HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_12.10.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
December 10, 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 egular me e ti ng will conve ne at 6:00pm on De ce mber 10, 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/2 GfUqJ a
Webinar I D: 960-6164-4948
P assword: 818063
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (929)205-6099 or Toll-F r ee : 833-548-0276
P assword: 818063
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 66
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 66
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 November 12, 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
addition of a porch, patio or dec k and a 5’-2” setback encroac hment into the required 6’ s ide (north)
setback for Lot 3 to allow a patio and dec k s tructure 0’-10” from the lot line at the property loc ated at 409
E. University Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of Lots 3-4 and the south part of Lot 2, Block 25,
G las s coc k Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
G P resentation and dis cus s ion of the s alvage and re-us e of materials, following up on the HAR C approval
of the demolition of the low priority struc ture at 1002 E. 14th S treet with the c ondition that the wood
floors be salvaged for re-us e.
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 66
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the November 12, 2020 regular meeting of
the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
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 66
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: November 12, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
November 12, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/30PPuBH
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on November 12, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/30PPuBH
To participate by phone: Call in number: (301)715-8592 or Toll Free: 833-548-0276 Webinar ID#:
922-4336-7356 Password: 541609
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; Robert McCabe
Members absent: Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 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
*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
Page 5 of 66
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: November 12, 2020
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 22, 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 (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. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the demolition of a Low
Priority structure under the criteria of loss of significance found in UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F2.a. The
Demolition Subcommittee met on 10/15/20 and recommended approval of the request with
condition that the food floor and clawfoot tub be salvaged if practicable and that if asbestos is
present, that it be removed in accordance with City procedures and State requirements.
Page 6 of 66
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: November 12, 2020
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 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 th e 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.
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 s ingle 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 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
Page 7 of 66
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: November 12, 2020
foundation and secure it for future use. Replacement of most of the roof structure would also be
required, effectively leaving little historic fabric.
The applicant, Landon Smith, addressed the Commission. He explained that he obtained bids
from contractors and showed a letter to the Commission describing the bid and cost for the
project. He also explained other bids obtained; one contractor did not provide a bid because
they could not salvage the structure, another bid charged minimum $25,000 for foundation
repair only. Smith wants to salvage the structure but it is difficult to obtain a bid because
contractors are unsure of the structure’s stability.
Chair Parr explained to the Commission that she asked Smith to provide these bids to the
Commission. The Demolition Subcommittee approves with the conditions by staff.
There was discussion by members of the Commission about what can be salvaged. Smith also
explained that a letter was mailed to surrounding homeowners about the project. He received
letters in support, no one was opposed.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-48-COA) as presented by staff by Commissioner Morales.
Second by Commissioner Curry. Approved (6-0).
F. Presentation and discussion of the Local Historic Landmark Designation
Presentation by Bostick. Bostick explained that the Commission has never reviewed Historic
Landmark Designation applications before. However, this is a new application type that the
Commission will start to see as new applications are submitted. Staff want to ensure the
Commission is familiar with the application type, as one was received. Bostick explained the
process to designate a local landmark, the criteria used to designate a Historic Landmark, and
the review requirements for changes to the property created by the Historic Landmark. Bostick
also presented the flyer that was created to provide information about Historic Landmark
Designation.
Landmarks are resources that have been officially recognized by the City of Georgetown for
their outstanding historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Designation as a historic
landmark requires approval by HARC and City Council, and the property owner must be in
support of the designation and sign the application. The historic landmark designation applies
requirements for the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior modifications to
the landmark.
G. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Waggoner provided an update to the Commission regarding small area planning. Waggoner
explained the directive from City Council regarding the San Jose and TRG neighborhoods, and
the work that has been completed to obtain feedback from the neighborhoods. A request for
Page 8 of 66
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: November 12, 2020
proposal for professional consultant assistance to help develop plans for the neighborhoods has
been submitted.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 7:22 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 9 of 66
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 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
addition of a porc h, patio or deck and a 5’-2” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 6’ side (north)
s etbac k for Lot 3 to allow a patio and deck struc ture 0’-10” from the lot line at the property located at 409
E. Univers ity Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of Lots 3-4 and the s outh part of Lot 2, Bloc k 25,
G lassc ock Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is req uesting HAR C approval fo r a patio c o ver over the exis ting wood dec k o n the north
s ide of the high priority his toric s truc ture, as well as a s etbac k modific ation to allo w the cons tructio n of
additional wood dec k and the patio cover o ver the exis ting and proposed new dec k. T he lo catio n of the lot
lines relative to the req uested struc tures requires a s etbac k mo d ificatio n fo r the p atio and deck struc tures ,
which are propos ed to be 10’-10” from the north property line.
