Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_06.09.2022Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown June 9, 2022 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 26, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural C ommittee - Kimberly S penc er, Development Administration P rogram Manager C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines and an addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade for the property at 1415 Ash S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.489 ac res , Bloc k 8 (S W /P T ), Hughes Addition (2022-13-C O A)- Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange D P ublic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r an addition that c reates a new, o r adds to an exis ting street facing faç ad e and a 6'-0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage additio n 0' fro m the side (no rth) property line for at the property lo c ated at 1511 As h S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n o f .26 ac res , Bloc k 12 (S W /C T R ), Hughes Addition. E Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . -Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange Adjournment Page 1 of 137 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 _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 137 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review June 9, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the May 26, 2022, regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural C ommittee - Kimberly S pencer, Development Adminis tration P rogram Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Kimberly S penc er, P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 137 Page 1 of 7 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: May 26, 2022 Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice-Chair; Lawrence Romero; Tom W. Davis, Karalei Nunn, Alternate Williams “Jud” Harris Members Absent: Jennifer Powell, Alton Martin, Alternate Pierce P. Macguire Staff present: Tadd Phillips, Interim Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Meredith Johnson; Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:03 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 12, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by Commissioner Burns. Approved unanimously 6-0. C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new residential (infill) construction for the property located at 510 E. 7th Street bearing the legal description Lot 1, Block 36, Glasscock Addition (2021-67-COA). -- Meredith Johnson, consultant Meredith Johnson presented staff report. Johnson reviewed the applicants request to construct a new house on a vacant parcel. The new house is proposed to be 3,457 sq. ft. that will contain approximately 2,961 sq. ft. of living space, a 325 sq. ft. attached garage, and 171 sq. ft. of covered Page 4 of 137 Page 2 of 7 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: May 26, 2022 patio and porch space. Johnson summarized the historical progression of the lot and the historical resource survey status of the homes surrounding the empty lot. At the April 14, 2022, meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, the Commission shared concerns of architectural features such as windows not matching and façade coming across as flat due to the garage placement/aesthetics. Additionally, the Commission recommended the applicant review setbacks and consider opportunities for more creativity in design to fit the character of the District. Johnson presented on the proposed windows. Outlined 4.14.22 conceptual plan and newly proposed 5.26.2022 conceptual plan as it pertains to window design/character and primary façade, including siding (shingle-like), materials, garage size, awnings, and roof line/character. Johnson proceeded to outline overall proposed materials and reviewed compliance with the Approval Criteria. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 31 of the 38 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines and meets 4 of the 6 applicable criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030 for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Applicant was present and available to address questions. Chance Leigh addressed the commission. Leigh spoke to the pieces of criteria that did not comply. He continued to share thedifficulty of the lot and the restrictions as it pertains to front/back setbacks and easements. He continued to discuss proposed window material, Fiberex. From an availability standpoint, accessibility is very low due to lead time and material shortage. Commissioner Romero asked for additional information on the Fiberex windows. Leigh noted that the Fiberex windows would be Anderson branded windows and would be comprised of 40% recycled wood and 60% polymer. Commissioner Romero asked for clarification on if the Fiberex windows would expand/contract? Leigh is uncertain of the long term effects of this material. Commissioner Nunn requested clarification on if there is room to increase the entry porch and if the porch can come inward toward the garage. Leigh shared that there may be possible concerns regarding impervious cover but can make that consideration. Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Motion to approve Item C with the following conditions (Criteria F3: Expand the width of the porch inward toward the garage to 19ft, Criteria F13: Expand the width of the columns to Page 5 of 137 Page 3 of 7 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: May 26, 2022 18’x18’, bring the roof vent on the gable up to scale) as presented by Commissioner Harris. Open discussion. Commissioners discussed removing the condition of expanding the front porch width. Motion to amend the original motion to Approve with the following conditions (Criteria F13: Expand the width of the columns to 18’x18’, bring the roof vent on the gable up to scale) by Commissioner Harris. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved unanimously 6-0. D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new or adds to an existing street façade for the property located at 709 Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 3 (S/PT), Block 40, City of Georgetown. --Meredith Johnson, consultant Meredith Johnson presented the staff report. She began by clarifying the applicants request to relocate the existing 3’ x 8’ door approximately 8' to the north and to separate one large window into two smaller windows. Johnson continued to share that essentially, the project will change the location of the left-most door from the center of the facade to the left side of the facade and replace the window adjacent to the door with two smaller windows. The rightmost door will remain in the same location, i.e. just right of center on the facade. The new space between the two doors will be reconstructed to match the existing storefront through the use of large picture-window panes and custom wood detailing. The layout of the new space between the doors will be similar to the re- created storefront found on 707 Main, also owned by the Sun. Applicant was present for questions and approached the podium. Clark Thurman shared the purpose of their request in greater detail. The applicant clarified that over the last three decades, newspaper publication has shifted from large printing presses to a more compact digital printing process. Some newspapers have decided to skip the printing process completely in favor of digital publication. Though the Sun will still provide both print and digital publications, the space needed to house its printing system can now be reduced. The renovation will allow the first and second floors of the 709 Main building to have separate entrances for future tenants. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 8 of the 10 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 1 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval for this request. Chair Walton opened the floor for questions and comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Davis addresses building’s originality and shared that the outside façade should not be jeopardized to meet interior needs. Commissioner Nunn asked for clarification on the historical nature of the building. The applicant shared that the building itself does not have a historical marker, however, the business is noted as historical. Page 6 of 137 Page 4 of 7 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: May 26, 2022 Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Motion to approve Item D as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Burns. Approved 4-2 (Nunn/Davis against) E Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. -Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Waggoner presented updates to the commission. He discussed the previously approved COA from March 2022 for 1903 S Church. Waggoner noted the history of the COA and shared that the chief building officer issued a stop work order submitted on May 18, 2022. This violation has been turned over for enforcement and is now a municipal issue. When work is done outside of the approved COA, in this case, the project will need to come back to the demolition subcommittee to seek approval for demolition. HARC will need to approve or deny the demolition. Waggoner will be contacting HARC and the demolition subcommittee once an application has been received. Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on what options HARC/demolition subcommittee will have once this item has been presented to the committee. Waggoner shared that the choices will be to approve, deny, approved with conditions, or postpone. No further Questions/Comments. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Page 7 of 137 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review June 9, 2022 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines and an addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade for the property at 1415 As h S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.489 acres, Block 8 (S W /P T ), Hughes Addition (2022-13- C O A)- Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: Requested Changes: T he fence is 3’ 6” in total height and c onsists of an 8" brick base with 30" powder-coated c ustom wrought iron pickets and 7 16"x16" brick posts , to matc h the exis ting chimney and anchor the corners . T he applicant is proposing the fence to be loc ated at the front property line (wes t) and beyond the (s outh) s ide s treet property line approximately 18” from the sidewalk on 15th S t. C urrently the property line is 4 feet off the sidewalk). T he applicant is c onc urrently seeking a Licens e to Encroac h on public right of way through a separate applic ation and agrees to the removal of the fenc e, if the area is needed for future utilities , at their expens e. T he applic ant is als o proposing a 10’x10’ (open) wood deck addition within the s ide yard of the property making use of the primary s tructure’s roofline. T he wood deck will be added to the north façade, parallel to As h S treet. S taff's Analysis: S taff has reviewed the reques t in acc o rd anc e with the Unified Develo p ment C ode (UDC ) and other applicable c o d es . S taff has determined that the propos ed request meets 6 of the 7 applicable c riteria es tablished in UDC S ec tion 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R eport. Public Comment: As required by the Unified Development C o d e, and two (2) s igns were posted on-s ite. To d ate, s taff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in oppos ition to the request. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Cover Memo Page 8 of 137 Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit Exhibit 4b - National Register Designation Exhibit Pres entation Pres entation Page 9 of 137 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: June 6, 2022 File Number: 2022-13-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines and an addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade for the property at 1415 Ash Street, bearing the legal description 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-13-COA) - Meredith Johnson, consultant AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: HARC-Fence Height and Location and Addition Applicant: Dunk In Pools, c/o Adrian Duncan Property Owner: Tim Haynie Property Address: 1415 Ash St Legal Description: 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: N/A Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1916 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High National Register Designation: Accepted into the National Registry 1987 Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✔ New 3’6” fence along the front and south street side property lines ✔ Addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade STAFF ANALYSIS Page 10 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 2 of 10 Present Property Description: The property located at 1415 Ash Street is a high priority structure which was accepted into the National Register of Historic Places in 1987 for significance in local architecture and politics/government. The home and occupants are described in the the 1987 national registry nomination form. The home is one of two known architect-designed pre-1935 dwellings in Georgetown. The other is Burcham House at 1310 College, both designed by Forth Worth Architect ML. Waller. The home at 1415 Ash was built by Judge Frank L Love and his wife Millie in 1916. Frank Love served as a Williamson County Judge from 1909 – 1927. His tenure in this elected position was among the longest in the county's history. He also presided over the commissioner's court that was responsible for the construction of the present Williamson County Courthouse (National Register, 1977). Love lived in the house until his death in 1931. His wife, Mellie Lockett Love was the daughter of prosperous Dry Goods merchant, MB Lockett. The 2016 HSR identifies the structure as a center passage home with a one-and-a-half-story wood-frame asymmetrical plan with a gable roof and composition shingles. The roof includes broad eaves with jig- sawn brackets. The front elevation faces west and the exterior includes a brick chimney. Requested Changes: The fence is 3’ 6” in total height and consists of an 8" brick base with 30" powder-coated custom wrought iron pickets and 7 16"x16" brick posts, to match the existing chimney and anchor the corners. The applicant is proposing the fence to be located at the front property line (west) and beyond the (south) side street property line approximately 18” from the sidewalk on 15th St. Currently the property line is 4 feet off the sidewalk). The applicant is concurrently seeking a License to Encroach on public right of way through a separate application and agrees to the removal of the fence, if the area is needed for future utilities, at their expense. The applicant is also proposing a 10’x10’ (open) wood deck addition within the side yard of the property making use of the primary structure’s roofline. The wood deck will be added to the north façade, parallel to Ash Street. Justification for Requests: In their Letter of Intent (attached), the applicant states, that the placement of the fence beyond the street side (south) property line along 15th Street is to avoid the root system of a pecan tree and to match the distance from the sidewalk to the fence (18”) as the fence on Ash St. According to the applicant, this will create a balanced design, and optimize curb appeal. The applicant is requesting a height of 3’6” to account for the airiness of a thin wrought iron fence, adding another 6” wouldn’t make the fence look heavy, busy or walled off, to provide privacy and additional ornamentation along the front property line. The porch addition will extend the porch and porch roof without the screens. The LOI states that the design “incorporates the roof to “tie in” to the existing shed roof line and at the 5’ midpoint drop Page 11 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 3 of 10 down” to form a gable roof. The application states that the homeowner is seeking to add a non- screened outdoor sitting area. Technical Review: The proposed fence design is similar in materials and height to other properties in the immediate area and within the Old Town District including the immediately adjacent property at 1503 Ash. The subject property. The proposed fence will use brick, giving it a polished look that will match the brick chimney and used for planting borders throughout the front yard. The iron work is custom for the proposed fence. The iron is powder-coated black with dulled tips on each end. The iron features a club as an ornamental detail. At its highest point, the fence will measure 3’6”. The wrought iron component will measure 30” and will be placed on top of a brick base measuring 8” tall. There is about a 2-4” gap between the base of the iron and the top of the brick. The total height of the wrought iron and brick base component will be 3’6”. The brick base will lead into seven (7) brick posts that will measure 18” by 18” and will be 3’ 6” tall. The proposed fence would screen the view of the house, but only slightly as the proposed fence is about 95-98% transparent. The fence does not affect the integrity of the home as it is removable without causing harm to the structure. The brick columns support the original chimney which is a notable architectural feature. The porch is a 10’ x 10’ wood deck to be located on top of the existing 28” tall porch slab. The porch addition will be constructed using wood. The finishes will include brick veneer pavers installed as flooring to match the existing screened back porch, white Hardie board trim to match the existing, a pre- made lattice and pre-made balustrades, and asphalt shingles for the roof to match the existing. The gable roof will “tie into” the existing porch’s shed roof to complete the gable. The addition of the overhang increases the roofline to be 12’6”. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 25 of the 25 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the ad opted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE– OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.3.G Fences & Retaining Walls G.1 Fencing Page 12 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 4 of 10 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE– OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES a. A fence that defines a front yard should be low to the ground, shall not exceed 4 feet, and be 50% “transparent” in nature. b. Front yard fences along the property line can be constructed out of the following materials: Masonry or stone walls Masonry may be used at the base for no higher than 8 inches, or on posts flanking the walkway to support a gate or on corner posts. Ornamental iron Ornamental iron fences should be more delicate than the standards for wood picket fences. Wood picket Pickets should be vertical and should not occupy more than 50% of the fence panel. The pickets or materials should not be more than 2.5 inches wide at its widest point. Posts should be no more than 6 inches wide. Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards and are inappropriate. Complies The proposed fence meets the requirements for transparency. The front yard fence does not exceed 4’. Additionally, the design guideline for fence materials calls for masonry walls, ornamental walls, or wood picket fences. The proposed fence does have ornamental iron that is more delicate than wood pickets. The masonry base is 8” tall. c. Side yard fencing A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard counterpart may be considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards. Side yard fences erected to the street side of the building line and within the side street setback may be of any of the above materials not over four (4) feet in height. Side yard fences behind the building may be built to a height of six (6) feet. The fence can be constructed as a privacy fence from wood. Complies The proposed fence will partially extend to the side yard and does not exceed 4’ in height. Page 13 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 5 of 10 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Complies Though the addition will be visible from the street, the scale of the addition is small and the material used will keep the addition subordinate to the primary. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies The addition’s architecture will be simple in form and detail, and in scale it will be smaller than the primary. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character- defining elevation. Complies The addition is located on the side of the house, at the rear. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one-story houses. Complies The addition is located on the first floor. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Complies The addition is situated toward the rear of the existing house, on the north facade. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the Complies The addition is setback away from the character defining façade of the home. A Page 14 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 6 of 10 addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). portion of the addition will be screened by a fence. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Complies The addition includes a gable roof that runs parallel to Vine Street and is compatible in form with the gabled roof of the primary structure. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies The proposed roof addition will complete one half of an existing roof overhang to create a gable that will match the rest of the roof. The proposed materials for the roof will match the existing asphalt shingles. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies Both the primary building and addition utilize symmetrically proportioned roof forms. K.6 Design of additions should be compatible with the primary structure. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. Complies The proposed roof form matches the existing. c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing buildings. Complies The addition respects the existing structure through its simplicity and materials. The design of the addition does not compete with the primary and the materials are complimentary to the primary. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Complies The proposed materials will match the decking materials of the porch. The proposed roof materials will match the existing roof materials of the primary. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies Siding is not proposed for this porch. The roof materials match the original. Page 15 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 7 of 10 c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. Complies The proposed materials will match in color and proportion. The addition is visually subordinate to the primary. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. Complies The addition will be discernable from the primary in that the design of the proposed porch uses simple materials, mostly wood. The addition will match the primary’s trim, roof form, roof materials, and design simplicity of the existing porch. The addition is different in that it will not have ornamentation to match the front façade, and it will not be screeded to match the existing porch. 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Complies The addition will be smaller than the primary and will be situated towards the rear of the primary with a fence screen to prevent it from affecting the front façade. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies The addition is distinguishable from the primary in its simplicity and the use of materials. The materials and scale of the addition match the primary, but are considerably simpler that the existing porch Page 16 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 8 of 10 or any of the woodwork found on the facades of the primary. The size of the addition is smaller than the primary. The roof of the addition does not compete with the primary as it is much shorter than the existing. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 6 out of 7 applicable criteria. SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies Staff reviewed the application and deemed it complete. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Partially Complies The Unified Development Code (UDC) identifies that residential properties in the Old Town Overlay District are required to have a 3’ tall and 50% transparent fence in the front yard and side street setback, and the proposed fence is 3’6”’. The applicant achieves the transparency requirement. The requested height is consistent with the intent of the UDC regulation. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies The proposed fence and the addition comply with the applicable SOI standards. APPLICABLE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES . 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be Page 17 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 9 of 10 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies The request complies with the guidelines for transparency, intent for height, materials, and general location. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies The subject property has high historic integrity. The height and transparency of the proposed fence and addition support the integrity of the structure. The materials recommended by the Design Guidelines are compatible with the primary structure. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies The addition is compatible with surrounding properties. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Within the Old Town overlay fences and rear porch additions exist in a variety of heights, styles, and materials. The overall character, and the character of the near vicinity of the subject property, is generally lower height, transparent fences, including wood pickets and decorative iron fencing along street property lines. The height and transparency of the proposed fence are compatible with the general character of the district. The height and materials of the proposed porch addition are compliant. Page 18 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-13-COA– 1415 Ash St. Page 10 of 10 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION As required by the Unified Development Code, and two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys SUBMITTED BY Meredith Johnson, consultant Page 19 of 137 Location 2022-13-COA Exhibit #1 E 15TH ST WA L N U T ST S C O L L E G E S T AS H S T E L M S T S C H U R C H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 16TH ST E 16TH ST WA L N U T S T S M Y R T L E S T E 16TH ST E 13TH ST E 14TH ST 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 20 of 137 City of Georgetown Planning Department 406 W. 8th Street P.O. Box 1458 Georgetown, TX 78627 RE: Letter of Intent: Administrative Exception (Alternative Fence Design) for the property located at 1415 S. Ash St. Georgetown, TX 78626 This letter of intent submitted by applicant Adrian Duncan (contractor) for the homeowners Tim & La Nell Haynie for an Administrative Exception. The proposed exception has two parts: 1. Locate the fence 18” from the sidewalk on 15th St.(current property line is 4 feet off sidewalk) and move the fence towards the sidewalk on 15th St. (this is a shift towards 15th by about 2.5’) 2. Allow an extra 6” height to the fence for a total height of 3’6”. The first part (15th St.) is to avoid the root system of a pecan tree but also to have the same measurable distance from the sidewalk to the fence (18”) as the fence on Ash St. This will create a balanced design, and optimize curb appeal. The homeowner agrees to the removal of the fence, if the area is needed for future utilities, at his expense. The second part is to allow the fence to be 3’6”. Due to the airiness of a thin wrought iron fence, adding another 6” wouldn’t make the fence look heavy, busy or walled off. The neighbor across 15th St., has a “grandfathered in” 52” fence (see photo 1503 Ash St.) and we are asking less than that. The fence is not your average store bought wrought iron fence, it is one-of-a-kind and will be a beautiful addition to the “Old Town” neighborhood. Please see the attached Brick and Wrought iron fence example. The bricks will match the chimney of the home and the wrought iron will be powder coated black. These two proposed Administrative Exceptions will not conflict with any of the adjoining properties and or neighbors, nor will it impede the flow of traffic on the streets nor on the sidewalks. I look forward to any and all correspondence on the above matter, and thank you for your time and consideration on the following request. Respectfully, Adrian Duncan Page 21 of 137 City of Georgetown Planning Department 406 W. 8th Street P.O. Box 1458 Georgetown, TX 78627 RE: Letter of Intent: Certificate of Appropriateness (Covered Patio Design) for the property located at 1415 S. Ash St. Georgetown, TX 78626. Project No. 2022-13-COA This letter of intent submitted by applicant Adrian Duncan (contractor) for the homeowners Tim & La Nell Haynie for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. Add a 28” elevated 10’ x 10’ wood deck with a gable roof and brick veneer pavers installed as flooring to match the existing screened back porch. 