Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.23.2021Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown September 23, 2021 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B S taff presentation of the updated HAR C C ommis s ioner manuals , inc luding the updated His toric District Design G uidelines. C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the S eptember 9, 2021 regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director E Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Demolition S ubc ommittee. - Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner F Conceptual review of a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that c reates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and replacing historic architec tural features with a non-his toric arc hitectural features at the property loc ated at 907 S . Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal desc ription Lots 5 & 6, Bloc k 19, G lassc ock Addition. (2021-49-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting Page 1 of 90 I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 90 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 23, 2021 S UB J E C T: S taff pres entation of the updated HAR C C ommissioner manuals, including the updated Historic Dis tric t Des ign G uidelines . IT E M S UMMARY: P res entation and distribution of hard c opies of the c ommis s ioner manuals . F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner Page 3 of 90 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 23, 2021 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the S eptember 9, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, P rogram Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type minutes Backup Material Page 4 of 90 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Meeting: September 9, 2021 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes September 9, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Terri Hyde; Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn; Catherine Morales; Faustine Curry; Pamela Mitchell Members Absent: Robert McCabe Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Planning Director; Mirna Garcia, Program Manager Meeting called to order by Chair Curry at 6 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 12, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Program Manager Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (7-0). C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a medium priority historic structure at the property located at 404 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Page 5 of 90 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Meeting: September 9, 2021 Staff report by Bostick. The subject property in this application, the west half of Lots 1 & 2, was sold by Eunice Dunham to her children in 1980. They sold the property to Joel Goode in 1983, and Joel and Lynn Goode owned the property for nearly a decade. Willie Mae Montgomery purchased it in 1991, and the current owner purchased the property in 2021. The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos of Georgetown show two very similarly shaped houses next to each other at 404 and 406 E. 4th Street. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey did not capture the houses as they had not met the 50-year criteria for inclusion on the survey, but the houses were recorded on the 2007 survey. The house on the east half of Lots 1 & 2 was approved for demolition by HARC on November 20, 2008. The subject structure was included in the 2016 Historic Resource Survey as a medium priority structure; however, it was categorized as low priority on the 2007 survey. Despite the 2016 survey’s estimation that the structure is unaltered, the porch at the entrance appears to have been altered from a simpler original entrance. Unusually, the house appears to be positioned with its side as the primary façade, with the entrance through a side porch rather than through a distinct front door. The house formerly next door was similarly constructed and oriented, without the porch addition. Although listed as a medium priority structure constructed in 1940 on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey, research has indicated that the house was constructed in 1950 as an exact or near-exact copy of the house previously next door and approved by HARC for demolition in 2008. Although the house is distinctive in its orientation to the side, it does not clearly represent a particular style or period of architecture or surrounding development patterns. Romero asked if foundation was ever looked at by engineer. Applicant commented that they have not had engineer evaluate it. Romero asked the Commission to include an archive requirement when the motion is made since it is a medium priority structure. Commissioner Hyde asked for a demolition subcommittee report. Chair Curry asked Commissioner Nunn and Johnston to provide a little explanation when they held the demolition subcommittee meeting. Commissioner Nunn and Johnston commented that there was nothing unique associated with the structure. Bostick explained the report, including that there were no significant changes made to the structure. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item C (2020-34-COA) with the condition of archival by Romero. Second by Morales. The Commission discussed with the applicant what it would mean to do an archival, and cost to applicant. Bostick explained the archival process and what it would include. Motion approved 7-0. D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new residential (infill) construction and a 5’-0” setback encroachment into the required 20’- 0” front setback to allow a residential structure 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the Page 6 of 90 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Meeting: September 9, 2021 property located at 404 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 2,544 sq. ft. two- story residential structure with a 484 sq. ft. detached garage at the rear. The proposed structures would have fiber cement siding and standing seam metal roofs and be modeled after a two- story farmhouse with detached rear garage. The front porch is proposed to be 6’ deep with a shed roof and slender columns and extend the width of the front facade. The house has a centered front door and symmetrical 4/4 windows on the first and second floors. The applicant has provided a photo of the design inspiration in the attached Exhibit 3. A 15’ Public Utility Easement (PUE) exists at the rear of the property and the new structures cannot be constructed to the rear 10’ setback as structures cannot be located within a PUE. The applicant is therefore requesting a 5’ front setback modification, which would shift the structures 5’ closer to the front property line to account for the PUE, and which would also align the front façade with structures on adjoining properties and along the block. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item D (2020-34-COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved 7-0. E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps at the property located at 711 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.14 acres, part of Block 17, Shell Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for changes to the front porch, which include replacement of the wood railing with metal railing and changes to the porch decking, stairs and skirting. Due to ongoing issues with water drainage back toward the foundation of the house and a need for more secure and safe stair railings, the property owner found it necessary to replace the prior wood railings with metal railings, add railings for the stairs, and to add wood flooring to the porch to correct a slope issue and provide a safer walking surface. The owner is also proposing to install painted fiber cement siding around the porch sides to cover the current exposed concrete. This project is in partnership with Preservation Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Grant Program. Commissioner Walton commented that the project does not look finished and he would like to see the wood stained or treated. Chair curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item E (2021-38-COA) with the condition that the project be completed, specifically that the wood surfaces be treated or stained by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved 7-0. F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the property located at 115 W. