Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.22.2019Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown August 22, 2019 at 6:00 P M at Council and Courts B ldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. The H i stor ic and A rc hi tec tur al R evie w C ommi ssion, appointe d by the M ayor and the C ity C ounci l, is re sponsible for hear ing and taki ng final ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppr opr i ate ne ss base d upon the C ity Counc il adopte d Downtown D esign Guidelines and Unifie d De ve lopme nt Code. Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s: · S taff P re se ntation · A pplic ant P r esentation (L i mi te d to te n minute s unl e ss state d othe rwise by the C ommission.) · Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant · C omments from C itize ns * · Applic ant Re sponse · C ommission De libe rative P roc ess · C ommission A ction * Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the r oom, to the re cor di ng sec re tary before the ite m the y wi sh to addre ss be gins. E ach speaker wi ll be pe r mitte d to addre ss the C ommissi on one ti me onl y for a maximum of thre e minute s. L egislativ e Regular Agenda A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 8, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission and re-approval of the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting due to a modific ation. Alternate Member P am Mitchell was in attendanc e for the July 25 meeting. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst B C O NT INU E D F R O M T H E A U G U S T 8, 2019 H A R C ME E T ING P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for an addition to a street facing façades at the property located at 503 E 14th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of Hughes Addition, BLO C K 5 (S W /P T ) (2019-42-C O A) – C hels ea Irby, S enior P lanner C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for R eplacing a Historic Arc hitectural F eature with a Non-Historic Arc hitectual F eature (S iding) at the property located at Page 1 of 73 1008 S Main S treet, bearing the legal des cription of Lot 2, Bloc k 13 of the Lost Addition (2019-49-C O A) – C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 73 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 22, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Augus t 8, 2019 regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion and re-approval of the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting due to a modification. Alternate Member P am Mitc hell was in attendance for the July 25 meeting. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Minutes Backup Material Minutes 7.25.19 Backup Material Page 3 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes August 8, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf- Hyde; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Karalei Nunn Absent: Catherine Morales; Josh Schroeder Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Call to order by the Vice-Chair at 6:00 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve Item A by Commissioner Johnston, second by Commissioner Asendorf- Hyde. Approved (7-0). B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the property located at 1207 Walnut, bearing the legal description of Snyder's Addition Block 1 (W/PT) (2019-37-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is requesting to construct a 2,082 sq. ft. single- family structure on a vacant lot in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure will have two street facing facades – 13th Street and Walnut Street. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, HARC is the decision-making body for all new construction (infill development) in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure meets the development standards for the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning district. The proposed structure has a floor-to-area ratio of 0.35. The applicant states the design of the house will be a mid-century farmhouse style, with a monochromatic scheme. Architectural details will include a front porch with exposed rafters, two front gables, a dormer and tall rectangular windows. The structure is proposed to have a combination of siding including horizontal Hardiplank 6” lap siding and board and batten at the gabled ends, asphalt shingles, and 3 over 1 windows. The block in which this structure is located contains a mixture of low and medium priority structures. The two structures to the north which front University Ave are designated as medium priority, craftsman style homes in the 2016 Historic Resources Survey. Along 13th, to the east of the subject structure are medium and low priority structures which do not have an identifiable style. Although not within the same block as the subject structure, this infill proposal would identify more with the minimum ranch style homes, constructed between 1930 Page 4 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 and 1940, located on the south side of 13th Street. The proposed structure fits the character and context of the area Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice-Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Parr had a question for the applicant regarding the renderings and the proposed materials. The applicant provided clarification regarding the rendering. Commissioner Mitchell had a question for staff regarding the height. Irby answered that other structures around the home have a similar height. Motion to approve Item B (2019-37-COA) as presented by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Mitchell. Approved (7-0). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an Addition to a Street Facing Façade at the property located at 508 E 7th Street, bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 36, Lot 1-2 (W/PTS) (2019-43-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is redesigning underutilized space in their home on the second story. The internal addition would create a dormer on the east-facing façade of the structure. This dormer would be parallel to E. 7th Street, which would create a street-facing façade. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing façade. The dormer is being proposed on a Tudor Revival structure. A Tudor Revival structure was predominantly seen from 1890 to 1940. The identifying features are a steeply pitched roof (usually side-gabled), a façade with one or more front-facing gables, tall/narrow windows, massive chimneys, and entry porches with a decorative Tudor arch. The proposed dormer utilizes materials (windows, trim, siding, and shingles) that match the existing structure. The proposed dormer will be the same height as the existing dormer on the west façade. The use of a dormer would be the differentiation of the change to the structure, since Tudor structures were not typically constructed with dormers. The Design Guidelines encourage the use of a dormer for second story additions, rather than creating a full second story. The structure currently has a dormer on the west façade. The property dormer would match and complement the existing dormer. The use of dormers is appropriate as it allows the two front gables (which are a part of the Tudor Revival style) to be retained. Adding a full second story would compromise the integrity of the structure. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice-Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Vice-Chair Romero invited the applicant to speak. Gary Wang, the applicant, provided further clarification for the Commission. He provided additional information and answered the Commissioners’ questions. Motion to approve Item C (2019-43-COA) by Commissioner Mitchell. Second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0). Page 5 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street facing façades at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom, which affects the south façade (street-facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on the rear of the structure which affects the west façade (street-facing). Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing façade. The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross-hipped roof, constructed mainly of brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some alternations, but is still significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional structures are known for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled), double-hung windows, and minimal added architectural features. South façade: Overall, the proposed addition to the south façade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which helps to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of the original structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east façade; however, the window will be re -installed. West façade:The addition of the covered porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in size and scale. To maintain the scale, the roofline is extended – however, this extension does not create differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio. While these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not consistent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. Doris Curl, public speaker, is opposed to the project. She commented that the project does not keep up with the architectural style of the neighborhood. Commissioner Parr commented on the setback and whether it is in compliance. She also asked about the material proposed. Commissioner Nunn commented that the arch is out of place. She commented that the arch and the use of materials for the siding don’t align. Commissioner Mitchell asked the applicant if they considered other designs for the patio where the arch is proposed. The applicant addressed the arch and provided additional information for the arch, and the homeowner’s request. The applicant considered other options that blended in as best as possible. The homeowner wanted the proposed design to provide more shade coverage when sitting in the patio. Page 6 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 Commissioner Nunn commented about the use of different materials for the siding, and use of different colors to blend in better. Commissioner Mitchell commented about a design similar to the proposed arch, where the overhang can stay more inline with the roofline and still provide coverage from the sun. The applicant replied that the effect the arch would create as requested by the homeowner deals more with inside the arch and the ceiling coverage. Vice-Chair Romero asked Irby about the Commission’s voting options, and if the item can be moved to the next meeting for consideration. Irby explained that the Commission can choose to table the item to the next meeting if they would like further review. Waggoner also explained to the Commission members that they can approve the item with conditions to modify the arch if they choose to. Commission members expressed that they would like to see the item be discussed again at the following meeting. Irby explained to Commission members that they have to approve the requests in the item at the same time because the requests are under the same application. Motion to table Item D (2019-42-COA) until the next meeting by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Browner. Approved (7-0). E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence at the property located at 1103 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 8, Block 25 of the Glasscock Addition (2019-50-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is requesting to construct a fence which does not meet the Unified Development and Downtown Design Guidelines criteria for height and materials. Fences in the Old Town Overlay District are regulated by Section 8.07.040 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC states that fences located in a front yard or side setback abutting a local or collector-level street are allowed with the following limitations: 1.) Fences shall be limited to four feet in height, except in the Old Town Overlay District where height is limited to three feet. 2) Fences shall be at least 50 percent (50%) transparent. For example, a wrought iron fence or picket fence that has openings the width of the picket. 3) Chainlink fences are prohibited in these locations. The property at 1103 Elm Street, which contains a medium priority structure, had a 6’ fence which was recently removed. The original fence was considered legal non-conforming because it did not meet the UDC requirements as it was located in the side street setback and 6’ in height and not 50% transparent. However, Section 14 of the UDC states that legal non-conforming status is no longer valid when the non- conformity has been expanded or removed. The original fence was removed and the applicant is requesting to construct a new 6’ fence in the approximate location, which is 3’ higher than allowed by the UDC. Section 3.13 of the UDC gives HARC the authority to approve fences that are inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and the applicable guidelines. The Commission asked the applicant about the material used for the fence. The applicant spoke and explained that wood is being used, and the fence is 16 feet from the curb. The applicant also explained the reason for the height of the fence is to provide privacy. Vice-Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice-Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Page 7 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 Motion to approve Item E (2019-50-COA) by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (6-1) with Commissioner Mitchell opposed. F. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director There are no updates at this time. Commissioner Parr asked about the vacant historic planner position. Waggoner explained that interviews have been held. However, due to recent legislative changes, staff have been working to review Department processes in preparation for the effective date of a new bill. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn, second by Commissioner Mitchell. Meeting adjourned at 7:05pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary Page 8 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: July 25, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes July 25, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf- Hyde; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell Absent: Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2019 and July 11, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Approved (6-0). B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 15’ setback encroachment along the property line adjacent to S Myrtle Street, into the required 25' setback, allowing for detached garage structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; 2)street facing facade garage addition, for the property located at 304 E University, bearing the legal description of 0.66 acres of the Hughes 2nd Addition, Block A (W/PT) (2019-35-COA). Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner The staff report was presented by Waggoner. The applicant is requesting to construct a detached garage in the same location of the original garage. Per UDC Section 3.13, HARC has review and approval authority for the following elements of this request: 1)Addition of a street facing façade (detached garage); 2)Setback modification (15’ into the 25’ setback). The addition of a street facing façade (detached garage) would be 14’ at the setback, which is an allowable building height. The applicant proposes to use the same roof and siding materials as the main structure, which is in conformance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The proposed structure would be a single-gabled roof. The street facing facade would have two faux dormers, two panel garage doors, and one faux panel garage door. Constructing the garage to match the materials of the primary structure would maintain the character of the high-priority primary structure. The location of the proposed structure would require a setback modification. The original structure was 10’ from the property line, which encroached 15’ into the 25’ garage- facing setback. The original structure was demolished and the driveway apron remained. The applicant proposes to construct a new detached garage in the same location. There is room on the lot to move the structure back to respect the 25’ setback; however, there are two trees that would be encroached upon. Additionally, there would not be a negative impact to the surrounding properties. There are also other detached garages nearby with similar setbacks. Page 9 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: July 25, 2019 Constructing the garage in the original location would maintain the character of the high- priority primary structure. There was one public comment in support of the project, which was submitted by email earlier in the day. Waggoner provided a copy to the Commissioners. Commissioner Browner asked if the trees are heritage trees. Waggoner explained that they are not, and the department’s landscape planner conducted a site visit to identify the trees. Commissioner Romero asked if the placement of the garage will affect the trees. The applicant explained that it will not. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved (6-0). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of five windows for the property located at 1607 S Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.15 acres of the Southside Addition, Block 1 (SW/PT) (2019-40-COA). Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner The staff report presented by Waggoner. The applicant is requesting to replace five (5) windows on a medium priority structure in the Old Town Overlay District. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure is a one-story Minimal Traditional style house clad in wood siding with an irregular plan and a cross-hipped roof. The structure as a non-historic addition in the rear. The Historic Resource Survey also notes that the structure retains a relatively high degree of integrity. The window grouping proposed for replacement are fixed casement metal, located on the street-facing façade, to the left of the entryway on an articulated wall. The windows are grouped together and create a character defining element of the structure. The existing configuration is a large single-paned window flanked with five (5) paned vertical windows on either side. There are two (2) additional windows parallel to the façade of the home with a similar configuration of five (5) panes which the applicant also intends to replace. The window trim and muntins are black on the exterior and white on the interior. The applicant proposes to replace the windows and maintain the same material, size, location, color, and configuration (5 panes). However, the proposed replacements will not retain their functionality. The replacement windows will not swing open. The operation of the window is not a character defining feature. Recent UDC changes support the replacement of historic materials with in kind materials for low and medium priority structures. Staff recommends approval of the request. Commissioners Browner and Romero had questions about the windows, and how they open. The applicant explained that the windows are going to be replaced so that they function as originally intended. They currently do not open. Commissioner Parr had a question about the material used. The applicant explained that the casement material will be vinyl which will help with energy efficiency and will also be a similar look to wood to match the exterior more closely. Page 10 of 73 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: July 25, 2019 Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (6-0). D. Presentation and discussion of a request for a Commercial Addition and Renovation for the property located at 101 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.14 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-39 (W/PTS), (COA-2018-046). Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planner Waggoner explained to the Commission that the item was pulled from the agenda. When the application was initially submitted, it was reviewed and processed for HARC approval. However, after further review, it was determined that the application can be reviewed by staff. The item has been pulled from the agenda as HARC approval is not required. Larry Olson, public speaker for the item, commented that he liked the project. Waggoner let the Commission know he can answer questions regarding the project if needed. E. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director There are no updates at this time. Waggoner discussed a training opportunity the Commission members might consider in Seguin, Texas on 8/16/2019. He will send a follow up email with the training information and suggests Commission members attend. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero, second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (6-0). Meeting adjourned at 6:26pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary Page 11 of 73 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 22, 2019 S UB J E C T: C O NT INU E D F R O M T HE A U G U S T 8, 2019 HA R C ME E T ING P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a s treet fac ing faç ades at the property loc ated at 503 E 14th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of Hughes Addition, BLO C K 5 (S W /P T ) (2019-42-C O A) – C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: Overview of the Applicant's Request T he applic ant is creating an addition for a mas ter bathroom, which affec ts the south faç ade (street-fac ing). T he applic ant is als o c reating a c overed porch on the rear of the struc ture whic h affects the west faç ade (s treet-facing). P er S ection 3.13 of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), HAR C has review and approval authority for c hanges to a street facing façade. Public Comments O ne member of the public spoke in opposition at the 08/08/2019 meeting during the public hearing. S taff F indings T he exis ting s tructure is Minimal Traditional style with a c ros s -hipped roof, cons tructed mainly of bric k. As noted on the Historic R es ourc e S urvey, the s tructure has s ome alternations, but is still signific ant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional struc tures are known for their low or intermediate pitc hed roofs (generally gabled), double-hung windows, and minimal added architec tural features . S outh façade: O verall, the proposed addition to the s outh façade is appropriate bec ause it is loc ated in the rear of the s tructure, maintains the existing building materials , and has a slight jog in the foundation whic h helps to create a differentiation. T his addition would be adding onto a previous expans ion of the original struc ture. T he proposed addition is als o c ompatible in s cale. T he existing struc ture is approximately 1,400 s q. ft. T he propos ed c overed patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. T he proposed addition will remove a window from exis ting eas t façade; however, the window will be re-ins talled. West faç ade: T he addition of the covered porc h to the rear of the existing struc ture respec ts the original s tructure in s ize and s cale. To maintain the s cale, the roofline is extended – however, this extens ion does not create differentiation. T he Design G uidelines do rec ommend s ubtle differentiation, in this instanc e, the applic ant propos es shingle plank s iding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the c overed patio. W hile thes e provide the differentiation enc ouraged by the Des ign G uidelines , the style is not cons is tent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials . F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid all required fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner Page 12 of 73 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Backup Material Exhibit 5 - Updated Plans and Renderings Backup Material Page 13 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: August 8, 2019 File Number: 2019-42-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street facing façades at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name : Flagg House - Addition Applicant: Travis Adams (Riata Builders) Property Owner: Kristi Flagg Property Address: 503 E 14th Street Legal Description: Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT) Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: No notable case history HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1950 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A 2007 – Medium 2016 – Medium National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom, which affects the south façade (street- facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on the rear of the structure which affects the west façade (street-facing). Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing façade. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross-hipped roof, constructed mainly of brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some alternations, but is still significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional structures are known for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled), double-hung windows, and minimal added architectural features. Page 14 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 2 of 8 South façade: Overall, the proposed addition to the south façade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which helps to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of the original structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east façade; however, the window will be re-installed. West façade: The addition of the covered porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in size and scale. To maintain the scale, the roofline is extended – however, this extension does not create differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio. While these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not consistent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS FINDINGS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.  Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building.  Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The additions do not remove or damage any historic features. 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. Partially Complies South façade: The proposed addition will utilize the same materials as the existing structure, which is brick. It is important to use the same materials since the guidelines encourage this. However, continuing the use of brick will make the addition hard to differentiate. The addition does have a slight jog in the Page 15 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 3 of 8  See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14- exterior-additions.htm foundation and is placed in the rear of the structure. West façade: The addition of the covered porch is differentiated by the use of shingle shake siding and an arch design. While the arch design does help to create a differentiation, it is not consistent with the straight lines of the Minimal Traditional style of the structure. 