2. The design incorporates the roof to “tie in” to the existing shed roof line and at the 5’ midpoint drop down to form a gable roof (see photos). With the addition of the overhang the roofline ends up at 12’6”. I have attached a photo showing the street view from the middle of the street on Ash St. This photo with an overlying “sketch” shows the highest point seen but also shows the openness below it. This COA is for a small addition that is visible from the street but allows for a covered area not within the screened in porch area for the homeowner to use the space on rainy days without a screen. This addition will not obstruct or interfere with the surrounding area and or neighbors views. The trim, flooring, shingles balusters, all other materials will match the existing structure and will follow the Historic District Design Guidelines I look forward to any and all correspondence on the above matter, and thank you for your time and consideration on the following request. Respectfully, Adrian Duncan Page 22 of 137 Blue line represents the gable. Red is the 10’ mark and post location Yellow line shows masonry wall Red indicates the 10’x10’ deck w/a gable roof tied into and matching the existing structure. Page 23 of 137 1415 Ash Street Existing House North Elevation New roof to match existing Roof Pitch 4/12 White Trim Existing grade 10’ 12.6’ Scale: ½” = 1’ White rails, balusters & lattice 13’3” 10’7” 28” Page 24 of 137 Page 25 of 137 Existing Patio –Lattice/Baluster Existing Patio – Tile Existing Roof -shingles Page 26 of 137 Page 27 of 137 Page 28 of 137 Forged Steel C Scroll 3-15/16”W, 7-7/8”H, .9lbs 5/8” square finials 5/8” vertical pickets 2” Posts Page 29 of 137 Actual Brick on Fireplace Brick on Fireplace at 1415 Ash St. Limestone Cap Brickwork to match this pattern/form Page 30 of 137 Blue line represents the gable. Red is the 10’ mark and post location Yellow line shows masonry wall Red indicates the 10’x10’ deck w/a gable roof tied into and matching the existing structure. Page 31 of 137 1415 Ash Street Existing House North Elevation New roof to match existing Roof Pitch 4/12 White Trim Existing grade 10’ 12.6’ Scale: ½” = 1’ White rails, balusters & lattice 13’3” 10’7” 28” Page 32 of 137 Page 33 of 137 Page 34 of 137 Existing Patio –Lattice/Baluster Existing Patio –Tile Existing Roof -shingles Page 35 of 137 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1415 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125702 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042799Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1916 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes:Architect: M.L. Waller (Notes from 2007 Survey: None) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:985 ID:648 *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 Frank and Mellie Love House ID:125702 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.630999 Longitude -97.672827 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: East Page 36 of 137 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1415 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125702 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NorthPhoto Direction Shed NorthPhoto Direction NortheastPhoto Direction Page 37 of 137 HPS form 10.900-1 IM2I OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register off Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item number all Page 20 1 County _ City.'Rural 2- Name TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) Williamson I WM I 5 uSGS Quad No UTM .'Sector 627-3389 6 Date: Georgetown WM GE 3097-313 Site No. 648. Photo 20 Frank & Mellie Love House Address 1A15 Ash Factual . 7 Architect'Builder 1916 Est. M. L. Waller of Fort Worth . Contractor 3 Owner . Address. Thomas Guyton Same. Georgetown. 78626 Hughs/Blk. 8/southwest corner 8 Style/Type _ 9, Original Use Present Use residential residential 4 Block/U)t 10 Description One-and-a-half-story wood-frame dwelling with asymmetrical plan; exterior walls with 117/121 siding and stucco veneer on upper story that resembles half timbering! gable roof with composition shingles; broad eaves with jigsawn brackets; front elevation faces west; exterior brick chimney; good 11. Present Cond: on 12 Sign'icance Primary area of significance; architecture and association with prominent individual. One of two known architect-designed pre-1935 dwellings In Georgetown. fThe other is Burcham House (Site No. 658) at 1310 College.] Built 13 Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x iflfescrlt^e) residential neighborhood southeast of CBD; mostly early twentieth-century dwellings nearby. 14 Bibi ography _ files Georgetown Historical Society informant. 16. Recorder D. Moore/HHM Date July 1984 TNRIS No. NR: Other • RTHL • Ind'. dual • The-atic NR F.;e Name DESIGNATIONS 0!d ThC Code • HABS (no) TEX B&W 4 X 5s PHOTO DATA Slides. n Historic District • Multiple-Resource 35mm Negs YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME 10 to 31 7 to 31 10 to CONTINUATION PAGE No. _2-0f TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) 1 Coj-ity Win-iamsnn City'Rural Gpnrgpf own 2 Nan-'P . Frank R MPIHP T.nvp Hniisp _GE. 5. USGS Quad No _ UTM Pt U/6272A0/3389240 Acreage T.ps.s than nnp arre Site No. 648 #10. Description (cont'd): wood-sash double-hung windows with 4/1 lights; wood casement windows with eight pairs of lights; single-door entrance; three-bay porch with shed roof wraps around south and west elevations; paired box supports. Other noteworthy features include large gabled dormers on north and south. #12. Significance (cont'd): for Frank Love who served as Williamson County judge from 1909 to 1927. His wife Mellie, was daughter of prominent merchant M. B. Lockett. Page 38 of 137 WASO Form -177 ("R" June 1984) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET Love, Frank & Mellie, House (Georgetown MRA)^ wTTliamson County TEXAS n resubmission CH nomination by person or local government • owner objection Q appeal DEC 2 1985 Worlcing No. Fed. Reg. Date: _ Date Due: '- '7/1^7^6 Action: ACCEPT,. REJECT Federal Agency: Substantive Review: CH sample • request CH appeal NR decision Reviewer's comments 'J^i^^-nAuiJ ^£^^t--J^-<n<^ - ''^^^'^^^tyW^ecom./Criteria ^(L7aJ-t< Discipline. Date Nomination returned for: X terhniral corrections cited below substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Category Ownership Public Acquisition Status Accessible Present Use 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Has this property been determined eligible? • yes CJ no 7. Description Condition excellent CH good • fair I I deteriorated CH ruins I I unexposed Check one unaltered CH altered Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance CH summary paragraph CH completeness CH clarity CH alterations/integrity CH dates I I boundary selection Check one • original site moved date. Page 39 of 137 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below Specific dates Builder/Architect Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) • summary paragraph CH completeness CH clarity CH applicable criteria 0 justification of areas checked TH relating significance to the resource CH context CH relationship of integrity to significance CH justification of exception CH other 9. Major Bibliographical References yiO. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quadrangle name UTM References r erbal boundary description and justification /^•b-jbx^fPu.w* JL '4 •3 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national state local State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date 13. Other CH Maps CH Photographs • Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to /^.,/^^^^3£.^^^-^ Signec Date /^/73^^ Phoned GPO 91 8-450 Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet Page 40 of 137 NPS Form 10-900-* OMB No. 1024-0018 0*1 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior . „ National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item numt)er all Page 20a AMENDMENTS - FEBRUARY 1986 A. VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: Hughes Addition, Block 8, Rectangular lot 120 feet wide by 180.6 feet deep at southwest corner of block. 12. SIGNIFICANCE: Primary area of significance: architecture and politics/ government. One of two known architect-designed pre- 1935 dwellings in Georgetown. [The other is Burcham House (Site No. 658) at 1310 College.] Built in 1916 for Frank Love, a prominent local attorney who served as Willieirason County judge from 1909 to 1927. His tenure in this elected position was among the longest in the county's history and demonstrates his political support throughout the entire county. He also presided over the commissioner's court that was responsible for the construction of the present Williamson County Courthouse (National Register, 1977). Love lived in the house until his death in 1931. Page 41 of 137 NPS FofTTi 10-900-i CM2) United States Department off the Interior National Park Service National Register off Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item numtier OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 loin's tMi* otsf Page Multiple Resource Area Thematic Group Name Georgetown MRA g^g^g Williamson uounty, xtiAAb Nom.ination/Type of Review 21. Hawnen, A. W., House 22. Harper-Chesser House Date/Signature ' in im V-K^pe, .eeper Attest /^Keeper A>^M > 23. Hyer, Dr. Robert, House gubstaAtlva H«Tie* 24. Imhoff House Attest I Keeper ^^^^£^^^^^4^ Attest is -U 25. IrVine, George, House 26. Johnson, J.J., Farm Attest ^ Attest SnbtrbM-klTe Hftvle* deeper Attest 27. Lane-RUey House -ffgeeper^pi^, ^/j--,,. >-28. Leake,Will & Mary, House 29. Love, Frank & Mellie, House 30. Leavell, John, House Attest Keeper y^ /hY"/^^^ Attest Sd)«t«AtlTe BtTie* Keeper^^2t^ Attest Keeperj^^^^^^ ^77^7A^^ Attest Page 42 of 137 WASO Form - 177 ("R" June 1984) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET Love, Frank & Mellie, House (Georgetown MRA) Williamson County TEXAS resubmission • nomination by person or local government • owner objection • appeal Substantive Review: CD sample request Worlcing No. Fed. Reg. Date: '^^^^'^^ Date Due: .T/^/6^^ Action: _5=rACCEPT Y 7 ^ s7 RETURN .REJECT Federal Agency: • appeal iNR decision Reviewer's comments: Al^^ ^ Recom./Criteria ( .