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.114 acre, being part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 38, City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Page 7 of 90 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Meeting: September 9, 2021 The Applicant is requesting HARC approval to replace the upper floor 1/1 wood windows on the front façade with new 1/1 wood windows using the same window product approved for the replacement of the Lockett Building upper floor windows. The existing wood windows, which have deteriorated and are leaking and causing water damage, do not appear to be the original windows. The building is known to have undergone a rehabilitation project prior to 1989, and the windows may have been replaced in that project, however it is not clear from historic photos if the windows were repaired or replaced. The current windows either have a tinted glass or a tinted window film applied to the glass on 5 of the 6 upper floor windows, which has been in place since at least 2008. The windows do not appear to have been tinted in a c. 2003 photo of the building. The proposed new windows would have clear, insulated glass and use the same window style and configuration as the existing. Chair Curry asked Bostick to explain insulated glass. Bostick provided further explanation. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item E (2021-39-COA) with the conditions the windows be one over one configuration and clear glass by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved 7-0. G. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1102 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description 0.25 acres in Block 9, Snyder Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 5’ tall iron fence along the side street property line to enclose the rear yard with a taller fence than the 3’ tall fence planned for the front yard. In the Old Town Overlay District, fence height along front and side street property lines is limited to 3’ in height and 50% transparency unless an alternate fence is approved by HARC. The proposed iron fence has more than 50% transparency and includes decorative details similar to the existing fence on the abutting property to the east of the subject property. 6’ tall privacy fences are permitted if they are set back a minimum of 15’ from the side street property line, and the applicant would be able to construct the requested fence behind that 15’ setback; however, they are requesting the 5’ fence along the side street property line to be able to enclose a larger portion of the rear and side yard for pets. Commissioner Romero sought clarification regarding the location of the fence. Bostick explained the height and where the new fence will be. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item G (2020-41-COA) by Commission Hyde. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 7-0. H. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Page 8 of 90 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Meeting: September 9, 2021 Bostick explained that there will be no cases at the next meeting. However, Commissioners will receive design guidelines books and will vote to select an alternate member to the demolition subcommittee. Commissioner Walton commented on the training he attended and would like to provide the materials to the rest of the Commissioners. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 7-0. Adjourned at 7:35p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Faustine Curry, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary Page 9 of 90 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 23, 2021 S UB J E C T: Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Demolition S ubcommittee. - Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: P er HAR C Bylaws S ection 1.3.a. HAR C shall shall appoint a Demolition S ubc ommittee to review and provide a rec ommendation to the HAR C on requests for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or s tructure des ignated as a His toric Landmark or a contributing historic s tructure, in ac cordance with the proc es s establis hed in the Unified Development C ode. 1. T he Demolition S ubc ommittee shall be composed of at least three members . 2. T he members of the Demolition S ubcommittee s hall cons is t of two HAR C members and the Building O fficial. Two subcommittee members are currently appointed, and this item is for the appointment of additional members to serve as voting alternates on the Demolition S ubcommittee. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner Page 10 of 90 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 23, 2021 S UB J E C T: Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade and replac ing his toric arc hitectural features with a non-historic architec tural features at the property located at 907 S . Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal des cription Lots 5 & 6, Block 19, G las s coc k Addition. (2021-49-C O A) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val o f a rehabilitation and rear ad d ition to the high p rio rity main s tructure o n the property, whic h b egan as an 1890 F o lk Victo rian s tructure and later exp anded with rear additions . T he ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to remove the 1950s and 1960s -era rear additions, c o ns truc t a new rear living spac e and sc reened porc h additio n with a two -s tory p o rtion fo r the living s pac e ad d ition, replace the his toric windows , replac e the his to ric siding, remove and rep lace the exis ting c himney and remo ve the decorative detail above the front porch, as well as adjust the s lope of the roof over the front porch to c reate a steeper slope to as s is t drainage. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit Staff Pres entation Pres entation Page 11 of 90 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: September 17, 2021 File Number: 2021-49-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and replacing historic architectural features with non- historic architectural features at the property located at 907 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description Lots 5 & 6, Block 19, Glasscock Addition. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 907 South Myrtle Project Applicant: Bill Stump Property Owner: Stump Properties, LLC Property Address: 907 S. Myrtle Street Legal Description: Lots 5 & 6, Block 19, Glasscock Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: N/A Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1890 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: Historic house was constructed in 1890 by George Irvine for William and Mary Leake. Twenty years later the Leakes had Charles Belford build their house on E. 7th Street, and Mary Leake was R. T. Cooper’s sister. The Stump Family has owned the property for more than 100 years. APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC:  Rear living space addition  Side screened porch addition  Window & siding replacement Page 12 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 2 of 9  Chimney replacement  Change of slope to front porch roof and removal of non-original porch decoration  Front door replacement HPO:  Demolition of non-historic rear addition  Roof materials change  Restoring original window location FEEDBACK REQUESTED FROM HARC • Does the second-floor portion of the addition have a compatible height and roof to the historic main structure? • Are the proportions of the windows in the addition compatible with the historic windows? • Is the proposed replacement front door compatible with the historic structure? • Do the proposed changes to the front porch roof sufficiently retain the historic character of the façade? STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a rehabilitation and rear addition to the high priority main structure on the property, which began as an 1890 Folk Victorian structure and later expanded with rear additions. The applicant is proposing to remove the 1950s and 1960s-era rear additions, construct a new rear living space and screened porch addition with a two-story portion for the living space addition, replace the historic windows, replace the historic siding, remove and replace the existing chimney and remove the decorative detail above the front porch, as well as adjust the slope of the roof over the front porch to create a steeper slope to assist drainage. Present Property Description: The subject property has been in the Stump family for more than a century and is well documented in the application materials. