C.1.0 - 1007 Maufrais Street — original pdf

Backup

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS APRIL 26, 2021 GF-2021-007465 WEST LINE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT 1007 MAUFRAIS STREET C.1 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Partially demolish and construct additions to a ca. 1941 house. Demolish detached garage. Construct pool. 1) Demolish back and side walls of house and existing additions. 2) Construct a two-story addition to the rear of the house. The two-story portion features a flat roof, covered side porch, horizontal siding, and vertically oriented fixed windows. 3) Construct a front addition. The proposed addition, attached to the existing building via glass hyphen, has a gabled roof with shallow eaves, horizontal siding, and fixed undivided windows. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Cross-gabled, single-story house with metal roof, horizontal wood siding, paired front doors, partial-width front porch, and 1:1 single and mulled windows with 2:2 screens. The house at 1007 Maufrais Street was built in 1941 by Houston C. Piland and his wife, Nettie. Piland worked as a railway clerk and claim adjustor. The Pilands lived in the home for the rest of the 1940s, then sold it to mechanical and electrical contractor Ernest Jernigan, along with spouse Mildred Jernigan. The Jernigans did not stay long; by 1955, the Lawson family was renting the home. Opal Lawson worked for the Travis County tax assessor, and her husband Marvin was a mechanic with the Constant Service Company. After a brief vacancy, Robert Finlay purchased the house in 1959, then constructed an addition in 1961. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register Historic Districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.1 Locate additions to the rear and sides of historic buildings to minimize visual impact. 1.2 Step back side additions from the front wall a distance that preserves the shape of the historic building from the street. 1.3 If an addition adds a story to the historic building, set it back from the front wall to minimize visual impact. 1.5 Minimize the loss of historic fabric by connecting additions to the existing building through the least possible invasive location and means. The proposed two-story addition is located to the rear and side of the historic building. The one-story addition is located to the side of the historic building. The two-story portion is located beyond the roof ridge of the historic house; the one-story portion has a slightly shallower setback than the historic house. 2.1 Design an addition to complement the scale and massing of the historic building, including height. The addition must appear subordinate to the historic building. 2.2 Minimize the appearance of the addition from the street faced by the historic building’s front wall. a. If the addition connects to the historic building’s rear wall, step in the addition’s side walls at least one foot (1’) from the side walls of the historic building. b. The historic building’s overall shape as viewed from the street must appear relatively unaltered. Recommendations: Design one-story additions to one-story buildings. Minimize the roof height of multi-story additions. Construct a large addition as a separate building and connect it to the historic building with a linking element such as a breezeway or a hyphen. The proposed additions appear somewhat subordinate to the historic building. The historic building’s overall shape appears somewhat altered; the flat roof differentiates the second-story addition from the original building and limits its height with respect to the original building. The one-story addition is linked to the main building via hyphen. C.1 – 2 3.1 Design additions to be compatible with and differentiated from the historic building, if they are visible from the street. The proposed additions are somewhat compatible with the historic building and are well-differentiated. 4.1 If an addition will be visible from a street on the front or side, design its roof form and slope to complement the roof on the historic building. 4.2 Use roof materials that match or have similar color, texture, and other visual qualities as the roof on the historic building. The proposed one-story addition’s roofline mimics the gable on the original building; both will be clad in metal. The flat- roofed two-story addition uses a contrasting roof form. 5.1 If an addition will be visible from a street on the front or side, use exterior wall materials that are compatible with those on the historic building, as well as with the character of the district, in scale, type, material, size, finish, and texture. 5.2 Differentiate the exterior wall materials of the addition from those of the historic building. The proposed additions are clad in stained horizontal siding, which is compatible with the historic building while differentiating them from the original building. 6.1 If an addition will be visible from a street on the front or side, use windows that are compatible with those on the existing building in terms of material, fenestration pattern, size, proportion, configuration, and profile. The proposed undivided fixed windows are somewhat compatible in size, but less compatible in configuration and profile. The project meets some of the applicable standards. STAFF COMMENTS The house contributes to the West Line National Register Historic District. 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high to moderate integrity. 3) Properties must meet two historic designation criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the building and determined that it does not meet the required criteria. a. Architecture. The house does not appear architecturally significant. b. Historical association. There do not appear to be historical associations. c. Archaeology. The house was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The house does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. COMMITTEE FEEDBACK STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consider retention of more original building fabric. Do not retain non-functional/non-original shutters. Approve the application. The applicant has revised previous proposals and amended the design per Architectural Review Committee feedback, retaining the house rather than demolishing and constructing a new building. LOCATION MAP (Insert map.) C.1 – 3 C.1 – 4 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos Occupancy History City Directory Research, date 1959 1957 Biographical Information Permits Photo source, date Source, date Permit type, date