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 The additions are located at the rear of the structure. 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure.  When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented earlier in this chapter. Complies The additions do not remove or damage any architectural details. 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. Complies The additions are compatible in scale to the existing structure and are placed in the rear and use the same building materials. The existing structure is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. Page 16 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 4 of 8  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. 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building.  Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for commercial buildings in the downtown area.  Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.  If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.  The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the original building. Complies The additions maintain the roof line of the existing structure by extending them. The same roof materials are proposed to be used. CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT FINDINGS 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 New residential buildings should meet the minimum front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if the block has historically developed with an extended setback  Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing façades. Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks. Complies The additions are located in the rear and meet the setback requirements of the zoning district. 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed.  See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and protecting historic building materials. Complies The additions do not remove or damage any historic building materials. 14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.  Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.  Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.  Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. Complies The addition utilizes the same building materials as the existing structure, which is brick. The Design Guidelines encourage the use of the original building material. Page 17 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 5 of 8 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.  Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance.  Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies The additions do not remove or damage any historic features. 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building.  An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure  An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate. Complies The additions are compatible in scale to the existing structure and are placed in the rear. 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen.  In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building.  An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted.  Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition.  Even applying new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition.  See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. Partially Complies South façade: • The proposed addition will utilize the same materials as the existing structure, which is brick. It is important to use the same materials since the guidelines encourage this. However, continuing the use of brick will make the addition hard to differentiate. The addition does have a slight jog in the foundation and is placed in the rear of the structure. West façade: • The addition of the covered porch is differentiated by the use of shingle shake siding and an arch design. While the arch design does help to create a differentiation, it is not Page 18 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 6 of 8 consistent with the straight lines of the Minimal Traditional style of the structure. 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts.  Setting an addition back from any primary, character- defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.  Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies The additions are located at the rear of the structure. 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure.  When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented in this document. Complies Original architectural details and materials are not being damaged, destroyed, or removed. 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building.  An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.  While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure.  An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade.  Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Complies The additions are compatible in scale to the existing structure and are placed in the rear. 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character- defining façade.  An addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies The additions are located at the rear of the structure. 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies The additions maintain the roof line of the existing structure by extending them. The same roof Page 19 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 7 of 8  Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings.  Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.  If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. materials are proposed to be used. 14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed.  See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting architectural features. Complies The architectural features of the existing structure remain protected. 14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features.  For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided.  Addition of a porch may be inappropriate Complies The architectural features of the existing structure are not damaged. 14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does the following:  An addition should be set back from the primary, character- defining façade, to preserve the perception of the historic scale of the building.  Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract attention from the historic façade. × The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a subtle way. Partially Complies The additions extend the existing roofline of the structure. The materials used for the west façade provide differentiation, which offsets the lack of differentiation in the roof. However, for the south façade, the materials do not provide differentiation – only the slight jog in the foundation. It may be appropriate to have a change in the roofline of the south façade, to create more differentiation. 14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when additions are proposed.  See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving individual building elements. Complies The additions utilize the existing building and roof materials. Page 20 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 8 of 8 In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey SUBMITTED BY Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 21 of 73 A SH S T EL M S T PI N E S T E 15 T H S T M A P L E S T S M A I N S T E 13 T H S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E S C O L L E G E S T O L I V E S T E U N I V E R S IT Y AVE F O R E S T S T S M Y R T L E S T E 9 T H S T E 11 T H S T E 1 0 T H S T R O C K S T E 16 T H S T E 14 T H S T W 9 T H S T WA L N U T S TW 1 7T H S T W 1 6 T H S T W 11 T H ST S A N J O S E S T W 1 0T H S T L A U R E L ST E 1 8 T H S T S O U L E D R C Y R U S A V E K N I G H T S T W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E E 1 7 T H S T A N N I E P U R L D V H O L L Y S T GE O R GE ST E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T W R U T E R S V I L L E D R E 1 4 T H S T E 17 TH ST E 1 4 T H S T E 1 7 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 16 TH S T E 1 0 T H S T E 16TH ST WA L N U T S T E 11 T H S T E 16T H S T E 1 7 T H S T 2019-42-COAExhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Feet Page 22 of 73 The Flagg House Letter of Intent Title: Residential Addition in Old Town, 503 E 14th St. Zoning District: RS (Residential, Single Family) Texas Historical Commission Survey Preservation Priority: Medium Project Information Proposed Use: Residential Zoning District: Residential, Single Family Acreage: .2459 (10,711 sq. ft) Proposed Total Impervious Cover: 