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting approval to demolish the 1950s and 1960s additions which were constructed by the Stump Family, and which do not represent characteristics or materials that have been determined to be historic in their own right, even though each of the additions is more than 50 years old. With the removal of the additions the applicant is requesting approval to construct a new rear addition which would be behind and to the north of the historic main structure, primarily visible to the left or north of the main structure and from E. 10th Street, as the historic main house constructed in 1890 has an “L” shaped plan that would obscure most of the addition from the main façade. A portion of the addition’s roof may be minimally visible from the primary street façade, however due to the steep-pitched historic roof and the lower roof slope and ceiling height of the addition, the second floor of the rear addition Page 13 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 3 of 9 would be approximately 2.5’ taller than the existing historic structure. The addition is also proposed to have a screened side porch in a location similar to an early screened porch prior to the 1950s addition. The addition is proposed to use lapped fiber cement siding to match the proposed replacement siding for the main structure, and the windows are proposed to be square proportions with divided lights rather than the long vertical proportions of the historic windows in order to differentiate the new addition from the historic portion, with an asymmetric gabled roof over the second-floor portion of the addition to minimize the overall roof height. The rear-facing windows are proposed to have high sills and have horizontal proportions. As part of the rehabilitation scope the applicant is also requesting to remove and replace the lapped wood siding and the windows, both of which are known to have lead-based paint. Although the materials have been maintained through periodic repainting and reglazing, the thin glass windows continue to provide maintenance challenges and do not provide a tight closure in the window opening, which allows dirt and debris to enter through the window gaps. Although the applicant could employ the use of storm windows or other techniques, they prefer to install single-hung energy-efficient windows in the same size and light pattern as the historic windows with a vinyl-clad wood rather than the all-wood existing windows. The windows would also have screens. The removal of the wood siding would also remove layers of lead-based paint, and the replacement siding is proposed to be fiber cement lapped siding with a similar profile and reveal. The trim would be repaired or replaced with either fiber cement trim or cedar. The remaining brick chimney no longer functions and the applicant is requesting approval to remove it and construct a new brick chimney in a new location further to the interior of the house than the existing chimney. As the existing chimney is not on an exterior location the new chimney would have similar characteristics to the existing, although a change in interior location. The applicant is also requesting approval to replace the historic front door with a new front door which would have a glass section and a transom. The proposed foundation leveling and repair does not require approval of a COA, however the applicant is proposing to replace the underpinning or skirting with a mesh and concrete skirting that would have an stucco appearance. To address an ongoing maintenance issue and remove a feature that is not original to the house, the applicant is requesting approval of the removal of the decorative railing above the front porch roof and the replacement of the roof with a slightly steeper-pitched shed roof to assist with drainage and cleaning leaves and debris, which collect moisture. The applicant has provided photos from 1917 and the 1940s showing the porch without the railing, which was in place by the 1960s. Per UDC 3.13 part of the project requires HPO review, and that scope includes demolition of the rear additions, as they are not historic, as well as the change of roof materials from corrugated metal to standing seam metal, and the replacement of a side door to the front porch with a window, restoring an original window location. Page 14 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 4 of 9 Justification for Requests: Although the historic structure is in good condition overall, at this point in the life span of the house several original materials and features have become challenging to maintain, and the applicant is requesting the approval of new materials as well as some modifications to assist with the continued longevity and maintenance of the house, the original portion of which is now more than 132 years old. Additional information is provided in the application documents. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 11 of the 13 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.2.E Original building materials that have deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced in kind. E.2 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on a primary surface. a. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material should be wood or fiber cement. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and finish. Complies The proposed window replacements would be vinyl-clad wood windows with insulated glass that maintain the historic number of glass panes and the window opening sizes. The proposed siding replacement would use the same reveal and be painted. 3.3.P Porches P.2 Porches should be scaled to the front façade and, where, applicable, side street façade and should be of a style and materials compatible with the architectural style of the structure. Where an architectural style does not typically include a large front porch, the primary entrance should have a characteristic overhang or recessed entrance. Complies The proposed porch, while on the side of the house, aligns with the street façade of the new addition. 3.4.C Relationship to Neighbors C.3 Looming guidelines a. When a 2-story addition is added on to the rear or side of an existing home, and the addition extends past the rear wall of an adjacent house there may be no windows placed on the second floor that exceed the rear of the neighbor's rear wall. The exception is that windows are allowed if the sill height is 65 inches or greater. Partially Complies The proposed rear windows have sill heights ranging from 48” to 66”. Page 15 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 5 of 9 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.5.A. Respect Historic Styles A.3 Properties designated by the City as a High, Medium, or Low Priority Structure shall be given a more in-depth review, so that its architectural character is not lost or damaged by any proposed addition or alteration. A.4 Avoid trying to change the overall appearance of a building by adding features and details that were never there before. Complies The proposed addition and alterations do not cause a loss of the historic character of the structure, and there are no conjectural features proposed to be added. 3.5.F.9 Open Porch The front porch should be open and not enclosed by any materials except screens. Complies The side porch is proposed to be enclosed with screening only. 3.5.K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. b. Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. c. Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance. Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. d. New additions should not obscure or demolish character defining features of the original structure. An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate. • For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided. Complies The addition is proposed to be to the rear and set back from the primary façade, with visibility primarily from E. 10th Street, with a full lot in between the street and the addition. The addition is distinct from the character of the historic structure but the size, height and location are compatible with the historic structure, which is not overwhelmed by the addition as the existing size of the house is 2,538 sq. ft. and the size of the proposed project would be 3,144, with the additional square footage attributable primarily to the second floor portion, which is 730 sq. ft. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. a. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. b. Even applying new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies The primary differences in style between the main structure and the addition can be attributed to the lower pitched roof slopes, which have been designed to minimize their visibility, and the proportions of the windows, which were selected to demonstrate a separate Page 16 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 6 of 9 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES time period from the original structure. 3.5.K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character-defining elevation. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one-story houses. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. d. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Complies The proposed addition utilizes the same rear location as the existing additions, with the second-floor portion height and area minimized from the primary façade. The portion that would be visible to the left or north side of the historic portion is recessed more than 10’ beyond the primary façade. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies The addition would use gable roof styles but alter the roof pitch to minimize the overall height as the historic roof pitch is steep, causing a greater ridge height but also effectively screening much of the proposed rear addition from the primary street view. K.6 Design of Additions should be compatible with the primary structure. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. b. Match window types, shapes, and proportions similar to those of the original structure. Partially Complies The addition would use the same siding and roof replacement materials, as well as window materials, however the windows in the addition would have square and horizontal proportions rather than Page 17 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 7 of 9 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing building. the elongated vertical proportions of the historic windows. 3.5.K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies The exterior materials would be the same as the main structure replacement materials. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. b. Avoid overt changes between the original structure and the new addition. For example, it may not be possible to extend an existing roof without a strong contrast between the appearance of the new and old roofing. In those cases, it may be necessary to replace the old surfacing material and replace it with the new. c. A vertical change should be established between the original portions of the house and the addition to avoid one long wall plane. This change should run from the foundation through to the roof line. Complies The primary differences in style between the main structure and the addition can be attributed to the lower pitched roof slopes, which have been designed to minimize their visibility, and the square proportions of the windows, which were selected to demonstrate a separate time period from the original structure. The siding and roof materials would be the same. 3.5.N Energy Efficiency N.1 Construction of any new structures or alterations to existing structures should be done in such a way as to maintain character while maximizing energy efficiency. Complies Two aspects of the project – the window replacement and siding replacement – are to accommodate the installation of energy efficient windows and insulation in the exterior wall cavity as the house currently lacks insulation required for modern structures. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 5 out of 8 of these criteria. Page 18 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 8 of 9 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies Staff reviewed the application and deemed it complete. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Complies Proposed project complies with applicable UDC requirements. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies From the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation: 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Page 19 of 90 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-49-COA – 907 S. Myrtle Street Page 9 of 9 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies The proposed project complies or partially complies with applicable Design Guidelines. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies The project proposes to remove and replace some of the original features of the 1890s structure, including an adjustment to the porch roof, replacement of the front door, and replacement of original windows and siding. However, the structure has ongoing maintenance needs and the planned updates retain key characteristics and features of the historic structure’s appearance. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies The proposed project is compatible with surrounding properties in the Old Town Overlay District. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies The proposed project is compatible with the character of the Old Town Overlay District. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable No signs are proposed. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys SUBMITTED BY Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Page 20 of 90 907 South Myrtle Street Project, Certificate of Appropriateness Submission Contact: Bill Stump, Jr., P.E., Manager, Stump Properties, LLC, wrstump@gmail.com, (512) 869-9928 Contents: 1. Cover – 1890 builder sketch 2. Letter of Intent 3. Photos of existing home 4. Historical timeline of property 5. Existing home on lot drawing 6. Proposed demolition drawing 7. Proposed new addition plan view drawing 8. Proposed renovation with new addition 3-D rendering 9. General specifications 10. Paint examples 11. Example front door 12. Example rainwater tank 13. Window schedule 14. Impermeable cover calculations 15. Gable height limit calculations 16. Property owner consent form 17. LLC Authorization Resolution Page 21 of 90 ' '· -\ ' ; J ,, r - 1: 'i ,"cl :;J: ' � .i======a=t., e--J /J'fll !iFJ ;f 0 C) 'I-­ '<::, f Y-- f:}·�J·. I ; .. ' � .· ! �� -t� ;;� ot't-r/17/,\/A X. 7 #� � J,l'nnr,� 2-y )( /-fr - C) / u'f-J6 u 1 907 S. Myrtle St. Project Original 1890s Sketch from contract to build 907 Myrtle in court house records. Screen Porch Front Porch Myrtle St. Page 22 of 90 1 To: Historical and Architectural Review Committee Members From: Stump Properties, LLC (Bill and Bonnie Stump) Subject: Letter of Intent about the Renovation of and Addition to 907 S. Myrtle St., Georgetown Summary: 907 S. Myrtle is a historic home built in 1890 with additions in 1951 and 1967. The Stump family has owned it, starting with my grandfather since 1920. We propose to demolish the 1951 and 1967 additions and small building in the back and renovate the original 1890 home to a more code compliant, energy efficient, and maintainable building, and add a rear addition in the same Folk Victorian style of architecture. Detailed Discussion: My father lived in this home for over 80 years. There were many, many wonderful family meals, Christmas gatherings, joys, and sorrows, that make up a lifetime of memory. The home has been operated as a rental since the passing of our families’ greatest generation in 2005. Some of us that grew up here (including Randy Stump and family) would like to come back to the neighborhood in our old age and live there, where we can walk to the square. The old home, however, is difficult and expensive to maintain. 