4.0 - 1606 Niles Rd - Woodlawn — original pdf

Backup

8 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DECEMBER 14, 2022 HR-2022-138071; C14H-2002-0011 WOODLAWN 1606 NILES ROAD PROPOSAL Rehabilitate historic structure. Remove existing addition. Construct two new additions and three new outbuildings. Restore pathways and gates. Relocate pool and replace tennis court. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Preserve existing historic elements of 1854 and 1903 building campaigns, including repair and restoration, while retaining historic lawns per 2002 Texas Historical Commission easement requirements. Rehabilitation plan includes: • Restore and refinish original 1854 front door and surround. • Replace missing shutters to match historic photo. • Restore wood porch detailing and expose brick piers below columns, per historic photo. • Remove non-original trim above original door head trim. • Replace rotten wood at balcony. • Restore existing pendant lanterns at front porch. • East porch: remove rotten framing & decking. Remove fiberglass coating at column base plinth and repair limestone base. Repair rotten wood at columns. Replace herringbone masonry pattern at walk per historic photos. • South porch: remove brick steps surrounding porch, trapping water. Remove paint from column base and repair limestone base. Replace wood decking. Replace herringbone masonry pattern at walk per historic photos. • Replace rotten wood and plywood at entablature. • Remove existing gutters and downspout. Restore original scuppers and provide new built-in gutters. • Repair original windows where possible. Replacements, when required, will be custom-fabricated long leaf pine, single glazed windows, with profiles to match detailing of original windows. • Stabilize and waterproof existing foundation. • Repair damaged, settling brick, stabilizing and repointing as needed. Repaint where needed. Repair broken limestone sills, patching when possible. Sill replacement, where necessary, will match existing material, design, texture, and finish. • Stabilize existing brick and decomposed granite driveway with stone edging and low curb.Clean and restore concrete eagles atop limestone posts at service drive on Niles Road. Clean and restore limestone pillars, low walls, and Woodlawn plaque at main vehicular gate at southeast corner. Re-use historic star and bracing at existing main pedestrian gate in proposed new gate at Pease Road. • Restore hitching posts, decorative lanterns, and lampposts. 2) Remove 2003 west addition and construct a new two-story stepped addition in its place. The proposed addition is set back 1’ from historic material with an articulated connection point. It will be clad in 2”x20” off-white Roman-style brick laid in a random pattern. Its roofline will be below the historic roof and at the bottom of the entablature of the historic house. Proposed windows are metal-framed and painted white. 3) Construct a new one-story addition in the northwest corner with hyphen connector. Proposed work is set back behind the west wall of the historic house and located to the north, subordinate to the historic house. Materials include 2"x20" Roman-style brick with a low profile to differentiate it from the traditional brick of the historic house. Proposed new brick will be unpainted and laid in a random pattern with a single soldier course at the roof lines. Brick color will vary, with off-white for the west addition and the northwest addition with a variegated sand color to be used in all outbuildings. Proposed windows are metal-framed and painted white. 4) Revise existing roofline to differentiate historic elements from new elements, continuing the historic entablature present on historic areas of the house. Add a new metal roof, gutters, and downspouts. 5) Construct three new outbuildings: pool house, guest house, and accessory dwelling unit. Outbuildings will be located along and near the west property line, with materials to match those specified for item 4. 6) Sitework, including fence and gate replacement, restoration of main gate, restoration of pathways, new landscaping, reopening of secondary drive, installation of a new drive and motor court at Northumberland Road, relocation of pool, and replacement of tennis court in far northwest corner of property. 8 – 2 ARCHITECTURE The 2002 historic zoning staff report describes the property as follows: The 1853-54 Pease Mansion is a superior example of Greek Revival style architecture in Austin and in the state. Its central hallway plan, flat roof, prominent roof cornice with wide Classical entablature, symmetrical proportions, prominent two-story front gallery with fluted Ionic columns, a two-story partial-width gallery on the southern elevation with fluted Doric columns, and a three-part Classical front entrance with embedded pilasters, are all hallmarks of the Greek Revival style. The 1853-54 house is the largest and most costly residence designed and constructed by Abner Cook, Austin’s earliest “master builder” …the Pease Mansion bears a direct relationship with the other Abner Cook houses in the city, all of which are designated City Historic Landmarks. This is a monumental two-story Greek Revival brick residence with a flat roof, prominent Classical entablature, and two-story full-width portico supported by fluted Ionic columns. A small balcony featuring Abner Cook’s characteristic x-and-stick balustrade is cantilevered from the front second story. The