HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_11.12.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
Nov ember 12, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
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.
The r e gular me e ting wil l conve ne at 6:00pm on N ove mber 12, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/30 P P uB H
Webinar I D: 922-4336-7356
P assword: 541609
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (301)715-8592 or Toll-F r ee : 833-548-0276
P assword: 541609
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 103
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
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
Page 2 of 103
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 /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the O ctober 22, 2020 regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for the
demolition of a low priority residential s tructure at the property located at 1103 R oc k S treet, bearing the
legal desc ription 0.129 ac res out of the northwes t part of Block 65, Lost Addition. – Britin Bos tic k,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
F P resentation and dis cus s ion of the Local His toric Landmark Des ignation.
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
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 _________________, 2020, 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 3 of 103
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 12, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the O c tober 22, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 103
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: October 22, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
October 22, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/2FD3ZB6
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on October 22, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/2FD3ZB6
To participate by phone: Call in number: (312)626-6799 or Toll Free: 833-548-0276 Webinar ID#:
939-0297-4204 Password: 204451
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Faustine
Curry; Terry Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell
Members absent: Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:01 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
Page 5 of 103
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: October 22, 2020
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
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/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 8, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Approved (6-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building construction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue,
bearing the legal description 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown. –
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three story bank
and office with a drive-thru located on the east side of the building. The new building is
proposed to be a total of 22,702 sq. ft., with a 40’ top of roof height for the flat roof and a 47’
parapet height. The proposed exterior materials are cast stone or cut limestone and stucco, with
dark aluminum frame windows and non-reflective glazing. The prosed design includes
decorative stucco details at the first and top floors, as well as stone and stucco details to
highlight the building entrances on the north and south elevations and the center section of the
Austin Avenue (west) façade. Signage is not proposed as part of this application, but the
Page 6 of 103
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: October 22, 2020
submitted plans show building signage areas on each of the three street facades. The highest
point of the roof parapet at 49’ is proposed for the cornice details in the center of the street-
facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof (“mid parapet” noted on the drawings)
is 47’ in height. This parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from view, while the
“low parapet” noted on the drawings is a decorative element. A conceptual review was held on
this project on September 24, 2020 and a public hearing was held on this item on October 8,
2020.
Chair Parr commented on the significant difference between the cast stone and the natural
limestone when she saw the materials in person. She does not agree with approving the cast
stone material, as it is synthetic, reads flat, and the natural limestone reads with more texture
and dimension. When coupled with stucco, the concern is lack of dimension if cast stone is
used. She also commented on the difference between the black versus dark bronze window
material and would like further discussion on this.
Commissioner Nunn asked what the role of HARC is regarding approve one material over the
other. Bostick explained that the request is for approval of both materials in terms of stone and
store front color. If HARC approves with the condition that only one stone material be used,
staff ask that the Commission state that in the motion.
The Commission sought guidance regarding where materials are discussed in the guidelines.
Bostick explained that the design guidelines don’t give guidance on when to approve an
either/or situation, rather provides guidance on the materials that can be used. She explained
that materials are referenced in Chapter 13.8 of the guidelines.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Lawrence Romero commented that he saw the sample materials provided by the applicant, and
thinks this is a good project.
Shawn Hood asked whether the project will use synthetic or milled stone. The applicant
explained that they are seeking approval for both, so that the client can have the opportunity to
evaluate cost saving measures at a future date, as this project is still in the design phase. Hood
commented that he like the proposed project but that natural limestone should be the preferred
choice.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
There were several questions from the Commission regarding the materials, and how they will
look. The applicant explained which side of the sample materials will be front-facing.
Commissioner Nunn commented that the use of synthetic stone will provide a different color
than you get with natural limestone even if similar texture is visible. She also commented that
the color for windows should be black because it mimics a steel window design.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-45-COA) with the conditions that the natural limestone be
used and the applicant has the choice to choose either black or bronze for the aluminum
window and entrance finish, by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Approved (5-0) with Commissioner Curry abstained.
