HPC 201303525, 1075 Canton St., Land Lot 412, M. Lowry Enterprises, Inc./Miller Lowry
Item Summary:
Applicant is requesting approval to improve the existing historical home as a commercial office, demolish the metal workshop at the rear of the property and build 4 residential townhomes.
Staff Report:
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with conditions:
1. That a balloon test is done to further study the height of the proposed townhomes;
2. That the windows have exterior muntins that are sized appropriately for the size of the window (no larger than 7/8");
3. That a more detailed carriage style garage door is used;
4. That the depth of the corbels are reduced;
5. That the dimensions of the paneling on the parapet are submitted to ensure they are not too obtrusive.
Issue
The applicant is proposing to construct four new townhome units at the rear of 1075 Canton Street. The townhomes are situated closer to the north side of the property and will face south. They will be three stories tall and will be clad in smooth fiber cement siding with a 5" reveal. The design also calls for a brick water table.
Other materials include:
· Pella Proline windows and doors with composite finish
· Insulated steel garage doors with composite trim
· Custom louvered shutters, as needed
History
The residential structure located at 1075 Canton Street was constructed in 1900 according to the Fulton County Tax Digest and is classified as "Historic" on the Historic Properties Map. The 1988 Historic Property Survey lists the construction date at pre 1899, based off of information from the book, Roswell: A Pictorial History. The publication states that the main structure on the site was "the first Methodist parsonage" and that the building "was purchased in 1899 for $350.00." It also states that the house was "originally only two rooms" but that it "was enlarged and sold in 1920 for $3000.00."
The prefab metal warehouse at the back of the property was built in 1969. There is no historical significance to this structure.
No previous HPC applications were found for this property.
Analysis
Staff commends the applicant on saving the historic house on the property and building the townhomes at the rear.
Setback
The Design Guidelines state that "the setback of new construction should match that of surrounding, existing buildings." Since the applicant is constructing the townhomes at the rear of the property, there are no issues with setback.
Height and Width
The Design Guidelines state that "new construction should be compatible in height and width with adjacent structures." The width of the townhomes is approximate and does not dwarf the historic structure on the site or the surrounding historic district. However, the height of the proposed townhomes has been an issue throughout this review process. The applicant's original submission featured a more detailed design with several gables. These gables increased the overall height, overpowering the one story historic structure at the front of the property. After several discussions, the applicant redesigned the building, replacing the gables with a flat roof to try and mitigate the impact on the historic resource. As seen in the images below, the reduction of height has helped, but Staff is still concerned with the three stories. Another attempt to reduce the impact is the step down seen on the first unit's side entry/porch.
Figure 1. Original submission with gable roof design.
Figure 2. Third submission showing reduced height of townhomes.
In another study of height, the applicant submitted a perspective rendering showing the two buildings from the front (looking north). Figure 3 shows less of an impact on the historic resource than figures 1 and 2. Due to the discrepancies, Staff recommends the applicant do a balloon test on site to allow the Historic Preservation Commission to have a true understanding of the proposed height and its impact on the historic house and surrounding district.
Figure 3. Perspective rendering of proposed development.
Spacing and Orientation
The Design Guidelines state that "the spacing and orientation of new construction should follow the traditional pattern." Since the applicant is constructing the townhomes at the rear of the property, there are no issues with spacing. Staff directed the applicant to study the detailing of the end unit since it will be visible from the street. The applicant has done an excellent job of this, avoiding the traditional unadorned end designs of townhome units.
Figure 4. End Unit townhome design.
Materials
The Design Guidelines state that "new buildings should use exterior materials common to buildings in the district." The applicants selection of brick and fiber cement siding is appropriate for new construction in the historic district. The use of modern materials for windows and door is also appropriate due to the construction date. Staff conditions that the windows have exterior muntins that are sized appropriately for the size of the window. A more detailed specification sheet will need to be submitted.
Figure 5. Proposed garage door design. Figure 6. Recommended garage door design.
While Staff is supportive of insulated steel garage doors, Staff does not think the proposed design is appropriate. Since the garage doors are on the front of the structure, it is crucial that they fit the design of the townhomes and the surrounding district. Staff feels a more detailed carriage style door, such as styles 371T or 161T, is appropriate.
Staff commends the applicant's use of iron railings as it pays tribute to the property's last occupant, a blacksmith.
Design
Staff commends the applicant on working with Staff and the HPC sub-committee to create a building that is appropriate for Roswell's historic district. Overall, the building is appropriately scaled and detailed. However, Staff does condition that the depth of the corbels are reduced and that the dimensions of the paneling on the parapet are submitted to ensure they are not too obtrusive.
Staff appreciates the use of the parapet roof system, not only as it reduces the overall height of the townhomes, but also because it will provide a way to properly screen mechanical systems.
Figure 7. First submission design.
Department Comments
Arborist
No Comments
Additional comments will be available at the HPC Hearing.
Materials
Aerial
Letter of Intent
Photographs
Site Plans
Elevations
Rendering
Landscape Plan
Presented by:
Courtney Lankford, Planner II