denoted are trademarks of Andersen Corporation. ©2018 Andersen Corporation. All rights reserved. 12/17 Optional lift handle matches the window’s interior. Single-hung windows feature hardware that automatically locks when windows are closed. Hardware color matches the window’s interior. Dark Bronze* Dark Bronze Black*White Sandtone New metal Slim Line hardware is available in White, Sandtone, Dark Bronze, Black, Satin Nickel and Antique Brass. Colonial Finelight™ Grilles- Between-the-Glass Finelight™ with Exterior Grilles Full Divided Light Simulated Divided Light Prairie A Tall Fractional Sunburst**Specified Equal Light (2 x 2) GRILLES Choose from the following grille options: All grille options are available in a variety of patterns. For more information or to find a dealer, visit andersenwindows.com/100series or call 877.577.7655. Page 68 of 71 1312 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. HardiePlank® 6.25 in. Smooth Arctic White HardieTrim® 5/4 x 3.5 in. Arctic White Products are available primed or with ColorPlus Technology finishes. For more details, visit jameshardie.com Thickness 5/16 in. Length 12 ft. planks Width 8 in. Exposure 6.75 in. ColorPlus Pcs./Pallet 216 Prime Pcs./Pallet 240 Pcs./Sq.14.9 Thickness 5/16 in. Length 12 ft. planks Width 8.25 in. Exposure 7 in. ColorPlus Pcs./Pallet 210 Prime Pcs./Pallet 240 Pcs./Sq.14.3 Thickness 5/16 in. Length 12 ft. planks Width 5.25 in.6.25 in.7.25 in.8.25 in.9.25 in.12 in. Exposure 4 in.5 in.6 in.7 in.8 in.10.75 in. ColorPlus Pcs./Pallet 324 280 252 210 Prime Pcs./Pallet 360 308 252 230 190 152 Pcs./Sq.25.0 20.0 16.7 14.3 12.5 9.3 SELECT CEDARMILL©* Woodstock Brown SMOOTH* Countrylane Red CUSTOM BEADED CEDARMILL© Light Mist CUSTOM BEADED SMOOTH Heathered Moss CUSTOM COLONIAL™ ROUGHSAWN Mountain Sage CUSTOM COLONIAL™ SMOOTH Timber Bark *6.25 in. and 8.25 in. also available in coastal colors. 9.25 in. and 12 in. only available primed. Page 69 of 71 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041539Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950 Bungalow Other Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s) Note: See additional photo(s) on page 2 General Notes: Explain Upon reassessment, due to alterations, priority has been lowered from the previous survey. Geographic Location Latitude:30.63123 Longitude -97.675391 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 795 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125738 2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: Northeast Page 70 of 71 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos EastPhoto Direction Page 71 of 71