130-year-old wood siding and trim fastened with square nails has been painted approximately 20 times (every 6 or 7 years), many times with lead-based paint. Low slope roofs require regular blow-offs. Lack of insulation and air sealing results in $500/month summer bills. The interior and exterior have deteriorated beneath the standards for modern life. Plumbing, electrical, and HVAC systems need complete replacement. The pier and beam foundation requires leveling and rework, and perhaps a one-step raise. Old chimneys with loose mortar must be removed. Part of one old chimney is suspended on a wooden platform. Flooring containing asbestos must be removed. We propose a major renovation, removal of the additions that do not add to the historical character of the building and are architecturally awkward, while keeping the original 1890s home. We propose to take the 1890s home back to the studs (it is built with 1x12s) and reside, retrim, seal, insulate, replumb, rewire, and in general bring it up to current standards. More details are provided in the following. In all this though, we will strive to preserve the look and feel of turn of the last century folk Victorian architecture, with some minor modifications to improve maintainability, such as no low slope roofs. We know everything there is to know about this house, so if something is missing here, just call or email. The home is unoccupied at present, and we would be happy to show it to anyone interested. Bill Stump, Jr., P.E., Manager, Stump Properties, LLC, Dr. Bonnie Stump, Manager, Hardcover Homes, LLC, (512) 869-9928, wrstump@gmail.com, (512) 635-2048, bonstump@gmail.com Page 23 of 90 2 Photographs of Existing Building (Summer, 2021) Photo #1, View from Myrtle St., West Elevation (1890s home) Photo #2, View from Myrtle St., North end of house (1890s home) Page 24 of 90 3 Photo #3, View from 10th St. (from the south), western end of the house. Low slope roofed area is 1951 addition. Photo #4, View from 10th St. (from the south), eastern end of the house. 1951 addition in middle, 1967 addition in back. Page 25 of 90 4 Photo #5, 1967 addition, view from the south of the east end of the building that faces south. Photo #6, 1967 addition, view from the northeast of the east end of the building that faces east. Page 26 of 90 5 Photo #7, 1967 addition in foreground, 1890s house in background. View from the northeast. Photo #8, 1967 addition joins to 1890s house, north wall of house. Page 27 of 90 6 Photo #9, 1967 addition joins to 1890s house, view from the north. Photo #10, 1890s house, view from the north. Page 28 of 90 7 Photo #11, 1890s house in foreground, 1961 addition in back, view from northwest. Photo #13, Garage, view from 10th St., south. Page 29 of 90 8 Photo #12, Garage, view from Myrtle St. (west). Photo #14, Garage, view from the north, northwest end of garage. Page 30 of 90 9 Photo #15, Garage, view from the north, northwest end of garage. Photo # 17, Storage building, view from the west. Page 31 of 90 10 Photo #16, Storage building, view from the north. Page 32 of 90 11 Historical Photographs (1917 to 1965) Photo #18, View toward northeast from Myrtle St., 1917, photo provided by J.C. Johnson. Note there is no fence on porch roof. Photo #19, View toward the east, from Myrtle St., 1917, Photo provided by J.C. Johnson Page 33 of 90 12 Photo #20, William R. Stump and William I. Stump, father, and son, 1940s, WWII. Note no fence on porch roof. Photo #21, William R. Stump Jr., approx. 1960 in back yard at 907 Myrtle. Page 34 of 90 13 Photo #22, 907 Myrtle in 1960s. Note shutters, TV antenna, bigger vents, fence on porch roof. Spike is missing on north gable. Photo #23, Garage at 907 Myrtle when near finished in 1967. Page 35 of 90 14 Photo #24, Chimney in attic of 1890s home. Note minimal bracing. Chimney is no longer in service due to leakage and old mortar. We plan to remove it and replace it with an externally similar chimney. Page 36 of 90 15 Photo #25, Aerial of two lots at 907 Myrtle ^ ^ ^ North Page 37 of 90 16 Photo #26, Aerial of block containing 907 Myrtle Page 38 of 90 17 History of 907 S. Myrtle (from County property records and family memories) 1850? – Plat, Glasscock addition – we do not yet have the plat that shows lots 5 and 6 1850 (March 13) G.W. Glasscock and wife sell blocks 18 and 19 to John Baker 1871 (June 17) John Baker and agent David M. Baker sell west half of south half of block 19 to Emory Taylor and W.J. Montgomery 1871 (? 15th) Emory Taylor and W.J Montgomery sell south half of block 19 to Thomas Sharp 1873 (March 20) Thomas Sharp and wife sells south half of block 19 to E.V. Napier 1874 (Nov. 23) E.V. Napier sells SW quarter of block 19 to August Glober 1876 (July 10) August and Johanna Glober sell SW quarter of block 19 to W.L. Mann 1887- W. L. Mann sells lots 5&6 in block 19 to W.S. Leake 1890 – George Irvine builds 907 Myrtle long hall with front Tee section and porch for William S. Leake. House overlaps lot line between lots 5 and 6 1891 (sometime after) – Chimneys, bathroom added 1900 (July 30) – William S. Leake and Mary Belle Leake sell 907 to Charles S. Lindell and Anna Matilda Lindell 1906 (Oct. 4) – Mrs. Anna Matilda Lindell, executor of the estate of Charles S. Lindell, deceased, sells 907 Myrtle to W.R. Mood 1908 (Aug. 28) – W.R. Mood and wife, Bessie W. Mood sell 907 to C.T. McMurray 1920 (Jan. 24) – W.I. Stump buys property from C.T. and Pearl McMurray 1951 – W.R. Stump, Jr. and Gene Stump add two rooms and a bathroom to the south side of the property, where the old screen porch was located. The configuration goes from a T to a rectangle. 1954 – W.I. Stump dies, property goes to W.R. Stump who lives there for the next 46 years with his wife, Gene Comer Stump. He lived there approximately 80 years total. Stumps replace screened porch area with two more rooms with low slope roof (1951). House has wood shingle roof nailed to purlins on steep roof. Rolled asphalt and tar on low slope roof over new addition. Kitchen area fireplace and chimney removed and replaced with gas stove. 1967 – Stumps add rear bedroom. Low slope rolled roofing on addition. 1968 – Stumps tear down three barns and build single 3 car garage in their place. White asphalt shingle roof. White asphalt roof over wood shingles on main house as well. 1987 – Stump replace asphalt and wood shingles on roof with screw-down galvanized steel metal roofing on garage and main house. Low slope roof on main house remains roll down asphalt. 2000 – Gene Stump becomes frail, Stumps move into Wesleyan Home, 1 block away. 2001 – Interior is partially renovated, and house is rented Page 39 of 90 18 2005 – W.R. Stump Sr. and Gene Stump die. Property passes to W.R. Stump Jr. 2009 – W.R. Stump moves property and several other properties on Myrtle into Stump Properties, LLC. Property operated as rental. 2009 – Low slope roll out asphalt roofing on main house additions replaced with standing seam galvanized steel roofing. 2021 – August, last tenants move out, planning for major renovation and addition. Page 40 of 90 Page 41 of 90 Page 42 of 90 Page 43 of 90 20'-0" 6' - 0 " 10'-0" 9' - 3 " 21'-10" 43 ' - 0 " 7' - 7 " 24'-5" 17'-0"8'-10" 48'-0" 120'-3" 13 ' - 7 " 13 ' - 3 " 35 ' - 0 " Proposed New Addition 2022 Existing Lot Line Existing Setback 60 ' - 1 " 7'-6"9' - 0 " 26'-11"29'-4" East 10th St. So u t h M y r t l e S t . Setback Setback Setback 6' - 0 " Exterior Wall 11 ' - 7 " 1890s Home Screen Porch 1890s Home Rain Tanks 12 0 ' - 0 " Note, house is angled 0.42 degrees clockwise to the north lot line. All dimensions to the nearest inch. This drawing is for City of Georgetown Certificate of Appropriateness evaluation only. Not for construction. William R. Stump, Jr., P.E., Texas Professional Engineer Licence Number 56756, Firm No. F-9450 2804 Gabriel View Dr., Georgetown, Texas 78628 wrstump@gmail.com, (512) 869-9928 August 31, 2021 Total finished interior = 3,144 sqft or 44% of N lot Total impermeable cover, N lot, includes all of house = 3,159 sqft or 44% of N. lot. Page 44 of 90 West elevation of historic house with addition in back. Existing garage still present. Gable height is 20 feet above finished floor, 21 feet above ground. 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 45 of 90 South elevation of historic house with new two-story addition on east end Gable height of south wall of historic house is 20 feet above finished floor, 21 feet above ground Gable height of new wing is 22.5 feet above finished floor, 25.42 feet above ground Eave height along south wall is 10 feet above finished floor. At east end 12.92 feet above ground. 