Page 7 of 103
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: October 22, 2020
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No new updates
G. Presentation and discussion of the Downtown & Old Town Design Guidelines update – Britin
Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Bostick introduced Post Oak Preservation Solutions, the consultant for the Downtown & Old
Town Design Guidelines update project. An overview was provided of the update, including a
recap of the City Council direction from 2019, the project timeline and stakeholder engagement
plan.
The consultants for the project, Ellis Mumford and Ann McGlone introduced themselves, and
discussed the project and the feedback they are seeking from the Commission.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 8 of 103
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 12, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for the
demolition of a low priority res idential struc ture at the property loc ated at 1103 R ock S treet, bearing the
legal des cription 0.129 acres out of the northwest part of Bloc k 65, Los t Addition. – Britin Bostick,
Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val for the demolitio n of a Low P rio rity struc ture under the
criteria of los s of s ignificance found in UDC S ec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.
T he Demolitio n S ubc o mmittee meet on 10/15/20 and recommend ed approval of the reques t with c ondition
that the wo o d flo o r and clawfo o t tub b e s alvaged if prac tic ab le and that if asbesto s is present, that it be
removed in acc ordanc e with C ity procedures and S tate requirements.
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:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Photos Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Property Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit
Exhibit 7 - Public Comments Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 9 of 103
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2020-48-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1103 Rock Street
APPLICANT: Landon Smith
Background
Public records show that on the first Tuesday in April 1905, the Williamson County Sheriff sold at
auction at the Courthouse door a tract of land to John N. Ellyson, R. T. Cooper and W. F. Casey for
$33.48. The property had been seized from W. M. Mayfield by order of the 26th District Court and was
described as the west one-half of block No. 65, Lost Addition. The 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
from November of that year shows only two structures on that half of the block, one of which was
likely a shed or barn and the other an outbuilding for a large home on the southeast corner of the block.
By January 24, 1908, Mayfield had recovered ownership of the half block, paying off the remaining
$400 owed to J. W. Wood. The Mayfields by then lived in Burleson, Texas, and sold the west one-half of
Block 65 to Thomas H. Flinn for $700 that same day. Five days later, Thomas Flinn and his wife sold the
northwest corner of the block, a little less than half of what they had just purchased, to E. A. Strickland
for $200. E. A. Strickland was born on March 20, 1856 and was one of the Noble Grands of the
Independent Order of Odd Fellows Lodge No. 179 of Georgetown. Per an article in the Austin Weekly
Statesman on October 5, 1893, E. A. Strickland was an attorney, and per an article in the Galveston
Daily News on April 19, 1894, the Pythian Lodge met in Paris, Texas, and E. A. Strickland of
Georgetown was selected from several nominees as the grand outside guard. He died on January 22,
1915 and is buried in the I. O. O. F. Cemetery in Georgetown.
On April 1, 1910 Strickland sold the property to L. J. Nolan for $1,000. The 1910 Sanborn Map showing
a house on the lot is dated in February of 1910, indicating that Strickland built the first house indicated
in the records. There is also an accessory structure on the property shown with iron cladding on the
west and north sides of the structure.
L. J. and Kate Nolan sold the property to M. P. Paul on March 16, 1911 for the balance of the $985 owed
to Strickland plus $22. On February 6, 1912 Paul and his wife sold the property to W. R. Smith for
$1,085.15, which included the balance of the note to Strickland that had still not been paid in full. W. R.
and his wife Tempy owned the property at the time of the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which
shows a different footprint for the house than what was drawn on the 1910 map. The 1910 house is
indicated as an “L” shape, single story wood structure, with porches on the west and north sides. The
footprint on the 1916 map, by contrast, shows a one-story house with more of a “T” shape plan, with a
porch across the west side, and porches on the north, south and east sides. It is probable based on a
comparison of the maps that the Smiths could have added on to the house and changed it, rather than
rebuilding the house entirely. The Smiths sold the property to W. S. Jolly on February 1, 1917 for $1,000.
Page 10 of 103
File Number: 2020-48-COA
Meeting Date: November 12, 2020
Page 2 of 3
By 1925, when the next Sanborn map was drawn, the house had been altered again to have a large
porch along the rear south side, which has since been partially enclosed, and the same porch on the
north side, which has since been removed. G. W. Risner owned the property from 1919 to October 1,
1925, when he and his wife Elpha sold the property to W. M. Waxler for $2,500. The Sanborn map from
that that same month indicates that the modifications were made by the Risners.