3,316 sq. ft (31%) Legal Description of Property: S3810 - Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES 0.2459 Project Participants Builder/ Designer: Travis Adams c/o Riata Builders, 1799 CR 245 Georgetown, TX 78633 Phone: (512)-818-1117 E-mail: tadams.riata@hotmail.com Owners: Kristi Flagg, 503 E. 14th St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Phone: (512)-948-6341 E-mail: khflagg@gmail.com Utility Providers: City of Georgetown (electric, water, sewer) & Atmos (gas). Purpose of Addition: The proposed Addition will include 2 parts: Addition of a new master bathroom, and Addition of a new covered patio. The purpose of these additions will be to provide the homeowner with a traditional master suite that the existing house doesn’t offer and to allow some outdoor entertaining space. Master Bathroom: The addition of the new master bathroom will be on the East side of the house toward the north end and will be visible from 14th street. The street facing facade will be painted brick to match the existing structure. The roof over the new portion will tie into the existing and will use the same pitches and hip style as the existing. To clearly differentiate the existing from the addition without sacrificing appearance we have designed a jog in the foundation that will also provide a break in the roof line. The Paint colors that will be used will be matched directly from the existing structure. The windows being used on the east side of the addition will be removed from the existing bedroom and reused. Covered Patio: The patio addition will be on the north side of the house toward the east and will be visible from Ash st. The patio will not be accessible from the house, but it will be connected to the existing roof line. The new roof will be built with the same pitch as existing to correspond. The patio will be constructed with open air walls up to 8 ft from grade but will have siding walls above that up to the roof line to provide shade, Because the existing house is 100% masonry and does not have any siding to match we are going to use a shingle shake type siding to complement the era of the existing. We plan on incorporating an arch ceiling over a portion of the patio that will provide a distinction from the existing to the addition. Paint colors are to match existing. Page 23 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 NTS Plan Info Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-01 The F la gg Res . B a th room Addition 503 E. 14th st Georgetown, TX 78626 WCAD INFO: Property Type: Residential Legal Description: S3810 - Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES 0.2459 Neighborhood: G618T60I - Central Georgetown Less than 1960 Year blt. Account: R-20-5800-0000-0017 Map Number: 3-1127 Layout Page Table Label Title Description Comments P-01 Plan Info NTS P-02 Existing 1/8"=1' P-03 Existing Photos NTS P-04 Proposed 1/8"=1' P-05 3D Elevation NTS P-06 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1' P-07 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1' P-08 Material Data NTS P-09 Electrical 1/8"=1' P-010 Roof Plan 1/8"=1' P-011 Site Plan 1"=10' Page 24 of 73 6030MU 2868 2868 2868 5068 4068 2868 2868 26682068 4068 11068 2668 2468 39'-6 1/4" 30'-10 3/4" 22'-10 3/4" 21'-4 3/4" 12'-7 1/4" 18'-9 1/2" 10' 2'-10 3/4" 18'-7"16'29' 17'-7 1/2" 2'-10 3/4" 15'-10 3/4" 26' 2' 6' 3'8'-3 3/4"4'-6"8'-3 1/2"20'-10 3/4" 2' 8' 19'-5 3/4" 23' 12'-1" 2'2' 5'-6" 2'-6" 16' X 23' 29' X 21' 17' X 15' 14' X 15' 28' X 17' BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING KITCHEN GARAGE PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Existing Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-02 Page 25 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 NTS Existing Photos Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Street Facing Photos Rear of house (location of proposed covered patio) DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-03 Page 26 of 73 Full Ht Linen 3040DC 3040DC 2868 2868 2650SH 2650SH 3068 3050SH3050SH2650SH 80708070 2868 5068 2868 26682068 4068 11068 2668 2468 2868 PKT W/ Transom Abv 2668 2868 4068 UP Arch Ceiling 22 11 ''--77"" 1122''-- 55 "" 33 22 ''--11"" 22''--55 11//22""77''--66 11//22"" 11 66 '' 1188''--22""2277'' 1166'' 1166''-- 11 "" 22 66 '' 22'' 66'' 66''88''--33 11//22""44''--88 11//22""88''--22""2211'' 88 '' 1199''--55"" 2233'' 11 22 ''--11"" 22''22'' 33'' 55'' 11 77 ''--55 11 //22"" 55 '' 22''--77 11//22 "" 55''--66 "" 33''--99""44''--1100""22''--11""66'' 66 '' 33''--55 11//22 "" 11 88 ''--66"" 1133''-- 77 "" 33 '' --33 11 //22"" 99''--66 11//22 "" 3300''-- 11 00 33//44 "" 33 99 ''--55 11 //22"" 2233''--11""1188''--55"" 22''--33 "" 88'' 22''--66""88''--33""22'' 44 '' --33"" 55'' 22'' 33''--88 "" 33''--66 11//22 "" 11 22 ''--55 11 //22"" 22'' 1133''-- 11 11//22 "" 55 11//22""1177''--33""55 11//22"" 33'' 55 '' --66""1166''--44 11//22"" 11 55 '' 44''--11 33//44 "" 44''--88""77''44''--88 11//22"" 16' X 23' 14' X 16' 29' X 21' 12' X 8' 14' X 15' 26' X 17' 26' X 6' 13' X 10' 17' X 15' 9' X 6' COVERED PATIO GARAGE Ref Full ht Existing >< Addition MASTER BATH PORCH Shelf Stack 2R2S PORCH Freestanding tub 8' ceiling 8' Ceiling BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING BEDROOM Linen 2R2S2R2S CLOSET Permitted Scope of workPermitted Scope of work Existing window to stay New plate line for covered patio needs to be level with house Existing >< Addition Coffered Ceiling W/ Transom Abv 2668 2668 2850SH 44 '' --88 11 //22"" 11 55 '' 22''--66 11//22 "" 11 '' 22'' 66'' 22'' 1100'' 77'' Ref Full ht Shelf Stack 2R2S Freestanding tub Linen 2R2S2R2S Existing window to stay Existing >< AdditionU/C Refrigerato r Gas Grill Sink Counter overhang PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Proposed Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-04 Alternate: Finished outdoor kitchen Page 27 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 NTS 3D Elevation Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Street View of new Addition View of new covered patio on rear of house DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-05 Page 28 of 73 Shingle Shake Siding West Elevation 1133''-- 44 "" 11 11 ''--11"" 22 '' --66 11 //44"" 66 '' --88"" 1166''-- 44 "" 22''--66 11//44 "" 88''--11 "" Existing><Addition South Elevation "Street View" PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Ext. Elevations Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-06 Page 29 of 73 Highest point of new addition roof line. From Grade 66 '' --88"" 33 '' --00 11 //22"" 11 00 ''--99"" 55''--77 11//22"" 55 '' 1133''-- 33 11//44 "" Shingle Shake Siding Grade Line Existing Finish Floor Elev. East Elevation North Elevation Section North Elevation PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Ext. Elevations Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-07 Page 30 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 NTS Material Data Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-08 Exterior Brick Facade Soffit / Trim Covered Patio Siding Exterior of new addition will be painted brick to match existing. Paint color is unknown but we will use a salvaged brick and match the color exactly at Kelley Moore paints. Soffit will be Tongue and groove pine to resemble existing vinyl material and will be painted to match existing Window trim will be painted to match existing New covered patio will have Hardie shingle siding on front and rear, as well as the gable end. New shingle siding will be painted to match existing soffit and trim color Roof Material will be matched as close as possible to existing, Owens Corning - Aged Cedar There will be no NEW windows used, the windows pictured here will be removed from existing and reused on the addition. Owens Corning - Aged Cedar Existing Existing Page 31 of 73 UP Arch Ceiling WPWP WP Permitted Scope of workPermitted Scope of work Wall Fan Wall Fan PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Electrical Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-09 Page 32 of 73 UP 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 123 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 COVERED PATIO GARAGE MASTER BATH PORCH PORCH BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING BEDROOM CLOSET PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1/8"=1' Roof Plan Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-010 Page 33 of 73 Existing Concrete driveway SB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L w / W w / Ww / W w / W w / W 31'-7" 7' 90' 120' 6' 20' 15' 12' 22''--88"" 11''--44"" 44''--44"" 1133''--33"" 22''--66"" 11' Existing Garage Existing SFR Proposed Addition Existing Tree Existing Tree Proposed Covered Patio Addition Existing Waste Water line (estimated) Proposed Waste Water yard line "Rear Yard" PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 7/11/2019 1"=10' Site Plan Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Totals: Total Lot - 10,711 sq ft (WCAD) "Rear yard" - 3,873 sq ft Impervious Coverage: House (existing) - 2,182 sq