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 46 of 90 North elevation of historic house with two story addition in rear Eave height of porch roof is 10'4" above finished floor, about 12' above ground. Peak gable is 22.5' above finished floor, 25.42' above ground. 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 47 of 90 East elevation of new wing Top of eave is 16'3" above finished floor, 19.2' above grade. 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 48 of 90 View from corner of Myrtle and Tenth after renovation 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 49 of 90 Floorplan updated 8-22-2021 21'-10" 8'-10 5/16" 43'-0" 24'-8"31'-9 3/16" 12'-8 15/16" 16'-8 7/16" 21'-8 1/2" 16'-4 3/4" 48'-1/8" 13'-7 1/8" 12'-8 15/16" 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 50 of 90 Second floor of new addition 35'-0" 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 51 of 90 Angled view of upstairs showing wall heights 6'-10" 8'-0" 907 South Myrtle - Stump Family Homestead Page 52 of 90 1 General Exterior Specifications for 907 S. Myrtle, Georgetown Renovation – the following lists our plans for various parts of the job that may be of interest. Demolition -By necessity, demolition will be by deconstruction by hand. Unpainted wood and painted architectural features will be reused if possible. Unfortunately, all exterior painted wood has been painted multiple times with lead paint, making it unsuitable for reuse in most cases. Exterior Siding -Reside with fiber cement board (Hardie preferred), 4” to 4 ½” reveal, to match old wood siding -Install water and air barrier on exterior walls and rainscreen under siding. -Paint as per specification Exterior Trim -Retrim with fiber cement, new treated or western red cedar, or reuse original -Remove all lead flashing and replace with galvanized steel -Paint as per specification, no sanding of original Windows -The intent is to replace the existing 1890s windows with double glass, double hung, low-E, high quality windows with the same or near same exterior appearance as the existing windows which are now somewhat obscured with protecting storm windows. -Propose Anderson 400 Series – Vinyl clad exterior, wood interior, 4 lights per sash on old home (same as existing), full divided light, interior and exterior permanent grill bars. Exterior color – white. -Full screens to allow opening in summer and prevent bird strikes. North, west, and east facing sides of house – Anderson Truscene screens. South facing – Anderson Conventional (slightly darker). -Some old sashes with wavy glass will be preserved and used in interior features. -All casement exit windows on new addition will be 2 over 2 lights, (4 lights per side) Exterior Doors -The front door will be a high-quality door with glass and a transom. See photo example. -Original front door and screen to be rebuilt and re-installed at another location on the property. -Other exterior doors to be high-quality, metal-sheathed, baked painted, with glass. Chimneys -Remove existing chimneys to foundation, brick by brick. Preserve bricks, if possible, for reuse in other features. Only one chimney extends above the roof line at present and has been out of service for 20 years, due to mortar deterioration and leaking flue gas. The other is suspended on a wood platform in the attic and is a clear hazard that must be removed. Page 53 of 90 2 -Replace, not in the same place, with a double wall, galvanized steel pipe chimney, inside a fiber cement structure that can be tiled with brick tiles to give the appearance of a brick chimney like the originals. Foundation -Remove steel/shotcrete underpinning. Jack house level. If access is not adequate, raise house 7 to 12”. Plumbing and electrical must be removed prior to this. -Replace underpinning with steel mesh/shotcrete equivalent, with exterior access points every 30 feet. Roof -Existing roof is v-crimp galvanized steel. Unscrew exposed fasteners and remove existing roof in sections. -Sheath existing roof in sections with Zip board and replace metal with 18”x 1” double lock galvalume, 24 gauge. No exposed fasteners. -Remove wooden decorative fence on front porch roof and do not replace. Replace low slope existing roof with 3:1 slope roof tied into new metal roof. The fence was added in the1951 renovation as a decoration and in part to keep people from falling off the low slope porch roof which requires cleaning every few months. It is not original with the design and requires painting and rebuild at intervals. The new higher slope roof will not require cleaning. Front Porch -The existing front porch is red tinted concrete with an unfortunate low spot in it. If the house is raised 7” (one step), we will top it with another 7” of red tinted concrete. Otherwise we will grind it to renew the surface and try to remove the low spot. -A white painted porch swing is on the front porch and has been there since my childhood, repainted many times, sometimes unfortunately with lead paint. It will be replaced by a new swing. -The existing front porch was set up in the 1930s to have two front doors, enabling a private entrance to two areas. In my lifetime only one door has been installed and used. This is what we want to do as well. The current opening is door sized with an old window installed in it. We will replace this with a window the same size and sill height as other windows on the front of the house. Screen Porch -The early 1900s home had a screen porch where the 1951 addition now is. It was used as a “sleeping porch” before air conditioning on hot nights. We propose to build it again, in place of part of the 1951 addition (which we propose to demolish). Trees -The property has eleven large pecan trees in various states of health. Only one tree, which is missing its upper half anyway, will be cut to build the new addition. -Tree irrigation, always a problem in dry summers here, will be installed, if possible, using captured rainwater and greywater. Page 54 of 90 3 Old Garage -The existing garage, built in 1967 will be retained in the current plan, and repainted in the same colors as the house. Rain-Water Capture -Central Texas has “enough” water for people, but sometimes not enough water to water yards and trees, which can be 70% of usage in dry summers. This particular property with its 11 large pecan trees is easily short of water in dry times. I have spent many days watering these pecan trees by hand to keep them alive through droughts. On three other properties we own and operate, we have used rainwater capture in large tanks to deal with this problem when the City runs low on water. We propose to do the same here, with tanks located behind the building along the east facing wall, not easily visible from the street. They can be old farm style metal tanks or fully enclosed in shed structures that match the house, all within the setbacks. -Gutters. The existing home now has gutters on all draining eaves. We propose the same, with new seamless gutters painted to match the new trim. Some or all gutters will drain into wet lines that feed into the rain tanks. All gutters will have black mesh screens. Solar Photo Voltaic Panels -We designed, built, own, and operate four other residential solar arrays, two within the City. We propose to put a solar photovoltaic array on the east facing back roof of the new addition, not visible from the street. This is not an optimum location, but along with a battery will provide some backup in lengthy power failure situations. Page 55 of 90 Proposed 907 S. Myrtle Exterior Paint Colors Kelly Moore # KM4899, Grey Spell - siding Kelly Moore # 4525, Ayrshire - trim Sherwin Williams # 7598, Sierra Redwood – front porch and selected trim Page 56 of 90 Proposed Front Door Sample for 907 South Myrtle, Georgetown August 30, 2021 Page 57 of 90 Page 58 of 90 Window Schedule^J 907 Myrtle^J 2021 Renovation.xlsx Window Schedule, 907 Myrtle 2021 Renovation 9/1/2021 No.Section of Room Wall in Position on wall from left to right as seen from inside room RO to floor,Window Window Proposed manufacturer number Emergency egress window R/O width R/O height Grille pattern Notes House Room Width Height unfinished Manufacturer Type 1 Old Frnt BR West 1 aprx. 28 3/4 aprx 77 21 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash double hung TW 2462 yes 30 1/8"76 7/8"4 over 4 4 lights each sash (8 total) 2 Old Frnt BR West 2 aprx. 28 3/8 aprx 77 21 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 3 Old Frnt BR South 1 aprx. 28 5/8 aprx 77 21 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 Get better measurements on existing windows 4 Old Frnt BR South 2 aprx. 28 3/4 aprx 77 21 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 Get better measurements on existing windows 5 Old Frnt Bath South 1 48"24 1/8"60"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A 221 no 48.5"24 5/8"obscure glass 6 Old Entrance West 35 15/16"12"Original Transom PTR 3010 no 36.5"12.5"Could use Anderson art glass in Victorian style 7 Old Frnt Living South 1 29 5/8"76 7/8"Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 30 1/8"76 7/8"4 over 4 This was a door in the 30s so the framing is patchwork. This is the closest available size for all these windows Frnt Living West 1 29 5/8"76 7/8"Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 30 1/8"76 7/8"4 over 4 8 Old Frnt Living West 2 appox. 