-T^yn 7J<z^. SiCuy^ u/y^ JbU. G . cicLA-.uLjLj Reviewer 7^/77) d Q/XJX^i D Discipline y TTi^^P— Date ^/ 7J-J, 7 Nomination returned for: .technical corrections cited below .substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Category Ownership Public Acquisition Status Accessible Present Use 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Has this property been determined eligible? • yes no 7. Description Condition excellent CH good • fair I I deteriorated CZ]ruins I I unexposed Check one unaltered altered Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance • summary paragraph • completeness • clarity • alterations/integrity r~] dates I I boundary selection Check one • original site moved date. Page 43 of 137 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below Specific dates Builder/Architect Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) summary paragraph • completeness O clarity O applicable criteria O justification of areas checked • relating significance to the resource CH context CD relationship of integrity to significance CU justification of exception • other 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quadrangle name UTM References Verbal boundary description and justification 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national state local State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date 13. Other CH Maps CH Photographs CH Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to. Signed Date Phone: GPO 918-450 Comments for any item may be continuadon an attached stieet Page 44 of 137 Page 45 of 137 Page 46 of 137 Please refer to the map in the Multiple Property Cover Sheet for this property Multiple Property Cover Sheet Reference Number: 64000843 Page 47 of 137 New Fence and Porch at 1415 Ash St. 2022-13-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission June 9, 2022 Page 48 of 137 2 Item Under Consideration 2022-13-COA •Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines and an addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade for the property at 1415 Ash Street, bearing the legal description 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-13-COA)-Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. -Long Range Page 49 of 137 3 Item Under Consideration HARC: •New 3’6” fence along the front property line and partially along the street side property lines. •New porch addition Page 50 of 137 4 Feedback from 4.14.2022 HARC Meeting Provide further details of the fence to include: •brick •Iron posts •caps Modifications since 4.14.2022 HARC Meeting •Updated fence details •10x10’ addition that creates a street facing facade Page 51 of 137 5 Item Under Consideration -Fence Page 52 of 137 6 Item Under Consideration -Porch Page 53 of 137 7 Page 54 of 137 8 Current Context Page 55 of 137 9 Sanborn Map -1916 Page 56 of 137 10 1964 Aerial Page 57 of 137 11 1974 Aerial Page 58 of 137 12 1984 HRS Photo Page 59 of 137 13 2016 HRS Photo(s) Page 60 of 137 16 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials 120’ 20’ 33’ Page 61 of 137 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Brick pillar example at 1503 Ash St. provided by the applicant. Wrought iron fence example provided by the applicant. Location unknown. Page 62 of 137 18 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 63 of 137 19 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 64 of 137 20 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 65 of 137 21 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 66 of 137 22 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 67 of 137 23 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 68 of 137 28 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Partially Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;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 Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 69 of 137 29 Public Notification •Number 2 signs posted •To date, staff has received: •0 written comments IN FAVOR •0 written comments OPPOSED Page 70 of 137 30 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines and an addition that creates or adds to an existing street facing facade for the property at 1415 Ash Street, bearing the legal description 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition. Page 71 of 137 31 HARC Motion –2022-13-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 72 of 137 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review June 9, 2022 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible ac tio n on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that c reates a new, o r ad d s to an exis ting street fac ing façade and a 6'-0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage additio n 0' fro m the s id e (north) property line fo r at the property loc ated at 1511 As h S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f .26 acres, Blo ck 12 (S W /C T R ), Hughes Addition. IT E M S UMMARY: Requested Changes: T he applic ant is requesting HAR C approval to cons truct a carport and garage/works hop in a loc ation on the property currently occ upied by two nonc ontributing struc tures , a detached garage and s hed. T he applic ant’s exis ting carport encroac hes into the 6’ s ide setback, and the proposed new c arport and garage will also enc roach, requiring a 6’ side s etbac k modification. Along the west wes tern faç ade (fac ing As h S t.), the applic ant also intends to install new windows and re- orient a north facing the side entry door to street facing façade (facing Ash S t.). Along two non-s treet fac ing fac ades , the applic ant intends to re-size two windows and ins talling a window in the plac e of the reloc ated door (north faç ade). S taff's Analysis: S taff has determined that the proposed projec t c omplies with 24 of the 28 applic able His toric Dis tric t Des ign G uidelines in C hapter 3 as detailed below in the Applic able Design G uidelines. Public Comments: As req uired by the Unified Develo p ment C ode, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the s ubjec t property were notified o f the C ertific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s req uest (35 notices), and number (1) s ign was pos ted on-s ite. To date, staff has rec eived 0 written comments in favor and 0 in oppos ition to the reques t (Exhibit 5). F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Page 73 of 137 Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 4 – Historic Res ource Survey Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans and Specifications Exhibit Pres entation Pres entation Page 74 of 137 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: June 3, 2022 File Number: 2022-17-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and a 6' -0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage addition 0' from the side (north) property line for at the property located at 1511 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of .26 acres, Block 12 (SW/CTR), Hughes Addition. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: New Carport and Garage with a Home Renovation Applicant: Wang Architects, c/o Gary Wang Property Owner: Allan and Heidi Macinnis Property Address: 1511 Ash Street Legal Description: .26 acres, Block 12 (SW/CTR), Hughes Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: N/A Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: CDC-2015-038 for an addition of a porch HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1940 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✓ An addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade ✓ Setback modification for a 6' -0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage addition 0' from the side (north) property STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The subject property located at 1511 South Ash Street is a one-story, irregular-plan, Minimal Traditional style house clad in wood siding with a cross-hipped roof, detached garage, and an entry Page 75 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 2 of 11 stoop with a single front door. The 2007 and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys identify this property as a medium priority resource as it retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting HARC approval to construct a carport and garage/workshop in a location on the property currently occupied by two noncontributing structures, a detached garage and shed. The applicant’s existing garage and shed encroach into the 6’ side setback, and the proposed new carport and garage will also encroach, requiring a 6’ side setback modification. Along the west western façade (facing Ash St.), the applicant also intends to install new windows and re-orient a north facing the side entry door to street facing façade (facing Ash St.). Along two non-street facing facades, the applicant intends to re-size two windows and installing a window in the place of the relocated door (north façade). Justification for Requests: In the Letter of Intent, the applicant has stated that the existing carport does not fit their camper van. The proposed garage and workshop are to provide additional storage and working space for the homeowner. Technical Review: The existing garage located at the side setback (north property line) measures 24’ 3” long by 12’ 9” wide. The proposed carport measures 21’ long by 14’ 11” wide by and is set approximately 8’feet back from the location of the existing garage. The proposed carport is 16’ 2” feet tall and will be slightly smaller than the existing garage. The existing shed measures 14’ 2” long by 10’ 2” wide. The proposed garage measures 13’ 3 ½” by 26’ 3 ¼” and is 16’ 2” tall with 12’ ceilings and eaves. The garage door will measure 11’ by 12’. The floorplan of the garage creates an L-shape with the proposed workshop that measures 26’ 11” long by 31’ 4.5” wide. The proposed carport and garage will be situated 8” from the property line. The existing carport/garage are on the property line. The roof for the proposed carport and garage are a hipped gables that will open up towards the street with a 12:5 pitch. The house also has a cross hipped gable roof form with a slight lesser pitch of 12:9. The tallest peak of the house measures 20’ 