C.10.0 - 1201 Enfield Road — original pdf

Backup

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS APRIL 26, 2021 HR-2021-043627 OLD WEST AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT 1201 ENFIELD ROAD C.10 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Demolish a ca. 1937 contributing building and construct a 3-story multifamily building. The proposed project is a 3-story building clad in wood siding on the ground floor, fixed glazing on the upper floors (primary/north wall), and stucco and wood siding on the upper floors (secondary walls). It is capped by a flat roof. At the ground level, four pairs of carports are tucked under the building, with a solid wall separating each pair. Features include full-height fixed windows, paired fully glazed doors, and inset balconies with metal railings and decorative metal screens on the primary wall. Secondary walls include awning and sliding aluminum-sash windows and sliding doors. A 4’ high concrete block (CMU) wall screens the ground floor. One-story L-plan building clad in brick and horizontal siding and capped with a cross-gabled roof. Features include a partial- width porch with paired columns and brick chimney. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH 1201 Enfield was constructed as a 3-unit apartment building around 1937 by May Robinson. The longest-term occupant of the building was Marie Quinley Chambers, who lived there with her daughter from around 1941 until at least 1954. During that time, the family shared the building with a rotation of two or three other households—Army personnel and, later, UT students—and constructed an addition to the garage for servants’ quarters. Marie Chambers was born in 1893 in Mississippi to a railroad train dispatcher and a homemaker, one of six children. At age 16, Marie was working as a stenographer in the timber industry and living with her parents and siblings. She married native Tennessean Landon B. Chambers between 1910 and 1917. The family lived in Hickory Ridge, Arkansas, in 1920. By 1930, they were renting a home in Monroe, Louisiana, with their three children. Landon died in 1937 at age 43, and the family moved to Austin by 1940. During her tenure at 1201 Enfield, Chambers worked at the State Board of Insurance Commissioners in various roles, including deputy director over the Life Insurance Division and director of agents’ licenses. Marie Chambers died in 1981 in Louisiana. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Residential New Construction 1.1 Set back a new primary building from the street in line with nearby historic buildings. The building is set back 25’ from the right of way. This is a smaller setback than the adjacent contributing house but similar to multifamily buildings, including a historic landmark, across Enfield Road. The project meets this standard. 1.2 Locate a new building to maintain the rhythm of contributing buildings on the street. The building is located roughly in the middle of the property, similar to nearby contributing buildings, though it occupies more of the property than nearby single-family houses. The project meets this standard. 2.1 Orient a new building to be consistent with the predominant orientation of contributing buildings on the same block. 2.2 Orient a new building towards the primary street. The building is located on the corner of Enfield and Windsor roads and oriented towards Enfield Road. The project meets this standard. 3.1 Design the height of new buildings to respond to nearby contributing buildings and the dimensions of the lot. C.10 – 2 The 3-story building is one story taller than nearby contributing buildings, most of which are 1½ or 2 stories high. The project somewhat meets this standard. 3.2 Design the massing of new buildings to reflect the character of nearby contributing buildings. The building’s massing is relatively simple, with a single-story height, corner porch, and cross-hipped massing at the rear. It is compatible with nearby contributing buildings. The project meets this standard. 3.3 Use step-downs in building height, wall-plane offsets, and other variations in building massing to provide a visual transition when the height of new construction exceeds that of adjacent contributing buildings by more than one-half story. The design does not provide a visual transition between its 3-story height and the adjacent 2-story contributing building. The project does not meet this standard. 3.4 Align foundation and floor-to-floor heights with adjacent contributing buildings. One adjacent building is contributing, a single-family house to the west. The proposed building’s foundation height is 3’ lower than the contributing building’s foundation, which reflects (at least in part) the downward slope of Enfield Road. The floor to floor heights are aligned with the house to the west within 4” to 10”. The height of the proposed building is 4” higher than the height of the contributing building. 3.5 When constructing a duplex or multifamily building, divide the building into modules that reflect typical widths of historic single-family dwellings on the adjacent properties or the same block. Each of the building’s four units is 21’7” wide. This is narrower than the adjacent contributing building to the west (approximately 34’ wide) but similar to the multifamily units across Enfield Road (approximately 25’ wide). 4.1 Design the proportions of new buildings to be compatible with those of contributing buildings on the same block. 4.2 If the proportions of contributing buildings on a block vary, the design of a new building may select from those options. The building has rectangular proportions that are compatible with the historic landmark across the street and square- proportioned single-family houses on the same block. The project meets this standard. 5.1 Design new buildings to be compatible with the character of the historic district in terms of scale, massing, proportions, patterns, materials, and architectural features. The 3-story building has a modern design with minimal architectural ornamentation, a stylistic approach not found in nearby contributing buildings. Its scale, proportions, and massing are relatively compatible with the eclectic architectural mix on this block of Enfield Road, which includes contributing and noncontributing single-family houses and low-rise multifamily buildings. Several nearby apartment buildings are historic age but were not considered contributing when the National Register district was designated. The proposed building offers an update of the low-rise multifamily form and style, as well as a hybrid in size between single-family houses and larger apartment buildings. The building’s window and door patterns, materials, and architectural features are distinctly different from historic contributing buildings, but are in keeping with the modern style and may be seen as modern interpretations of the low-rise apartment form across the street. The project generally meets this standard. 5.2 Design new buildings to be differentiated from historic buildings. The building is differentiated from nearby contributing buildings by its stripped-down modern style, expanses of fixed glazing, and modern materials. The project meets this standard. 