64 aprx 77 21.25 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 9 Old Frnt Living North 1 aprox. 28 1/2 aprx 77 20.75 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 10 Old Frnt Living North 2 aprx 28 3/8 aprx 77 20.625 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 11 Old Frnt Living North 3 apx. 28.75 aprx 77 20.75 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 12 Old Frnt Living North 4 apx. 28.75 aprx 77 20.75 sill to FF Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 Altogether there are 13 of these tall, old windows that need to be replaced 13 Old Kitchen North 1 aprx 77 21"Anderson 400 series TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 14 Old Kitchen North 2 aprx 77 21"Anderson 400 series TW 2462 yes 4 over 4 15 Old Kitchen North 3 29 5/8"52 7/8"44"Anderson 400 series Tilt Wash, double hung TW 2442 no 30 1/8"52 7/8"4 over 4 Single window, formerly over kitchen sink 16 New Utility West 1 48"24 1/8"60"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A221 no 48.5"24 5/8"Grille? 17 New Utility North 1 24 1/8"24 1/8"60"Anderson 400 series Awning A21 no 24 5/8"24 5/8"none Window over washer/dryer 18 New N. BR, 1st Flr.North 1 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side 19 New N. BR, 1st Flr.North 2 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side 21 New Library North 1 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side 22 New Library North 2 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side 23 New N. BR, 1st Flr.East 71 7/8"24 1/8"66"Anderson 400 series Awning (triple)A 321 no 72 3/8"24 5/8"none Center window of the three could be stationary 24 New N. bath, 1st Flr.East 48"24 1/8"66"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A 221 no 48.5"24 5/8"obscure glass Bathroom window 25 New N. BR, 2nd Flr.East 48"24 1/8"48"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A221 no 48.5"24 5/8"none Elongated slider, high up 26 New Upstairs bath East 24 1/8"24 1/8"48"Anderson 400 series Awning A21 no 24 5/8"24 5/8"obscure glass Bathroom window 27 New S. bath, 1st Flr.East 48"24 1/8"66"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A 221 no 48.5"24 5/8"obscure glass Bathroom window 28 New S. BR, 1st Flr.East 71 7/8"24 1/8"66"Anderson 400 series Awning (triple)A 321 no 72 3/8"24 5/8"none Center window of the three could be stationary 29 New S. BR, 2nd Flr.East 48"24 1/8"48"Anderson 400 series Awning (twin)A 221 no 48.5"24 5/8"none Double awning 30 New S. BR, 1st Flr.South 1 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side 31 New S. BR, 1st Flr.South 2 56.5"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CW 24 yes 57"48.5"4 lights each side Living area 32 New S. BR, 2nd Flr.South 62.75"48"36"Anderson 400 series Casement (twin)CX 24 yes 63.25"48.5"4 lights each side 33 New S. BR, 1st Flr.West 35.25"22.25"61.75"Anderson 400 series Slider G 32 no 36"23"One small, upper window 34 Old Kitchen South 47.25"47.25"40"Anderson 400 series Slider G 44 yes 48"48"none Windows overlooking courtyard above counter 35 Old Kitchen South 47.25"47.25"40"Anderson 400 series Slider G 44 yes 48"48"none Windows overlooking courtyard above counter Actual window size or size drawn in SketchUp Page 1 of 1 Page 59 of 90 907 Myrtle Area Calculations for 2021 Renovation Version 3.xlsx Calculations for 907 South Myrtle Street using existing lot configuration Lot Areas, Impermeable Cover, Finished Area 9/1/2021 Item Amount Units Symbol Notes A.Calculate Area of north lot, including setbacks 1 East line length (along rock fence) =60.00 ft a 2 North line length (from back fence west)=120.21 ft b 3 Lot Area, approximate = a x b =7,212.60 sqft c West and South lines not surveyed 4 45% of approximate Lot area = .45 x c =3,245.67 sqft d B.Calculate Area of north lot within setbacks 1 Side setbacks =6.00 ft ssb 2 Back setback = 10.00 ft bsb 3 Front setback =20.00 ft fsb 4 East line less setbacks = a-ssb-ssb =48.00 ft asb 5 North line less setbacks = b-fsb-bsb =90.21 ft bsb 6 Area inside setbacks = asb x bsb =4,330.08 sqft csb C.Calculate Area of north lot, including setbacks and City ROW 1 Street lot line to curb distance =12.83 ft dc 2 East line length (along rock fence) = a =60.00 ft a 3 North line length = b +dc =133.04 ft bdc 4 Lot Area, approximate = a x bdc =7,982.40 sqft cdc West and South lines not surveyed 5 45% of approximate Lot area = .45 x cdc =3,592.08 sqft ddc D.Calculate Area of south lot, including setbacks 1 East line length (along rock fence) =60.00 ft a 2 South line length (from back fence west)=120.58 ft b 3 Lot Area, approximate = a x b =7,234.80 sqft c West and South lines not surveyed 4 45% of approximate Lot area = .45 x c =3,255.66 sqft d E.Calculate Area of south lot within setbacks 1 North side setbacks =6.00 ft ssb 2 South side setback (corner, 10th St. edge) =15.00 ft ssbs 3 Back setback = 10.00 ft bsb 4 Front setback =20.00 ft fsb 5 East line less setbacks = a-ssb-ssbs =39.00 ft asb 6 South line less setbacks = b-fsb-bsb =90.58 ft bsb 7 Area inside setbacks = asb x bsb =3,532.62 sqft csb F.Calculate Area of north lot, including setbacks and City ROW 1 Street lot line to curb distance, front, Myrtle =13.00 ft dcf Approximate 2 Street lot line to curb distance, S. side, 10th St. =17.00 ft dcs 3 East line length (along rock fence) = a + dcs =73.00 ft adcs 4 North line length = b + dcs =137.58 ft bdcs 5 Lot Area, approximate = a x bdc =10,043.34 sqft cdcs West and South lines not surveyed 6 45% of approximate Lot area = .45 x cdcs =4,519.50 sqft ddc G.Calculate Area of combined lots, including setbacks 1 East line length (along rock fence) =120.00 ft a East and West lines are both the same, 120 ft 2 North line length (from back fence west)=120.21 ft b1 3 South line length (from back fence west)=120.58 ft b2 4 Lot Area, approximate = a x (b1 + b2)/2 =14,447.40 sqft c West and South lines not surveyed 5 45% of approximate Lot area = .45 x c =6,501.33 sqft d H.Calculate Area of combined lots inside setbacks 1 North side setbacks =6.00 ft ssb 2 South side setback (corner, 10th St. edge) =15.00 ft ssbs 3 Back setback = 10.00 ft bsb 4 Front setback =20.00 ft fsb 5 East line less setbacks = a-ssb-ssbs =99.00 ft asb 6 South line less setbacks = (b1+b2)/2-fsb-bsb =90.40 ft bsb 7 Area inside setbacks = asb x bsb =8,949.11 sqft csb Page 1 of 2 Page 60 of 90 907 Myrtle Area Calculations for 2021 Renovation Version 3.xlsx I.Calculate Area of existing home, garage, storage and sidewalk 1 Area of home = (LxW) - small rectangle =2,538 sqft 2 Area of little house out back = LxW=210 sqft approximate dimensions 3 Area of garage = LxW=1,003 sqft 4 Area of front sidewalk = LxW=83 sqft 5 Total of existing buildings =3,835 sqft Note that part of garage is off lot to the south J.Calculate Impermeable Cover of August 22, 2021 Design on just north lot 1 Area of long north section = LxW =787 sqft =48*16.4 2 Area of front bedroom with chimney=LxW=361 sqft =22.1*16.34 3 Area of front porch 163 sqft =20.33*7.9 + 1.9*1 4 Area of back area full length new additn= LxW 1,266 sqft =43*29.33 - 8.9*4 + 1.34*30 5 Area of north side door landing = LxW 44 sqft = 6*7.34 6 Area of screened porch 243 sqft =26.95*9 7 Area of 1st Floor building 2,863 sqft T1stFlr 9 Area of front sidewalk = LxW =83 sqft =(41/12)*24.4 11 Other Sidewalk 100 sqft 12 Rain Tanks 112 sqft =7*(1+6+2+6+1) 13 Total area of other impermeable cover =295 sqft TImpOther 14 Total impermeable cover =3,159 TI=T1stFlr+TImpOther 15 Permitted area, 45% of lot area, from above =3,246 sqft Imp Sketchup calculation = 3,015, no rain tank, no other. 