ft House (proposed) - 2,393 sq ft Covered Patio (proposed) - 255 sq ft Garage - 668 sq ft Proposed Lot-31% @ 3,316 sq ft Proposed Rear yard-24% @ 923 sq ft DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-011 Page 34 of 73 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information Owner/Address FLAGG, KRISTI D, 503 E 14TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6818 Latitude:30.631822 Longitude -97.672874 Addition/Subdivision:S3810 - Hughes Addition WCAD ID:R042788Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES ADDITION, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES .2459 Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Current Designations: NR District Yes No) NHL NR (Is property contributing? RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC Other: Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Other: Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Function EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950 Builder:Architect: Healthcare Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4 Vacant Vacant Old Town District Current/Historic Name:None/None Photo direction: North Page 35 of 73 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 2 Architectural Description General Architectural Description: One-story brick house with an irregular plan, cross-hipped roof, and partial-width porch with stone piers and a metal balustrade; single front door below a front gable. Relocated Additions, modifications:Windows replaced Stylistic Influence(s) Queen Anne Second Empire Greek Revival Eastlake Italianate Log traditional Exotic Revival Colonial Revival Romanesque Revival Renaissance Revival Folk Victorian Shingle Monterey Beaux Arts Tudor Revival Mission Neo-Classical Gothic Revival Moderne Craftsman Spanish Colonial Art Deco Prairie Pueblo Revival Other: Commercial Style Post-war Modern No Style Ranch International Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet Structural Details Roof Form Mansard Pyramid Other: Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other: Roof Materials Wall Materials Metal Brick Wood Siding Stucco Siding: Other Stone Glass Wood shingles Asbestos Log Vinyl Terra Cotta Other: Concrete Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash Windows Decorative Screenwork Other: Single door Double door With transom With sidelights Doors (Primary Entrance) Other: Plan Irregular L-plan Four Square T-plan Rectangular Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage Other Bungalow Chimneys Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps Interior Exterior Other Specify #1 or more PORCHES/CANOPIES Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other Support Suspension rods Box columns Classical columns Wood posts (plain) Spindlework Wood posts (turned) Tapered box supports Masonry pier Other: Fabricated metal Jigsaw trim Suspension cables Materials:Metal FabricWood Other: # of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement: Ancillary Buildings Garage 1 Barn Shed Other: Landscape/Site Features Stone Sidewalks Wood Terracing Concrete Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other materials:Brick Other Landscape Notes: Cross-Hipped Vinyl Masonry None None None Unknown Asphalt Minimal Traditional Page 36 of 73 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 3 Historical Information Immigration/Settlement Religion/Spirituality Commerce Law/Government Science/Technology Communication Military Social/Cultural Education Natural Resources Transportation Exploration Planning/Development Other Health Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria: National State LocalLevel of Significance: Integrity: Setting Feeling Location Association Design Materials Workmanship Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined Is prior documentation available for this resource?Yes No Not known General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: some windows replaced with wood) Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts C D B A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinctions Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Areas of Significance: Periods of Significance: Integrity notes:See Section 2 Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined High Medium Priority: Low Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Other Info: Type:HABS Survey Other Documentation details 2007 survey Contact Survey Coordinator History Programs Division, Texas Historical Commission 512/463-5853 history@thc.state.tx.us Questions? 1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:343 2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded Page 37 of 73 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos NortheastPhoto Direction Page 38 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 NTS Plan Info Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-01 Th e F lagg Re s . B ath room Addition 503 E. 14th st Georgetown, TX 78626 WCAD INFO: Property Type: Residential Legal Description: S3810 - Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES 0.2459 Neighborhood: G618T60I - Central Georgetown Less than 1960 Year blt. Account: R-20-5800-0000-0017 Map Number: 3-1127 Layout Page Table Label Title Description Comments P-01 Plan Info NTS P-02 Existing 1/8"=1' P-03 Existing Photos NTS P-04 Proposed 1/8"=1' P-05 3D Elevation NTS P-06 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1' P-07 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1' P-08 Material Data NTS P-09 Electrical 1/8"=1' P-010 Roof Plan 1/8"=1' P-011 Site Plan 1"=10' P-012 Summery of changes N/A Page 39 of 73 6030MU 2868 2868 2868 5068 4068 2868 2868 26682068 4068 11068 2668 2468 39'-6 1/4" 30'-10 3/4" 22'-10 3/4" 21'-4 3/4" 12'-7 1/4" 18'-9 1/2" 10' 2'-10 3/4" 18'-7"16'29' 17'-7 1/2" 2'-10 3/4" 15'-10 3/4" 26' 2' 6' 3'8'-3 3/4"4'-6"8'-3 1/2"20'-10 3/4" 2' 8' 19'-5 3/4" 23' 12'-1" 2'2' 5'-6" 2'-6" 16' X 23' 29' X 21' 17' X 15' 14' X 15' 28' X 17' BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING KITCHEN GARAGE PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Existing Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-02 Page 40 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 NTS Existing Photos Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Street Facing Photos Rear of house (location of proposed covered patio) DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-03 Page 41 of 73 Full Ht Linen 3040DC 3040DC 2868 2868 2650SH 2650SH 3068 3050SH3050SH2650SH 80708070 2868 5068 2868 26682068 4068 11068 2668 2468 2868 PKT W/ Transom Abv 2668 2868 4068 UP 22 11 ''--77"" 1122''-- 55 "" 33 22 ''--11"" 22''--55 11//22""77''--66 11//22"" 11 66 '' 1188''--22""2277'' 1166'' 1166''-- 11 "" 22 66 '' 22'' 66'' 66''88''--33 11//22""44''--88 11//22""88''--22""2211'' 88 '' 1199''--55"" 2233'' 11 22 ''--11"" 22''22'' 33'' 55'' 11 77 ''--55 11 //22"" 55 '' 22''--77 11//22 "" 55''--66 "" 33''--99""44''--1100""22''--11""66'' 66 '' 33''--55 11//22 "" 11 88 ''--66"" 1133''-- 77 "" 33 '' --33 11 //22"" 99''--66 11//22 "" 3300''-- 11 00 33//44 "" 33 99 ''--55 11 //22"" 2233''--11""1188''--55"" 22''--33 "" 88'' 22''--66""88''--33""22'' 44 '' --33"" 55'' 22'' 33''--88 "" 33''--66 11//22 "" 11 22 ''--55 11 //22"" 22'' 1133''-- 11 11//22 "" 55 11//22""1177''--33""55 11//22"" 33'' 55 '' --66"" 1166''--44 11//22"" 44''--11 33//44 "" 11 55 ''--00 11 //22"" 16' X 23' 15' X 16' 29' X 21' 12' X 8' 14' X 15' 26' X 17' 26' X 6' 13' X 10' 17' X 15' 9' X 6' COVERED PATIO GARAGE Ref Full ht Existing >< Addition MASTER BATH PORCH Shelf Stack 2R2S PORCH Freestanding tub Vaulted ceiling BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING BEDROOM Linen 2R2S2R2S CLOSET Permitted Scope ofPermitted Scope of workwork Existing window to stay New plate line for covered patio needs to be level with house Existing >< Addition Coffered Ceiling W/ Transom Abv 2668 2668 2850SH 44 '' --88 11 //22"" 11 55 '' 22''--66 11//22 "" 11 '' 22'' 66'' 22'' 1100'' 77'' Ref Full ht Shelf Stack 2R2S Freestanding tub Linen 2R2S2R2S Existing window to stay Existing >< Addition U/C Refrigerator Gas Grill Sink Counter overhang PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Proposed Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-04 Alternate: Finished outdoor kitchen Page 42 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 NTS 3D Elevation Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Street View of new Addition View of new covered patio on rear of house DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-05 Page 43 of 73 99'' West Elevation 1133''-- 44 "" 11 11 ''--11"" 22 '' --66 11 //44"" 66 '' --88"" 1166''-- 44 "" 22''--66 11//44 "" 88''--11 "" Existing><Addition South Elevation "Street View" PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Ext. Elevations Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-06 Page 44 of 73 Highest point of new addition roof line. From Grade 66 '' --88"" 33 '' --00 11 //22"" 11 00 ''--99"" 55''--77 11//22"" 55 '' 1133''-- 33 11//44 "" 99'' Grade