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 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Texas His torical Commis s ion Review Letter Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Public Comment Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 10 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: December 10, 2020
File Number: 2020-31-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
addition of a porch, patio or deck and a 5’-2” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north)
setback for Lot 3 to allow a patio and deck structure 0’-10” from the lot line at the property located at 409
E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description of Lots 3-4 and the south part of Lot 2 of Block 25 of
the Glasscock Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 409 E. University Patio Cover
Applicant: Ruth Zane
Property Owner: Jeffrey & Ruth Zane
Property Address: 409 E. University Avenue
Legal Description: Lots 3-4 and the south part of Lot 2 of Block 25 of the Glasscock Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1886 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: Individually Listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as the George Irvine House
Texas Historical Commission Designation: Recorded Texas Historic Landmark (1988)
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Addition of a porch, patio or deck
Setback modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a detached patio cover at the rear of the existing high
priority historic structure, which is known as the George Irvine House. The patio cover is proposed to be
constructed of wood posts and beams, similar to a pergola, but with a clear plastic material for the roof
of the structure to serve as rain protection while allowing light through the material, which comes in 26”
x 12’-0” panels. The roofed structure would be approximately 14’ tall with an 18’ width and 28’ length
(504 sq. ft.), to cover part of the existing wood deck, which is approximately 634 sq. ft. The applicant is
also requesting screening to enclose the deck and protect against insects.
Page 11 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 2 of 7
The Official Texas Historical Building Marker for the George Irvine House reads: “Scottish Native George
Irvine (1841-1936) built this two-story frame home for his family in 1886. The founder of the Irvine
Brothers Lumber Co. (later the Belford Lumber Co.), Irvine was a civic leader who served on the school
board, the city council, and the vestry of Grace Episcopal Church. In 1922 he sold the house to Postmaster
Simon J. Enochs, who made modifications to its original Italianate detailing in the 1930s.
As the George Irvine House is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, any projects that would alter the
exterior must be reviewed by the Texas Historical Commission (THC). The applicant has completed that
review process and provided the letter of approval from the THC with their application. The project was
found by the THC to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which is one of the approval
criteria for HARC.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition does not alter or remove
historic features and is proposed to have
minimal impact on the historic structure.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Partially Complies
Patio addition is proposed to use a plastic
material, which is not consistent with the
materials of the historic structure. However,
the material does have minimal visual
impact on the historic structure and is of a
scale and location that are compatible with
the historic structure.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
Complies
Proposed addition does not obscure the
character of the historic structure and can be
distinguished from the original building.
Page 12 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the con-
nection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Park Service.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back to the rear of
the historic structure and is only visible
from the side street view.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove
original architectural details and materials of the
primary structure.
When preserving original details and materi-
als, follow the guidelines presented in this
document.
Complies
The addition is proposed to have minimal
impact on the historic structure.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Partially Complies
Proposed addition is simple in design and is
a patio addition, which can be differentiated
from the existing historic structure. The
proposed wood and plastic materials are
partially similar to the materials of the
historic structure, and partially a new
material that contrasts with the historic
wood materials, but which has minimal
visual impact as it allows light through the
roof structure, which is meant to be
constructed with an appearance similar to a
pergola.
Page 13 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 4 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-
propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs
may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Complies
The roof style of the addition is proposed to
be a shed roof, which is compatible with the
historic primary building.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed deck expansion and patio cover
require approval of a setback modification.
The size of the proposed detached patio
cover is 504 sq. ft., which is within the size
allowance for an accessory structure based
on the square footage of the main structure.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The project was determined to comply with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by
the Texas Historical Commission.
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
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Design Guidelines.
Page 14 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed materials and design for the
patio cover are different than what would
have been used for a porch or deck at the
time of significance for this historic
structure. However, the deck expansion and
patio cover are proposed to have minimal
impact on the house and could be easily
removed at a later time.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
Surrounding properties have rear additions
and/or porches that are part of the street
facade.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
for the purpose of deck improvements,
however the location of the lot lines
relative to the existing historic structure
and to the property line is related to
development long prior to the
establishment of the city’s zoning
requirements.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The location of the lot lines relative to
the historic main structure do not
provide sufficient room for the
construction of the patio cover without a
setback encroachment.