The aerial photos from c. 1934 provided by Special Collections at Southwestern University do not
provide a clear view of the house, although the roof appears to be consistent with the 1925 footprint.
William Waxler died on February 6, 1934, and his heirs sold the property to Walter Barker on April 4,
1939 for $700. Walter and Mamie Barker sold the property to C. B. and Maud Lunsford on September
20, 1939 for $750, and Lunsford sold it to Ann Anderson on December 6, 1956 for $4,500. Ann Anderson
was likely the owner when the asbestos siding was installed, which is when the north side porch may
have been removed, and her heirs sold the property to Wanda Ross on August 28, 1995. It is not clear
when part of the rear porch was enclosed, and that portion of the house does not currently have
asbestos siding. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey photo of the property shows that the second-floor
addition was added after 1984, and it may have been added during Ross’s ownership, from 1995 to
2019. Patti Colbert purchased the property on August 7, 2019, and Landon Smith is the current owner.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the
subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the demolition application (33 notices
mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received two (2) public comments in
favor of the request.
Findings
The style of the house that remains visible can be described as Folk, Side-Gabled Hall-and-Parlor with a
rear extension. The house may have had more ornamentation at one time, but it appears to have been a
simply constructed, vernacular (domestic and functional) house with gabled ends, wood siding and
windows and a gable feature over the front porch. The Sanborn maps indicate that the original house on
this property evolved over time and changed footprint, porches and likely the roof, but remained a single
story until the second floor and balcony were added, likely after 1995. The house has a simple floor plan
with a front bedroom, living room, dining area and kitchen, and the portion of the enclosed porch has
been turned into a bathroom and laundry area. The second-floor addition provided additional living or
bedroom space.
The interior of the first floor is in fairly good condition; however, the pier and beam foundation is
experiencing failure and the second floor addition both has and is causing water damage. The pier and
beam foundation is currently supported by a number of stacked concrete blocks, many of which are
leaning to the side rather than providing stable support, and the floor joists and beams show signs of
deterioration, including termite damage, and will require replacement. The second floor addition, which
is neither compatible with the historic portion of the structure nor well-constructed, has caused water
damage to the front porch roof and some of the construction materials appear to have been left in the
porch feature, which was once a gable. The wood windows are intact and some may be repairable, but
Page 11 of 103
File Number: 2020-48-COA
Meeting Date: November 12, 2020
Page 3 of 3
the wood siding, of which there are several different types visible, is brittle and would not be successfully
reused.
Based on the condition of the foundation and the exterior, as well as the impacts of the second floor
addition, the historic fabric of the structure has decayed to the point that much of it would require
replacement, and extensive removal of flooring and walls may be required to replace the foundation and
secure it for future use. Replacement of most of the roof structure would also be required, effectively
leaving little historic fabric.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions: that the wood floors be salvaged to the extent feasible and the applicant
provide photos of the salvage process to the HPO, and that the bathtub be salvaged for reuse.
Disapproval
11/06/2020
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Photos
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Property Survey
Exhibit 6 – Demolition Subcommittee Report & Recommendation
Exhibit 7 – Public Comments
Page 12 of 103
Location
2020-48-COA
Exhibit #1
E11THST
E 10TH ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 10TH ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
RO
C
K
S
T
FORESTST
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 11TH ST
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W UNIVERSITY AVE
E UNIVERSITY AVE
TIM
B
E
R
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 13 of 103
Letter of Intent
1103 S Rock St
Georgetown TX 78626
The current home situated on this property was built sometime between 1905-1910. According
to the Sanborn Maps, there was a house that was removed before the current home was built.
In 1985, a second story was added that did not conform with the architecture of the original
home.
At first glance, the property appeared to be salvageable, but after several site visits with P&Z,
contractors, and inspectors, the home is not in a salvageable condition. I’ve included pictures
below for reference. The foundation is being held up by cinder blocks and cedar tree trunks.