Line Existing Finish Floor Elev. East Elevation North Elevation Section North Elevation PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Ext. Elevations Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-07 Page 45 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 NTS Material Data Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-08 Exterior Brick Facade Soffit / Trim Exterior of new addition will be painted brick to match existing. Paint color is unknown but we will use a salvaged brick and match the color exactly at Kelley Moore paints. Soffit will be Tongue and groove pine to resemble existing vinyl material and will be painted to match existing Window trim will be painted to match existing Roof Material will be matched as close as possible to existing, Owens Corning - Aged Cedar There will be no NEW windows used, the windows pictured here will be removed from existing and reused on the addition. Owens Corning - Aged Cedar Existing Existing Page 46 of 73 UP Arch Ceiling WPWP WP Permitted Scope ofPermitted Scope of workwork Wall Fan Wall Fan PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Electrical Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-09 Page 47 of 73 UP 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 123 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 12 1166''--66"" 88''--44 33//44""88''--1100 33//44"" 1155''-- 00 11//22 "" COVERED PATIO GARAGE MASTER BATH PORCH PORCH BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING BEDROOM CLOSET PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1/8"=1' Roof Plan Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-010 Page 48 of 73 Existing Concrete driveway SB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L w / W w / Ww / W w / W w / W 31'-7" 7' 90' 120' 6' 20' 15' 12' 22''--88"" 11''--44"" 44''--44"" 1133''--33"" 22''--66"" 11' Existing Garage Existing SFR Proposed Addition Existing Tree Existing Tree Proposed Covered Patio Addition Existing Waste Water line (estimated) Proposed Waste Water yard line "Rear Yard" PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 1"=10' Site Plan Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 Totals: Total Lot - 10,711 sq ft (WCAD) "Rear yard" - 3,873 sq ft Impervious Coverage: House (existing) - 2,182 sq ft House (proposed) - 2,393 sq ft Covered Patio (proposed) - 255 sq ft Garage - 668 sq ft Proposed Lot-31% @ 3,316 sq ft Proposed Rear yard-24% @ 923 sq ft DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-011 Page 49 of 73 PAGE: SCALE: DATE: 8/14/2019 N/A Summery of changes Flagg Res. 503 E 16th st Georgetown, TX 78626 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: Travis Adams Riata Builders Tadams.riata@hotmail.com 512.818.1117 SHEET: 11"x17" P-012 Boxed eaves/ roof returns to match front gables of the house. All Trim/ columns Painted to match existing trim on house. Page 50 of 73 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 22, 2019 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for R eplac ing a His toric Architec tural F eature with a Non-His toric Architec tual F eature (S iding) at the property loc ated at 1008 S Main S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of Lot 2, Block 13 of the Los t Addition (2019-49-C O A) – C hels ea Irby, S enior P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: Overview of the Applicant's Request T he applic ant is propos ing to replac e wood siding with Hardieplank siding on a medium priority s tructure, located at 1008 S Main S treet. T he applic ant is propos ing the change in materials due to deteriorating s iding and maintenanc e c onc erns. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been rec eived. S taff F indings T he medium property s tructure located at 1008 S Main S treet does not have an identified style on the historic res ourc e survey. T he s tructure is a bungalow plan and the 2016 survey noted that the struc ture retains a relatively high degree of integrity. T he 2007 survey noted that windows are in poor condition. T he Downtown and O ld Town Design G uidelines prioritize pres ervation and maintenance of the existing historic materials. “T he best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of paint. In some cases, historic building materials may be deteriorated. W hen deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” F requently, damaged materials can be patc hed or c onsolidated us ing s pecial bonding agents. P reservation P rincipal #5 calls to: R epair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. M aintain the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing configuration. F or those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be replaced. T he guidelines call for the replacement material to matc h the original in appearanc e. T he April 2019 revis ions to the Unified Development C ode now allows for low and medium priority struc tures to us e in-kind materials. M aterial that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources. T he propos ed replacement siding is Hardieplank v-groove lo ck jo int s id ing o f the s ame width as the original wo o d . T he v-gro o ve lo ck joint matches the profile o f the original wood and wo uld b e an appropriate in-kind replacement. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid all required fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Page 51 of 73 C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Plans and Materials Backup Material Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Backup Material Page 52 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-49-COA – 1008 S Main Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: August 22, 2019 File Number: 2019-49-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION 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 (Siding) at the property located at 1008 S Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 2, Block 13 of the Lost Addition (2019-49-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name : 1008 S Main Street Applicant: Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Property Owner: Main One South LP Property Address: 1008 S Main Street Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 13 of the Lost Addition Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District, Area 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: Est. 1925 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium 2007 - Medium 2016 - Medium National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood (pine) siding with non-wood siding on the medium priority structure located at 1008 S Main Street in the Downtown Overlay District. The applicant is seeking the change in materials due to deteriorating wood siding and maintenance concerns. STAFF ANALYSIS The medium property structure located at 1008 S Main Street does not have an identified style on the historic resource survey. The structure is a bungalow plan and the 2016 survey noted that the structure retains a relatively high degree of integrity. The 2007 survey noted that windows are in poor condition. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of the existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of paint. In some cases, Page 53 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-49-COA – 1008 S Main Street Page 2 of 4 historic building materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged materials can be patched or consolidated using special bonding agents. Preservation Principal #5 calls to: Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing configuration. For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance. The April 2019 revisions to the Unified Development Code now allows for low and medium priority structures to use in-kind materials. Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources. The proposed replacement siding is Hardieplank v-groove lock joint siding of the same width as the original wood. The v-groove lock joint matches the profile of the original wood and would be an appropriate in-kind replacement. 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 FINDINGS 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. Partially Complies The applicant is proposing the replacement of all the existing wood siding, rather than repair and maintenance. However, the UDC was recently amended to allow for the in-kind replacement of materials for low and medium priority structures that has “the same or a similar Page 54 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-49-COA – 1008 S Main Street Page 3 of 4 material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure.” The Chief Building Inspector has reviewed the proposed Hardieplank product and finds that it has the same profile, including width and v- groove lock joint. 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. • 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. Does Not Comply The applicant is proposing the replacement of all the existing wood siding, rather than repair and maintenance. 