1” tall. The peak of the proposed carport and garage roofs are subordinate at is 16’ 2” tall. The workshop portion of the garage has a shed roof which will not be visible from the street as the building turns in an “L” shape behind the home. The peak of the shed roof will measure 14’ 6” tall. There is a 1’ gap between the carport and the garage, however the garage and the workshop are connected. Page 76 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 3 of 11 The roof materials for the proposed carport and garage/workshop additions are a grey asphalt shingle roof. The new windows on the garage/workshop as well as for the home will be clad-wood double hung with six over six panes to match the style of the existing windows on the home. The siding material for the proposed additions and for the infill where the windows are to be raised along the northern side of the home will be a textured, wood grain finished Hardie board, the same as the exterior for the home. The proposed columns for the carport will match the simple, rectangular columns found on the porch of the home. The subject site has a 34.4” diameter tree located towards the rear of the property and close to the northern property line. Th proposed garage and workshop are arranged in an “L” shape that allows the proposed structure to avoid interfering with the 1/4 critical root zone. The garage and car port do both overlap the ½ critical root zone as well as the “full” critical root zone. The proposed location of the garage and workshop work well with the tree’s root zone. Moving the structure closer to the tree would likely damage the tree. The neighborhood context supports a carport as well as a detached addition as these are seen throughout Old Town and along this section of Ash Street. The carport/garage setback vary from 38 feet, measured from the curb to the opening of the carport or garage, to 131 feet. The existing setback for the current carport is 93’ and the new setback will be about 97’. The proposed carport setback is appropriate for the context of this neighborhood as well as this block. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 24 of the 28 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.4.D Location of Garages or Carports D.1 It is preferred that garages/carports be detached at the rear of the property. Complies The proposed carport and garage workshops are detached. D.2 It is preferred with an attached garage or carport that the garage entrance does not face the street. Partially Complies Does not comply in that the garage and carport entrances face the street. D.4 Garages typically contain one or two cars in Old Town. When an owner requires more than a two-car garage, the garage should be placed behind the house. Complies The proposed project will maintain a single-car garage and carport. Page 77 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 4 of 11 3.4.E Parking Configuration and Driveways Driveways and parking require a great extent of hard surface which can have a detrimental effect on the historic character of a district. Large expanses of concrete, brick, or crushed granite are not part of the historic character. Complies The length of the driveway and the width of the driveway the curb is not changing. E.3 Driveways are typically single-width in Old Town. The new driveway should be single width at the curb cut and continue at a single width until one reaches a length suitable for one car to park in front of each garage door or carport space. Complies The existing driveway is single width at the curb and expands from approximately 9’ to about 13’ in order to fit the camper van. 3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form A variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue to exhibit a variety of sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in the neighborhood. C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale that would appear as if one or two persons could lift the material. Monumental proportions are not appropriate. Complies The proposed is compliant with the Design Guidelines as the additions are a smaller in total square feet and overall height. The addition also complies with the Guidelines’ human scale directive as the first floor ceiling height does not exceed 15’. G.2 Windows b. The windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and should have the same sill and head height on each floor of the building. The exception is Modern Ranch houses. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure. Accent or feature windows are excepted. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane) that faces the street. Complies Windows to be replaced are located along the northern (non-street facing) and western facades (street facing). The windows will all be about twice as wide as they are tall. The new street-facing windows will all have the same sill heights. The proposed windows are 6 over 6 and wood-clad. The proposed windows on the additions will not be visible from the street, but will Page 78 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 5 of 11 match the home in material, all are proposed to be wood-clad, and will also be 6 over 6. 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Complies The additions are compatible because they share a street-facing gable, columns, and window styles as well as being smaller in square feet and height, overall, than the primary home. The alterations to the side of the home are compatible with the primary home as they will consist of the same siding materials that exist on the home and will use windows that match the existing window styles on the home. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Complies The proposed additions are less visually impactful that the primary as they will be setback and will have simpler design features than the home. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Complies The addition is distinguishable through its simple forms and uncomplicated roof plan. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies The addition’s architectural details will include architectural features of the primary structure’s features such as the porch columns and will remain simple. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character- defining elevation. Complies The proposed additions will be added to the side and rear of the property. The carport will be visible from Ash Street. The carport will be set further back than the existing carport, giving the character- defining elevation of the house more separation. Page 79 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 6 of 11 b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one- story houses. Complies Addition is to be located at the first floor and is in proportion with the one-story house. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Complies Addition is set approximately 81’ feet from the Ash Street. d. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. Not Applicable Addition is smaller than the house. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Complies The addition is a setback approximately 57’ from the character-defining façade. g. Where an addition is proposed to be connected to the main structure via a breezeway, the breezeway must be of compatible character and materials to the main structure and is limited in length to 20 feet, unless site conditions such as tree locations are determined to require an increased length. Not Applicable Addition is not connected to the house. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies The carport and garage additions include a cross gable that runs parallel to the street and is subordinate in size and pitch with the gabled roof of the primary structure. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Complies The additions include gables that run parallel to the street and a shed roof, to be blocked from the street view. Page 80 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 7 of 11 b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Does Not Comply Applicant proposes a 5: 12 slope on the addition while the primary has a 9:12 slope. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies The proposed roof of the garage and the workshop are proportioned to the primary structure. The shed roof on the workshop, though allowed by the design guidelines, will be situated behind the primary and will not be visible from the street. K.6 Design of additions should be compatible with the primary structure. Complies The additions are compatible in window style and materials. The additions are subordinate in height and utilizes roof form and pitch similar to the primary. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. Complies Both the primary building and the additions make use of gabled roofs with asphalt shingles and the siding proposed is of a similar profile to that of the original structure. b. Match window types, shapes, and proportions similar to those of the original structure. Complies The proposed windows are compatible with the existing windows. c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing buildings. Complies The proposed addition will be a simpler form than the primary structure, and they will share appropriately-scaled architectural features. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Does Not Comply Information not provided. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies The garage addition includes wood lap siding to match the primary structure and asphalt shingles are proposed to match the primary structure. c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall Complies The proposed materials are compatible with the primary structure in size, color, and general proportion, but the addition Page 81 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 8 of 11 proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. will be simple in design and will include some architectural features as the primary such as the decorative eaves. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. Complies The proposed additions repeat existing gable forms and materials. The proposed windows of the addition match the primary’s multi-pane style with white muntins to separate the panes. The proposed windows are 6 over 6 while windows around the house are varied, from 4 over 4 to 8 over 8, to 6 over 6. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 5 out of 8 of these criteria. SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies Staff found the application to be complete. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Does Not Comply The setback encroachment is not compatible with the UDC. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies The detached accessory structures are removable without damaging the primary structure and they do not detract from the historic value of the primary façade. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies The application complies in materials, mass and scale. Does not comply in proposed roof slope, the existing is 9:12 but the proposed is 5:12. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, Complies The general historic and architectural Page 82 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 9 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS structure or site is preserved; integrity of the site is preserved. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies The additions are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies The overall character of the district is protected by the simplicity of the design as well as the 8’ increased setback (from the former garage) and the “L” shaped floorplan for the garage/workshop to wrap around the back of the house to limit visibility. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for COA for a setback modification: SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Complies The proposed setback encroachment is pre-existing with the existing carport and shed. The proposed additions are keeping the same setback. The garage/workshop location is additionally defined by the tree that is found towards the rear of the property. The tree prevents the workshop from moving closer to the home. At the same time, the footprint of the garage does not leave sufficient space to place the workshop behind the garage without encroaching on the rear setback. The location of the house, as well as the existing driveway, has both influenced the location of the additions as the site does not provide sufficient space for a new driveway to be added on the other side of the house. Page 83 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 10 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Complies The applicant has pushed the proposed carport and garage/workshop as far back on the site as possible without encroaching into the 10’ rear setback. Additionally, the garage/workshop addition could not move closer to the house without interfering with the tree that the applicant intends to keep. c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; Complies The proposed setback is compatible with the neighborhood context. d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Complies The proposed addition will be about 8’ further away from the street than the existing carport. e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; Complies The proposed structure will replace a structure that has not been removed yet. f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Partially Complies The proposed carport and garage/workshop addition are pushed back about 8’ from the location of the existing carport and shed. g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Complies The proposed carport and garage is smaller than the existing carport and shed. h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; Complies The addition is smaller than the original house in square feet and height. i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; Complies The proposed is similar in size to those that exist on the block. j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; Complies The proposed structures will not negatively impact neighbors. k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of Partially Complies Page 84 of 137 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-17-COA – 1511 Ash St. Page 11 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Access to the addition from the south, east, and west elevations will be available, but the access to the north elevation of the addition will need to be taken from the adjoining property. l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Complies The encroachment does support the preservation of a large tree in the rear yard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (35 notices), and number (1) sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 5). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey Exhibit 5 – Public Comments SUBMITTED BY Meredith Johnson, consultant PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Page 85 of 137 Location 2022-17-COA Exhibit #1 WA L N U T S T E 15TH ST P IN E S T S C H U R C H S T K N I G H T S T E 18TH ST E 1 7TH S T E 16TH ST CYRUS A V E S C O L L E G E S T AS H S T E 16TH ST EL M S T CYRUS A V E S M Y R T L E S T S M Y R T L E S T E 17TH ST E 16TH ST E 17TH ST 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 86 of 137 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com May 2, 2022 Nat Waggoner and City of Georgetown Re: 1511 S. Ash Street Dear Mr. Waggoner and City of Georgetown, We are pleased to submit this project at 1511 Ash Street on behalf of our clients, Allan and Heidi MacInnis. The proposal includes two scope areas: 1) a garage/carport to the rear of the property, and 2) minor changes to windows of the main house. Garage: Mr. and Mrs. MacInnis own a large van which is currently parked in the driveway alongside the house. The owners would like to keep this van covered from the elements. The structure also includes a workshop that is not visible from the street. We are requesting a side-yard encroachment that matches the setback of the existing garage on the property. We had previously met with Mr. Nat Waggoner about the project, and upon further research, the existing garage was not identified on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey and does not require review to demolish. This email dated 2/4/2022 is included here also. House: The proposal includes relocating the side entrance to the house and modifications to existing windows, per included drawings. We will also be providing supplemental information in the coming weeks. If you need any other additional information in the meantime, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you! Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Wang Architects Page 87 of 137 3/7/22, 9:47 AM Gmail - Re: 1511 S. Ash Garage Demolition https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c46f2237fa&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1723854624564007364&simpl=msg-f%3A17238546245…1/2 Lauren Figley <figleyln@gmail.com>Re: 1511 S. Ash Garage Demolitiongary wang <gary@wangarchitects.com>Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:30 AMTo: Nathaniel Waggoner <Nathaniel.Waggoner@georgetown.org>Cc: Madison Canelis <madison@wangarchitects.com>, Lauren Figley <lauren@wangarchitects.com>Hi Nat -Thanks for this information.I want to follow up here as I remember which project we did where the exterior area under a covering/canopy did notcount towards square footage of the project. It is the Landes Library / office at 915 Pine Street. We had a 38'-4"x19'structure, with the 10' overhang happening outside of this. If I remember correctly, the 10' overhang would not have fitwithin the 25% rule based upon the primary structure.So we are also hoping for the same reading for this project. Thank you!Gary __Gary Wang, AIA Principal Wang Architects 608 East University Avenue Georgetown, TX 78626 www.wangarchitects.com P: 512.819.6012 C: 512.276.4079 On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 7:18 AM Nathaniel Waggoner <Nathaniel.Waggoner@georgetown.org> wrote: Gary, The detached garage at 1511 S. Ash Street is not identified on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey and the demolition does not require review. Respectfully, Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP Asst. Planning Dir. – Long Range w. 512.930.3584 c.512.779.3531 200619_LandesOffice_SubmittalPermitSet_Rev1.pdf 4352K Page 88 of 137 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1511 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125746 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information Owner/Address WANG, GARY & ALLISON MILLER, 1511 S ASH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6952 Latitude:30.629813 Longitude -97.672831 Addition/Subdivision:S3810 - Hughes Addition WCAD ID:R042819Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES ADDITION, BLOCK 12(SW/CTR), ACRES .26 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 3/15/2016Recorded 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:1940 Builder:Architect: Healthcare Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4 Vacant Vacant Old Town District Current/Historic Name:None/None Photo direction: East Page 89 of 137 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1511 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125746 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 2 Architectural Description General Architectural Description: One-story, irregular-plan, Minimal Traditional style house clad in wood siding with a cross-hipped roof, detached garage, and an entry stoop with a single front door. Relocated Additions, modifications:Addition to rear, siding replaced on garage 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 #0 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 Barn Shed 1 Other: Landscape/Site Features Stone Sidewalks Wood Terracing Concrete Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other materials:Brick Other Landscape Notes: Cross-Hipped Wood Entry stoop N/A None None None Unknown Asphalt Minimal Traditional Page 90 of 137 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1511 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125746 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: None) 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:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; 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:992 2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded Page 91 of 137 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1511 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125746 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos SoutheastPhoto Direction EastPhoto Direction Page 92 of 137 Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1511 South Ash Street Carport/Garage for Allan + Heidi MacInnis June 9, 2022 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Requests: 1. 