5.4 If designing a building in a modern style, use corresponding modern architectural details. The building uses modern architectural details in keeping with its modern style. The project meets this standard. 6.1 Design simple roof forms that reflect the character of the roofs on contributing buildings. The building features a flat roof, which is in keeping with its architectural style but does not reflect the character of the gabled and hipped roofs on nearby contributing buildings. The project does not meet this standard. 7.1 Use exterior wall materials that are compatible with the character of the historic district in scale, type, material, size, finish, and texture. 7.4 Make the use, pattern, and arrangement of secondary materials compatible with the character of the district. The front wall of the building is predominantly glass on the upper floors, with large fixed windows; the recessed ground- floor wall is clad in wood siding. Secondary walls are clad in stucco. Nearby historic buildings are clad in stucco and wood shingles. The fully glazed front wall is not found in nearby historic buildings, but it is compatible with the building’s style and the other cladding materials. The project somewhat meets this standard. 8.1 Design street-facing facades to have similar window and door opening patterns as nearby contributing buildings. The building’s front wall features full glazing on the upper stories, a distinct departure from nearby contributing buildings’ C.10 – 3 single and paired windows. The secondary (east) wall facing Windsor Road has narrow vertical openings with proportions that are in keeping with the building’s style but are not compatible with the patterns or proportions of nearby contributing buildings. The project does not meet this standard. 8.2 Select windows that are compatible with nearby contributing buildings in terms of size, configuration, and profile. The building’s large fixed windows differ substantially from nearby contributing buildings, but they are divided and paired in proportions similar to historic windows. The windows on the east wall are single tall, narrow 3-lite windows that are not compatible with historic windows. The project somewhat meets this standard. 8.4 Locate front doors of new primary buildings so that they are visible from the street. The front doors are set within the carports and will not be visible from the street. Alternate entrances are located on the south (rear) wall. The project does not meet this standard. 8.5 Match the style, proportions, and materials of the front door to the building’s style and design. The fully glazed doors entering each unit from the carport are in keeping with the building’s modern style and pared-down design. The project meets this standard. 9.1 Include a porch in the design if the majority of contributing buildings on the same block have porches. The building’s massing and carports do not accommodate front porches, but the upper stories feature stacked balconies. The project somewhat meets this standard. 9.2 Design new porches that reflect and continue the size, proportions, placement, depth, and rhythm of porches on contributing buildings within the district. The district’s contributing buildings feature a variety of front porch types, including full-width porches; many historic buildings do not have front porches. The balconies on the proposed building are distinctly different from traditional front porches, but compatible with nearby historic-age apartment buildings in size and railings. The project generally meets this standard. 11.2 Set attached garages and carports back from the front wall of the building to minimize their visual prominence. The carports are located on the ground floor under the upper stories. They are screened by a 4’ high concrete block site wall. The project somewhat meets this standard. Sites and Streetscapes 2.4 If constructing a new street-side fence or site wall, design it so that the materials, style, and scale are compatible with and differentiated from the architectural style and period of the building and are in keeping with historic fence styles and heights in the historic district. The site wall is compatible with the building’s modern design and materials, and is in keeping with site walls across Enfield Road in height and materials. 2.5 New front fences must be no more than 4’ high and have a high degree of transparency. The site wall is 4’ high and constructed of concrete blocks. The project somewhat meets this standard. The project generally meets the applicable standards. STAFF COMMENTS 1201 Enfield Road is a contributing property in the Old West Austin National Register District. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain a high degree of integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria: a. Architecture. The building does not appear to convey architectural significance. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. Marie Q. Chambers lived in the building for close to 15 years, but she does not appear to be significant enough to the city, state, or nation to warrant designation. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not appear to 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. C.10 – 4 COMMITTEE FEEDBACK Not reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive re-use, then relocation over demolition, but release the permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package. Comment on and release the plans for new construction. LOCATION MAP C.10 – 5 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos C.10 – 6 1201 Enfield Road. Photo provided by applicant. Occupancy History City Directory Research, Spring 2020 1935 1937 1939 Not listed Vacant E. W. and Elizabeth Phillips, renters Student, UT M. P. Robinson, renter Widow of Richard S. Robinson; no occupation listed June Forwood, renter Widow of Amor Forwood; no occupation listed C. J. and Clara L. Wieland, renters Physician, 924 Littlefield Building William and Cecile O’Connell + 1 child, renters Building contractor, no employer listed 1941 1944-45 Rear units: Samuel H. Denny, renter U.S. Army Hugh and Jeanne Sweeney + 1 child, renters U.S. Army James E. and Elizabeth Todd, renters U.S. Army Marie Q. Chambers + 1 child, owner Widow of L. B. Chambers; deputy director, State Board of Insurance Commissioners, Life Insurance Division 1947 Marie Q. Chambers, owner Widow of L. B. Chambers; director, agents’ licenses, State Board of Insurance Commissioners C.10 – 7 1949 Marie Q. Chambers, renter Widow of Landon Chambers; division director, State Board of Insurance Commissioners William K. Baker, renter Student, UT Joseph B. and Helen Frantz, renters Students, UT George D. and Agnes McCormick, renters Supervisor, no employer listed Hanzel M. Caster, renter Office secretary, Texas Pharmaceutical Association 1952 1955 1959 Apartments (furnished) Apartments (furnished) Melba Schumann, renter Teacher, O’Henry Junior High Cindy Ramsey, renter Saleswoman, Mogue Greeting Card Co. Additional Information Newspaper advertisement for unfurnished dwellings, The Austin American, 12/25/1938 Permits A water tap permit application was filed in 1937; the image is not available. C.10 – 8 Building permit application filed by May Robinson, 3/12/1937 Building permit application filed by M. Q. Chambers, 2/4/1941 A building permit application was filed in 1981 to “remodel… create space of apts only.” No image or plans are available.