16 Margin for impermeable cover =87 sqft Imp - TI Area that could still be used K.Calculate Finished Area (using exterior dimensions) 1 Long Hall on north 787 sqft from J. above, #1. 2 Front bedroom with chimney 361 sqft from J. above, #2. 3 Back new addition 1,266 sqft from J. above, #4. 4 2nd floor area over new addition 730 sqft from sketchup dwg, area calculation 5 Total interior finished area 3,144 sqft 6 Permissable interior finished area (45% of lot) =3,246 sqft from A., #4 above 7 Margin for additional finished area 102 sqft = 6.-5. L.Areas from Sketchup area calculator (using exterior walls) 1 Downstairs finished space, no porches =2,433 sqft 2 Upstairs finished space=730 sqft 3 Total finished space =3,163 sqft 4 Margin with this total =83 sqft Permitted (45%) - planned M.Areas from Sketchup area calculator (using interior walls) 1 Downstairs finished space, no porches =2,270 sqft 2 Upstairs finished space=692 sqft 3 Total finished space =2,962 sqft 4 Margin with this total =284 sqft Permitted (45%) - planned Page 2 of 2 Page 61 of 90 Height of Gables Survey.xlsx 907 S. Myrtle St. Project, Georgtown Check of eave and gable heights within regulatory limits House fits within regulatory envelope in worst case except for 1890 historic south gable over the lot line. All numbers in feet 8/31/2021 Eave or At D distance from setback #Location Height Finshd Flr Gable Distance Allowable Total Overage Notes above to grnd lvl Height from Height Allowable or margin finshd flr abv gnd Setback Abv 15'Height = A =B C= A+B = D E=(D/3) x 5 F= E + 15 G = F-C 1 Gable peak on west end of house facing Myrtle 20 2 22.00 4.42 7.4 22.4 0.4 Spike on peak may reach up another 1.5 feet 2 Top of eave, west end of house facing Myrtle 10.33 2 12.33 3 Regulatory building height, west gable facing Myrtle, Ave. of abv. heights 17.17 4.42 7.4 22.4 5.2 4 Top of eave, north wall, new addition 10.33 4.00 14.33 3.25 5.4 20.4 6.1 5 Gable peak on north wall, new addition 22.5 4.00 26.50 7.25 12.1 27.1 0.6 Gable alone makes it. 6 Top of eave, east wall, facing back yard, new add.16.33 4.00 20.33 7 Regulatory building height, north gable new add., Ave. of abv heights 23.42 7.25 12.1 27.1 3.7 OK even if 18" overhang at gable included. 8 Top of eave, east wall, facing back yard, new add.16.33 4.00 20.33 7 11.7 26.7 6.3 9 Top of eave, south wall, new addition 10 4.00 14.00 1.58 2.6 17.6 3.6 10 Gable peak on south wall, new addition, facing 10th 22.5 4.00 26.50 5.58 9.3 24.3 -2.2 Does not make it by itself, but does when 11 Top of eave, east wall, facing back yard, new add.16.33 4.00 20.33 averaged with eave. 12 Regulatory building height, south gable, new add.23.42 5.58 9.3 24.3 0.9 13 Gable peak on south wall, 1890s house over line 20 2 22.00 0 0.0 15.0 -7.0 Non conforming, but historic, same since 1890. 14 Top of eave, south side of home facing 10th 10.33 2 12.33 0 15.0 15 Regulatory building height, south gable, 1890 home 17.17 0.00 0.0 15.0 -2.2 FF to ground level of 2' at west end of house and 4' at east end assumed, about a 12" elevation above existing We assume in this calculation, a house raise on the order of 1' and that 18" overhang eaves are not considered in the regulatory envelope. Measurements from setbacks are made to walls. Existing FF is about 35" above ground level at back stairs (7 steps) Another step would put it 42" (3.5 ft) above ground level Page 1 of 1 Page 62 of 90 B&W 4x5s 35mm Negs. YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME to to to p 77 Slides ROLL FRME TN R IS No Old THC Code q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX- N R: q Individual 0 Historic District 0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource NR File Name Other 10 3n TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82) Geortown n2%-338989 Site No. 587 City/Rural 7,--> UTM Sector 2. Name 6 Date: Factual 1890 Est Address 907 Myrtle 7 Architect/Builder Contractor Mrs . Travis Wigg i ns vernacular 3. Owner 3 Style/Type Address 1316 Westmoor,Austin, 78723 9. Original Use residential 4. Block/Lot Glasscock/Blk. 19/Lot 6 Present Use residential 10. Description One—story wood frame dwelling w/ modified L—plan; exterior walls w/ weatherboard siding; gable roof w/ composition shingles; box eaves; front elev. faces W.; interior brick chimney w/ corbeled cap; wood sash double—hung windows w/ 4/4 lights: sinole—door entrance w/ transom; two—bay porch w/ flat roof within front projecting ell: Doric> 11. Present Condition good; altered--porch changed; additions 12. Significance Primary area of significance: architecture. An example of a late nineteenth century vernacular dwelling w/ modified L—plan. 13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe) Tax ro lls, GHS files 14. Bibliography 15. Informant 16. Recorder D. Hardy/HHM Date July 1984 DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA 1. County Williamson 5. USGS Quad No 3097 313 _ILL\ OF, CONTINUATION PAGE No ') of 587 City/Rural Georoetown 2. Name #10. Description (cont'd): columns. Other noteworthy features include porch w/ balustrade railing on roof & stick/bracketed brace in gable end w/ pinnacle carved on top; Victorian house w/ later modifications. 1. County Williamson TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM - TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82) ;11 3097-313 15 USGS Quad No Site No. G17, Page 63 of 90 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:907 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125148 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042501Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1920 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:872 ID:587 *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:125148 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.63527 Longitude -97.674811 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: East Page 64 of 90 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:907 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125148 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NortheastPhoto Direction EastPhoto Direction Ancillary NortheastPhoto Direction Page 65 of 90 907 South Myrtle Project 2021-49-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission September 23, 2021 1Page 66 of 90 Item Under Consideration 2021-49-COA –907 South Myrtle Project •Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and replacing historic architectural features with a non-historic architectural features at the property located at 907 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description Lots 5 & 6, Block 19, Glasscock Addition. (2021-49-COA) –Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner 2Page 67 of 90 Item Under Consideration HARC: •Rear living space addition •Side screened porch addition •Window & siding replacement •Chimney replacement •Change of slope to front porch roof and removal of non-original porch decoration •Front door replacement HPO: •Demolition of non-historic rear addition •Roof materials change •Restoring original window location 3Page 68 of 90 Item Under Consideration 4Page 69 of 90 Current Context 6Page 70 of 90 1890 Plan 10Page 71 of 90 1917 Photos 11Page 72 of 90 1940s/1960s Photos 12Page 73 of 90 1964 Aerial Photo 13Page 74 of 90 1974 Aerial Photo 14Page 75 of 90 1984 HRS Photo 15Page 76 of 90 1984 HRS Photo 16Page 77 of 90 1984 HRS Photo 17Page 78 of 90 Current Photos 18Page 79 of 90 Current Photos 19Page 80 of 90 Site Plan -Demolition 20Page 81 of 90 New Site Plan 21 •New 2nd Floor •New screened porch •Existing garage to remain Page 82 of 90 Proposed Main Facade 22Page 83 of 90 Proposed Side Street Facade 23Page 84 of 90 Proposed Side Facade 24Page 85 of 90 Proposed Rear Facade 25Page 86 of 90 Proposed Site 26Page 87 of 90 Proposed Project Materials 27Page 88 of 90 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.N/A 28Page 89 of 90 HARC Feedback Requested •Does the second-floor portion of the addition have a compatible height and roof to the historic main structure? •Are the proportions of the windows in the addition compatible with the historic windows? •Is the proposed replacement front door compatible with the historic structure? •Do the proposed changes to the front porch roof sufficiently retain the historic character of the façade? 29Page 90 of 90