6’ setback encroachment into the required 6’ side setback 2. New street-facing facade (garage) 3. New windows & new street-facing door Page 93 of 137 PROJECT LOCATION May 12, 2022 1Site MapN Page 94 of 137 May 12, 2022 2Existing Conditions Existing East front facade along Ash Street Existing South facade and existing garage Existing Garage and Shed Existing North facade along Ash Street Page 95 of 137 May 12, 2022 3Precedents for Garages Encroaching Setbacks - All within 2 blocks of this sitePage 96 of 137 May 12, 2022 4Shed roof at 1510 S. Ash directly across streetPage 97 of 137 N EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 6' SET BACK 6' SET BACK 10 ' S E T B A C K 20 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING ROOF NOT IN SCOPE EXISTING PORCH NOT IN SCOPE CARPORT EXISTING 34.4" DIAMETER TREE 1511 ASH ST HOUSE 2,040 SF PROPOSED OUTDOOR PAVEMENT 307 SF EXISTING GARAGE PLACEMENT EXISTING SHED PLACEMENT PROPOSED NEW ENCLOSED GARAGE/WORKSHOP 582 SF AS H S T May 12, 2022 5Site Design Plan LOT AREA: 11,326 SF ZONING DISTRICT: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING: 2,040 SF NEW GARAGE: 582 SF ALLOWABLE 510 OR ALLOWABLE 600 SF PER UDC 6.05.010 PROPOSED CONST AREA: 1,101 SF FRONT SETBACK: 20’ SIDE SETBACK: 6’’ REQUESTED SIDE SETBACK: 8” (EXISTING IS 0”) STREET FACING GARAGE SETBACK: 15’ REAR SETBACK: 10’ REAR YARD AREA: 4,122 SF PROPOSED GARAGE: 584 SF PROJECT WILL OCCUPY 14% OF REAR YARD N 3/32” = 1’-0”Page 98 of 137 N MUD ROOM 190 KITCHEN 180 DINING 160 GUEST BATH 110 BEDROOM 4 100 BATH MASTER 130 LIVING 170 MASTER 140 BEDROOM 3 120 BEDROOM 2 150 May 12, 2022 6Existing Floor Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” N Page 99 of 137 May 12, 2022 7Proposed Floor Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” N EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 6' SET BACK 6' SET BACK 10 ' S E T B A C K PROPOSED NEW ENCLOSED GARAGE/ WORKSHOP: 584 SF FULL CRZ 12 CRZ 14 CRZ 34.4" DIAMETER TREE CARPORT GARAGE WORKSHOP MUD/ LAUNDRY DINING OFFICE/ BEDROOM KITCHEN BUTLERS PANTRY 20 ' S E T B A C K N EXISTING GARAGE PLACEMENT ON PROPERTY LINE NEW WINDOWS AT EXISTING LOCATION NEW WINDOW NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS NEW DOOR Page 100 of 137 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 6' SET BACK 6' SET BACK 10 ' S E T B A C K PROPOSED NEW ENCLOSED GARAGE/ WORKSHOP: 584 SF FULL CRZ 1 2 CRZ 1 4 CRZ 34.4" DIAMETER TREE CARPORT GARAGE WORKSHOP MUD/ LAUNDRY DINING OFFICE/ BEDROOM KITCHEN BUTLERS PANTRY 20 ' S E T B A C K N EXISTING GARAGE PLACEMENT ON PROPERTY LINE NEW WINDOWS AT EXISTING LOCATION NEW WINDOW NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS NEW DOOR EXISTING GARAGE 24'-3"X12'-9"EXISTING SHED 14'-2"X10'-2" Page 101 of 137 0'0" GROUND 19" PORCH 2' - 8 " 6" 0'0" GROUND 19" PORCH 19" PORCH 0'0" GROUND 19" PORCH 2' - 8 " 6" 0'0" GROUND 19" PORCH 19" PORCH May 12, 2022 8Existing Elevation Conditions 1/8” = 1’-0” N Page 102 of 137 GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW WINDOWS -RAISE SILL GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE 129 129 129127 12 5122 12 7 129 129 1’-2” x 3’-9 1/2” GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE 11' GARAGE DOOR NEW CARPORT + GARAGE T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW DOOR GROUND FLOOR FF0' - 0"CEILING HEIGHT12' - 0"T.O. GARAGE16' - 2" GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW CARPORT + GARAGE/WORKSHOP NEW WINDOWS-RAISE SILL NEW WINDOWS 12 5 12 9 12 9 GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE 11' GARAGE DOOR NEW CARPORT + GARAGE T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW CARPORT + GARAGE/WORKSHOP 12 5 EXISTING HOUSE NEW DOOR 122 12 9 129129 129 129 May 12, 2022 9 Street Facing (West) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” Elevation Facing North 1/8” = 1’-0”Page 103 of 137 GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW WINDOWS -RAISE SILL GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE 129 129 129127 12 5122 12 7 129 129 12 5 12 9 12 9 GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE 11' GARAGE DOOR NEW CARPORT + GARAGE T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW DOOR NEW WINDOWS GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW CARPORT + GARAGE/WORKSHOP 12 5 EXISTING HOUSE NEW DOOR 122 12 9 129129 129 129May 12, 2022 10West Garage Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” Rear Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” Page 104 of 137 GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" NEW WINDOWS -RAISE SILL GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT12' - 0"T.O. GARAGE16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT 12' - 0" T.O. GARAGE 16' - 2" EXISTING HOUSE 129 129 129127 12 5122 12 7 129 129 12 5 12 9 12 9GROUND FLOOR FF0' - 0"CEILING HEIGHT12' - 0"EXISTING HOUSE11' GARAGE DOORNEW CARPORT + GARAGET.O. GARAGE16' - 2"NEW DOOR NEWWINDOWS GROUND FLOOR FF 0' - 0" CEILING HEIGHT12' - 0"T.O. GARAGE16' - 2"NEW CARPORT +GARAGE/WORKSHOP 12 5 EXISTING HOUSE NEW DOOR 122 12 9129129 129 129 May 12, 2022 11Elevation Facing South 1/8” = 1’-0” East House Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” 3’-11” x 3’-9 1/2” Page 105 of 137 May 12, 2022 12Materials/Color N.T.S. Rendered Garage + Workshop w/ van Page 106 of 137 May 12, 2022 13Materials/Color N.T.S. Grey shingle roof Garage siding & window fill to match existing house Owner’s vanCarport columns to match existing porch columns Jeld-Wen W-2500 Clad-Wood Double-Hung Window Jeld-Wen Smooth-Pro Fiberglass Exterior Door Page 107 of 137 May 12, 2022 14Model Views N.T.S. Proposed ProposedProposed Proposed Page 108 of 137 Additions at 1511 Ash St. 2022-17-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission June 9, 2022 Page 109 of 137 2 Staff Recommendation Consideration and possible action on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and a 6' -0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage addition 0' from the side (north) property line for at the property located at 1511 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of .26 acres, Block 12 (SW/CTR), Hughes Addition. Page 110 of 137 3 Item Under Consideration HARC: •6’ setback encroachment into the required 6’ side setback •New street-facing facade (carport and garage) •New windows & new street-facing door Page 111 of 137 4 Item Under Consideration Page 112 of 137 Insert GIS Location Map (Use reference point/landmarks for orientation if applicable) Historic Courthouse 5Page 113 of 137 6 Current Context Page 114 of 137 7 Sanborn Map -1916 Page 115 of 137 8 1964 Aerial Photo Page 116 of 137 9 1974 Aerial Photo Page 117 of 137 10 2016 HRS Photo(s) Page 118 of 137 11 Current Conditions Page 119 of 137 12 Existing Garages on block Page 120 of 137 13 Existing Context –Provided by applicant Page 121 of 137 14 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 122 of 137 15 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 123 of 137 16 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 124 of 137 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Street-facing, house removed from view. Page 125 of 137 18 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials 18 Non-street facing facade Page 126 of 137 19 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials 19 (East) Non-street facing facade Page 127 of 137 20 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Rear elevation, garage and workshop removed from view. Non-street facing facade Page 128 of 137 21 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 129 of 137 22 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 130 of 137 23 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 131 of 137 24 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Does Not Comply 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 132 of 137 25 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback;Complies c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located;Complies d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block;Complies e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;Complies f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Partially Complies Page 133 of 137 26 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house;Complies i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Partially Complies l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.Complies Page 134 of 137 27 Public Notification •Number 2 signs posted •To date, staff has received: •0 written comments IN FAVOR •0 written comments OPPOSED Page 135 of 137 28 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and a 6' -0" encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, to allow a garage addition 0' from the side (north) property line for at the property located at 1511 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of .26 acres, Block 12 (SW/CTR), Hughes Addition. Page 136 of 137 29 HARC Motion –2022-17-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 137 of 137