5.04 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. Partially Complies The proposed Hardieplank product has the same profile, including width and v-groove lock joint. However, the applicant is proposing to replace all of the wood siding and the Design Guidelines encourage partial replacement. 5.05 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. Partially Complies Hardieplank is a synthetic material. However, the proposed Hardieplank product has the same profile, including width and v-groove lock joint. This would be an acceptable in-kind material replacement, per the UDC and Chief Building Inspector. Page 55 of 73 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-49-COA – 1008 S Main Street Page 4 of 4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; N/A 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Materials Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey SUBMITTED BY Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 56 of 73 EL M ST ASH S T S M AIN S T W 9TH S T W 8TH ST ROCK S T E 8TH S T E 9TH ST W 11TH S T W 10TH S T S MY RTLE S T S CHUR CH ST S AUSTIN AVE E 11TH ST E 10TH S T W UNIV E RSIT Y AV E E UNIVERSIT Y AV E E 1 3 TH S T TIMBER S T FOR E S T S T HART ST T I N B A R N A LY MAR TI N LUT H ER K IN G J R S T FOREST ST MAR TIN LUT HER K IN G JR S T 2019-49-COAExhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 250 500Fee t Page 57 of 73 August 9, 2019 Chelsea Irby City of Georgetown 406 W 8th St Georgetown, TX 78626 Re: Letter of Intent Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Building – Siding Replacement Dear Ms. Irby: We are submitting this application to request a variance from the Design Guidelines to utilize alternate siding material for our building located at 1008 South Main Street. As discussed previously, the siding and trim on our building is deteriorating rapidly. Since we purchased the building in 2012, we have on two separate occasions replaced deteriorated siding with the same pine siding material. Below are pictures of the deteriorated siding: Picture 1: Deteriorated Siding and Trim KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS Texas Firm F-510 Temple RICK N. KASBERG, P.E. Georgetown One South Main Street R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E., CFM 1008 South Main Street Temple, Texas 76501 THOMAS D. VALLE, P.E. Georgetown, Texas 78626 (254) 773-3731 GINGER R. TOLBERT, P.E. (512) 819-9478 ALVIN R. “TRAE” SUTTON, III, P.E., CFM JOHN A. SIMCIK, P.E., CFM Page 58 of 73 Page Two Ms. Chelsea Irby August 9, 2019 Picture 1: Deteriorated Siding and Trim Picture 3: Deteriorated Siding We have consulted with two different contractors to review the situation and provide recommendations for repair. Both contractors recommended replacement of the existing pine siding and trim with a similar Haridieplank siding and trim. Prior to our purchase of the property in 2012, one of contractors we consulted with had worked on the building for many years replacing the deteriorated wood siding and trim. Their evaluation of what is causing this deterioration is a factor of soft material, weather elements and short eaves that allows the water to cascade down the siding versus away from it. The sections that are deteriorating at a faster rate are located on the north side of the building that does not get much sun, resulting moisture remaining on the siding for longer periods. Page 59 of 73 Page Three Ms. Madison Thomas July 3, 2019 Based on the information provided to us, we respectfully request to replace the existing wood siding and associated trim pieces (pine) with Hardieplank, Aspyre Collection, Artisan V-Groove Siding and Trim Boards. The paint scheme proposed is identical to the current paint scheme, which is identified on the attached Architectural Rendering. Below are sample pictures of the product. We have also included product samples and specifications attached to this application. Picture 4: Artisan V-Groove Siding Sample No. 1 Picture 5: Artisan V-Groove Siding Sample No. 1 Page 60 of 73 Page Four Ms. Chelsea Irby August 9, 2019 Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions and/or need any additional information regarding this application. Sincerely, Alvin R. (Trae) Sutton III, P.E. ARS/ Page 61 of 73 NEW SIDING SHALL BE HARDIEPLANK, ASPYRE COLLECTION, ARTISAN V-GROOVE SIDING ARTISAN V-GROOVE SIDING ARTISAN V-GROOVE SIDING ARTISAN V-GROOVE SIDING Page 62 of 73 RETHINK THE CLASSICS Artisan® Lap Siding6 Lock Joint System Tongue and Groove System 7Mitered corners Thick Artisan® siding casts gorgeous shadow lines, recreating milled cedar profiles with lower maintenance. Lock Joint System helps enable faster, cleaner installation. Orient vertically, horizontally or use as soffit. Tongue and Groove System saves time on installation while providing a precise fit and seamless look. Mitered corners add sophistication to your design and can be crafted on-site with any Artisan® profile. Page 63 of 73 LOCK JOINT PROFILES Artisan V-Groove Siding 98 ARTISAN® BEVEL CHANNEL SIDING • Chiseled lines emphasize its deep channels • Adds an upscale accent to every home WIDTH 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth FINISH Primed PROFILE WIDTH x DEPTH 1.68 in x 0.263 in ARTISAN® V-GROOVE SIDING • Deep v-shaped channels • Great for vertical, horizontal and soffit applications WIDTH 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth FINISH Primed PROFILE WIDTH x DEPTH 0.5 in x 0.263 in Page 64 of 73 WIDTH 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth FINISH Primed PROFILE WIDTH x DEPTH 1.0 in x 0.263 in Artisan Shiplap Siding 1110 LOCK JOINT PROFILES ARTISAN® SQUARE CHANNEL SIDING • Defined right-angle cuts • Uniquely wide channel exposure ARTISAN® SHIPLAP SIDING • Brings charm to any home • Design flexibility from modern to rustic WIDTH 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth FINISH Primed PROFILE WIDTH x DEPTH 0.15 in x 0.263 in Page 65 of 73 Artisan Lap Siding 1312 TONGUE & GROOVE PROFILES ARTISAN® LAP SIDING • Casts deep shadow lines • Luxury look with long-lasting performance WIDTH 5.25 in (4.0 in Exposure) 7.25 in (6.0 in Exposure) 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth and Woodgrain FINISH Primed ARTISAN® BEADED LAP SIDING • Tailored touch replicates traditional coastal style • Creates a strong horizontal definition WIDTH 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS 5/8 in TEXTURE Smooth FINISH Primed Page 66 of 73 Artisan Trim and Artisan V-Groove Siding 1514 LOCK JOINT PROFILES Artisan V-Groove Artisan Bevel Channel Artisan Shiplap Artisan Square Channel Artisan Beaded Lap Artisan Lap TONGUE & GROOVE PROFILES SOPHISTICATED STYLING ARTISAN® TRIM • Perfect partner for Artisan® profiles • Thick boards for distinctly deep shadow lines WIDTH 3.25 in and 5.5 in THICKNESS 1.5 in WEIGHT 4.55 lbs/sq ft LENGTH 144.0 in FINISH Primed Artisan Lap Siding Page 67 of 73 by aspyredesign.com © 2018 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All Rights Reserved. TM, SM, and ® denote trademarks or registered trademarks of James Hardie Technology Limited. ASP1812 6/18 The Aspyre Collection by James Hardie™ expands your creative possibilities Artisan V-Groove Siding and Artisan Lap Siding Page 68 of 73 Distinctive design that’s engineered to last by Product Catalog Page 69 of 73 INTRODUCING THE ASPYRE COLLECTION BY JAMES HARDIE ™ by + 32 Craft one-of-a-kind homes by integrating contrasting elements using the Aspyre Collection by James Hardie™. Ever-changing shadow lines cast by Artisan® siding add warmth to the fixed geometry of smooth Reveal® Panels. Contents Introduction 2-3 Performance 4-5 Artisan® Siding and Trim 6-15 Reveal® Panel System 16-19 Page 70 of 73 PERFORMANCE THROUGH INNOVATION The Aspyre Collection features the uncompromising performance you’ve come to expect from James Hardie. 54 JAMES HARDIE® FIBER CEMENT IS TOUGHER THAN THE ELEMENTS Stands up to storms and harsh weather Water resistant to help protect against swelling and mold damage Won’t be eaten by animals or insects Fire resistant Artisan® and Reveal® products are uniquely Engineered for Climate®– specifically designed to resist the effects of your local weather conditions. Artisan® V-Groove Siding Page 71 of 73 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:1008 S Main St 2016 Survey ID:124646 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R090168Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1925 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: windows in poor condition) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:705 ID:426 *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:124646 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.634438 Longitude -97.67729 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 72 of 73 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:1008 S Main St 2016 Survey ID:124646 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos WestPhoto Direction SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 73 of 73