There are at least 6 different types of siding, all of which are deteriorated. The detached garage
is sitting on the ground which has severely impacted its structural integrity. This property is
zoned RS, but is surrounded by MUDT zoning. Regardless of the desired use, the property is not
capable of supporting a residential or commercial use. There are however, items that could be
salvaged. The hardwood floors in the living room are in good enough condition to re-use.
There is what appears to be a clawfoot tub that can be resurfaced and used. Some pieces of
the board and batten siding on the detached garage/shed could be used as a focal point on a
new structure. The intent here is to demolish the building while salvaging the items above and
any others found before the demolition takes place.
I look forward to answering any questions.
Landon Smith
720-633-2505
Landon_Smith@mac.com
Page 14 of 103
520 W 4th St
Taylor, TX 76574
512-497-2929
Mr. Landon Smith,
I visited the property on 1103 S. Rock St, Gorgetown, TX, 78626. In my opinion the structure
should be demolished unless it has historical significance. It is a pier and beam structure
supported by pine posts in geologically unsound soil. It does not appear to have been
structurally maintained. It has roughly a 8-12 inch differential in gradiatant (I.e. the front of
the house of the house is roughly 8-12 inches lower than the rear section of the house). There
is also significant variation in the mid section of the foundation. With this amount of
displacement it is probable that 80% of structure will need to be dismantled/demoed in order
to repair it. Many of the supporting beams securing nails were observed to be partial and
completely warped away from other supporting beam. The only reason the structure is still
standing is because of the ballon framing standard at that time.
While I highly recommend a tear down and rebuild, my “ballpark” rehab proposal would be
$275,000-$375,000 depending on finish level, additional foundation work, and the unknowns
once we start dismantling the house.
Thanks.
Zach Alexander
Zach of All Trades Contractors, LLC
Page 15 of 103
Page 16 of 103
Page 17 of 103
Page 18 of 103
Page 19 of 103
Page 20 of 103
Page 21 of 103
Page 22 of 103
Page 23 of 103
Page 24 of 103
Page 25 of 103
Page 26 of 103
Page 27 of 103
Page 28 of 103
Page 29 of 103
Page 30 of 103
Page 31 of 103
Page 32 of 103
Page 33 of 103
Page 34 of 103
Page 35 of 103
Page 36 of 103
Page 37 of 103
Page 38 of 103
Page 39 of 103
Page 40 of 103
Page 41 of 103
Page 42 of 103
Page 43 of 103
Page 44 of 103
Page 45 of 103
Page 46 of 103
Page 47 of 103
Page 48 of 103
Page 49 of 103
Page 50 of 103
Page 51 of 103
Page 52 of 103
Page 53 of 103
Page 54 of 103
Page 55 of 103
Page 56 of 103
Page 57 of 103
Page 58 of 103
Page 59 of 103
Page 60 of 103
Page 61 of 103
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY
1. County Williamson
FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313
(rev. 8-82)
Site No 355 w
City/Rural Georgetown —7777 UTM Sector b26-3.389
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1910
Address 1.103 Rock 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner Ann Anderson 8 Style/Type
Address Same. 78626 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Lost/Blk. 65/N.W. corner Present Use residential
10. Description One—story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls w/ asbestos shingle siding; gable root-
w/ composition shingles; front elev. faces W.: wood sash double—hung windows w/ 1/1 lights:
single—door entrance; one—bay porch w/ gable roof on W. elev.; wrought—iorn supports.
Other noteworthy features include symmetrical three—bay facade. Outbuildings include>
11. Present Condition good; altered--asbestos siding
12. Significance Primary area of significance: architecture
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography Sanborn Maps 15. Informant
16. Recorder A. Taylor/HHM Date July 1984
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No. nld THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
0 RTHL 0 NABS (no.) TEX- 35mm Negs.
NR: 0 Individual El Historic District YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
0 Thematic El Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
15 2 7 to
to
to Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No of
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Williamqon
City/Rural Georgetown
I4M
GE
5. USGS Quad No. 3097 313 Site No. 355
2. Name
#10. Description (cont'd): garage and frame storage building.