house originally had an L-plan organized around a central hallway and a symmetrical front façade with a three—art Classical entrance with embedded pilasters. A two-story partial-width gallery on the south elevation is supported by fluted Doric columns. The main house has 6:6 and 9:6 wood sash windows. The house has modern rear additions with an attached garage, and two modern outbuildings. Alterations include ca. 1903 north and south wings, and late 1950s additions and outbuildings by the Shivers family. The ca. 1903 additions and the Shivers additions have been authorized for removal by the Historic Landmark Commission. The stone columns along the site’s eastern and southern property lines were probably added in the early 1900s, with the stone main and service drives along the southern boundary added during the same era. The Shivers family added a brick retaining wall along the northern and western sides of the property.1 DESIGN STANDARDS 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 at historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Repair and alterations 1. General standards The proposed project appears to retain historic material where possible and provide appropriate in-kind replacements where necessary. 2. Foundations The proposed project retains and repairs the existing foundation. 3. Roofs The proposed project appears to replace the roof in a compatible way, minimizing roofline changes and choosing a compatible material. Proposed skylights do not appear visible from the ground. 4. Exterior walls and trim Proposed exterior rehabilitation is appropriate. 5. Windows, doors, and screens Proposed window rehabilitation and selective replacement is appropriate. 6. Porches Proposed porch stabilization and repair is appropriate. 7. Chimneys Proposed repointing of existing chimneys is appropriate. 9. Light fixtures The proposed project does not remove or change existing light fixtures at historic portion of house. 1 “ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET: C14H-02-0011, Pease Mansion (Woodlawn).” 2002. Historic Preservation Office. 8 – 3 Residential additions 1. Location The proposed additions appear appropriately sited, and connections appear minimally invasive. 2. Scale, massing, and height Proposed additions appear mostly subordinate to the historic building. 3. Design and style The proposed design appears compatible and sufficiently differentiated from the historic building. 4. Roofs The additions’ roof forms, slopes, and materials appear to complement the historic building’s roof; though the flat green roof at the north elevation does not reflect the historic building’s roofline, it will likely have reduced visibility and is separated by a glazed hyphen. 5. Exterior walls The proposed wall materials are compatible with but differentiated from the existing historic fabric. 6. Windows, screens, and doors Proposed fenestration appears mostly compatible in material, size, proportion, configuration, and profile, though divided- light fenestration with mullions would be more in keeping with the existing windows than the proposed undivided glazing panels at the west elevation. However, the additional transparency may serve to lighten the addition’s visual impact. 7. Porches and decks Proposed porches and decks appear mostly compatible. 8. Chimneys Proposed chimneys appear simple in design and adequately differentiated from historic-aged chimneys. Residential new construction 1. Location and 2. Orientation Proposed new buildings are set back from the main house, consistent with the predominant orientation of the house and district, and do not appear to visually overpower the historic structure. 3. Scale, massing, and height Proposed new buildings appear appropriate in scale, massing, and height. They are visually subordinate to the primary building. 4. Proportions The proposed new buildings’ proportions are mostly compatible with the main house. 5. Design and style The proposed new buildings’ simple, boxy style is differentiated from the main house, to which they appear subordinate. Details appear mostly appropriate. 6. Roofs The buildings’ flat roof forms appear to reflect the main house’s roofline. 7. Exterior walls Proposed exterior materials appear appropriate. 8. Windows and doors Proposed fenestration appears mostly compatible. 10. Chimneys The proposed chimney is masonry clad. Sites and streetscapes 1. Vegetation, topography, and landscaping The proposed project restores historic-aged masonry paths and retains open, grassy lawns. 2. Walls and fences The proposed project retains one historic gate and reuses elements from another in a new design. Remaining gates and existing fences will be replaced. 5. Sidewalks, driveways, and parking The proposed project appears to repair historic flatwork in-kind. New parking areas do not appear visible from the primary street frontage. 6. Streetscape elements The proposed project does not include sidewalks, which were not historically present. 8 – 4 Summary The project meets most of the applicable standards. COMMITTEE FEEDBACK Consider rehabilitating existing addition rather than replacing it. Consider a 6’ transparent fence rather than opaque walls. Reduce visual impact of secondary façades. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Concur with Committee feedback and Texas Historical Committee recommendations and approve the application. The application has been amended to reflect feedback. LOCATION MAP 8 – 5