Page 62 of 103
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:1103 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:124090
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R043222Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1910
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: (Notes from 2007 Survey: asbestos shingles; porch roof and posts altered)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:644
ID:355
*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 None/None
ID:124090 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Latitude:30.633905 Longitude -97.678793
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: East
Page 63 of 103
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:1103 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:124090
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 64 of 103
Page 65 of 103
Page 66 of 103
Page 67 of 103
Page 68 of 103
1
Britin Bostick
From:Glen Luepnitz <nutrition@n4hresearch.com>
Sent:Monday, November 2, 2020 8:09 AM
To:Britin Bostick
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Demolition of 1103 Rock St
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Britin,
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback regarding the demolition of 1103 Rock St.
My primary concern is the parking along 11th Street in front of my office.
Any parking of construction vehicles and trailers used to haul off debris
would present a safety issue.
Due to heavy congestion and other businesses allowing their employees
to park along the side of my office on Rock Street, parking on Rock by my
elderly patients is dangerous and generally not available.
Patient parking then is primarily in front of the office and any
construction trailers/vehicles parked on the South curb would drastically
narrow the road making me concerned for safety the safety of my clients.
I am requesting that the demolition permit require parking to be in front of 1103 on Rock Street
and/or on their property.
Sincerely,
Glen R. Luepnitz, PhD
N4H Research Inc.
512‐244‐1881 office
Page 69 of 103
1103 Rock Street Demolition
2020-48-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
November 12, 2020
1Page 70 of 103
Item Under Consideration
2020-48-COA –1103 Rock Street Demolition
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the demolition of a low priority residential structure at the property located at 1103
Rock Street, bearing the legal description 0.129 acres out of the northwest part of Block 65,
Lost Addition.
2Page 71 of 103
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Demolition of a Low Priority structure
3Page 72 of 103
Item Under Consideration
4Page 73 of 103
CVS
5Page 74 of 103
Current Context
6Page 75 of 103
1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
7Page 76 of 103
1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
8Page 77 of 103
1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
9Page 78 of 103
1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
10Page 79 of 103
1934 Aerial Photo
11Page 80 of 103
1934 Aerial Photo
12Page 81 of 103
1964 Aerial Photo
13Page 82 of 103
1974 Aerial Photo
14Page 83 of 103
1984 HRS Form & Photo
15Page 84 of 103
Site Photos –Rock Street Facade
16Page 85 of 103
Site Photos Rock Street Facade
17Page 86 of 103
Site Photos –Rock Street Facade
18Page 87 of 103
Site Photos –Rock Street Facade
19Page 88 of 103
Site Photos –11th Street Facade
20Page 89 of 103
Site Photos –Rear Facade
21Page 90 of 103
Site Photos –Rear Facade
22Page 91 of 103
Site Photos –Foundation
23Page 92 of 103
Site Photos –Foundation
24Page 93 of 103
Site Photos –Interior
25Page 94 of 103
Site Photos –Rear & Interior
26Page 95 of 103
Site Photos –Garage/Shed (not on HRS)
27Page 96 of 103
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 any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town 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;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 28Page 97 of 103
Demo Approval Criteria UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
29
Criteria Staff’s Finding
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically,
culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and Complies
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible
changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural
significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and
Complies
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either
directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of
maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and
Complies
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the
historic overlay district or the City's historic resources;Complies
Page 98 of 103
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-three (33) letters mailed
•Tw o (2) comments in favor
30Page 99 of 103
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for demolition with the
condition that the wood floors be salvaged to the extent feasible and
that the applicant provide photos of the salvage process to the HPO,
and that the bathtub be salvaged for reuse.
31Page 100 of 103
HARC Motion –2020-48-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
32Page 101 of 103
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 12, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the Loc al Historic Landmark Designation.
IT E M S UMMARY:
Landmarks are res ourc es that have been officially rec ognized by the C ity of G eorgetown for their
outs tanding his toric al, cultural, or arc hitectural s ignificance. Designation as a historic landmark requires
approval by HAR C and C ity C ouncil, and the property owner must be in s upport of the designation and
s ign the application. T he historic landmark designation applies requirements for the approval of a
C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for exterior modific ations to the landmark. F or more information pleas e
visit https ://historic.georgetown.org/becoming-a-loc al-landmark/.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Local Landmark Designation Flyer Exhibit
Page 102 of 103
Page 103 of 103