Page 15 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment
would leave an effective setback of 10’
due to the lot line location, which is
compatible with the surrounding
context.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed deck and patio cover are
located to the rear of the structure and
will not be closer to the street than the
existing historic structure or other
structures within the block.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The main house is approximately 2,323
sq. ft. and the proposed patio cover is
504 sq. ft., or 22% of the size of the
existing main structure and smaller than
the existing 634 sq. ft. wood deck.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed deck and patio cover
additions are compatible with other
structures within the same block,
including covered porches.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed addition is not expected to
impact the adjoining property and does
not limit their ability to maintain existing
buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
Page 16 of 66
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-31-COA – 409 E. University Avenue Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
The lot line locations relative to the
property line leave adequate room for
maintenance.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No trees or significant features are
proposed to be preserved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the deck and patio
cover additions and the setback modification.
As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) written comment in favor of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Texas Historical Commission Review Letter
Exhibit 6 – Public Comment
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 17 of 66
Location
2020-31-COA
Exhibit #1
E 10TH ST
E 11TH ST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E UNIVERSITY AVE
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
ASH
S
T
E 13TH ST
ELM
S
T
E 11TH ST
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 10TH ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 18 of 66
June 7, 2020
Dear HARC Committee,
In an effort to better enjoy our backyard, we are hoping to build a patio cover over our existing
deck. We plan for the patio cover to be a wooden pergola, with a translucent covering to serve
as protection from weather, while still letting in light. The pergola will have a slight, 15% slant.
The pergola will be stained expresso, to match the interior wood of our home.
Please let me know if we can provide any further information.
Sincerely,
Ruth Zane
Page 19 of 66
Page 20 of 66
Page 21 of 66
Page 22 of 66
Page 23 of 66
Page 24 of 66
1. County Wi 1 1 i amson
City/Rural Ge o r g et o
5. USGS Quad No. 30 9 7 -3 1.3
Site No 177
UTM Pt
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM—TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
1. County ti i 1 ia ms on WM 5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No 177
City/Rural
2. Name
Georgetown GE UTM Sector 627-3389
George Irvine House 6. Date: Factual 1886 Est
Address- 409 East University 7. Architect/Builder George Irvine
Contractor
3.Owner Randy and Donna Wright 8. Style/Type
Address Same, Georgetown, 78626 9.Original Use residential
4.Block/Lot Giasscock/Bik. 25/Lot p. 4 Present Use residential
10.Descripfion Two-story wood-frame dwelling with T plan; exterior wails with weather-
board siding; intersecting gable roof with composition shingles; box eaves;
iigsawn bargeboards and carved brackets; front elevation faces south; interior
brick chimney; wood-sash double-hung windows with 2/2 lights; two, single-door
11. Present Condition fairs rear and side additions
12. Significance Primary area of significance: architecture and association with a
prominent individual. A good example of a late nineteenth-century dwelling in
Georgetown. Retains much of its 1886 appearance and character. Built by
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site :z(describe) mostly residential area
southeast of CBD; near First Methodist Church (to south) and Old Georgetown
14. Bibliography Tax rolls, Georgetown 15. Informant Bertha Si I lure Cooke
Historical Society files 16. Recorder 0. Moore/HHM Date
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No. Old THC Code B&W 4 x
35mm Negs
YEAR
5s Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX
DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME N R : q Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
4
15 29
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No. of
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM—TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
2.Name George Irvine House Acreage Less than one acre
*10. Description (cont'd): entrances; one-bay porch with shed roof on south
elevation; brick supports. Other noteworthy features include three-sided one-
story window bay on east elevation; broad frieze with iigsawn base; paired,
compound brackets; paired windows in second story above window bay with decora-
tive trim above windows; similar detailing on second floor of projection ell
on south elevation; molded window facings throughout; primary entrance on south
elevation with transom; one-story addition on west and north elevations; one-
story wing to west is, according to current owners, the original (pre-1886)
house; lot overgrown.
Page 25 of 66
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM—TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
1. County ams on id ii 5. USGS Quad No. 3 0 9 - 3 1 3 Site No. 1 7 7
City/Rural
2.Name
Georgetown GE UTM Sector 627-3389
George Irvine House 6. Date: Factual Est.
Address 7. Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner 8. Style/Type
Address 9. Original Use
4. Block/Lot Present Use
10. Description
11. Present Condition
12. Significance
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date
or Original Site (describe)
14. Bibliography 15. Informant
16. Recorder Date
DESIGNATIONS
TNRIS No. Old THC Code
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX
N R: 0 Individual C] Historic District
CI Thematic q Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
Other
PHOTO DATA
B&W 4 x 5s Slides
35mm Negs
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
to
to
to
CONTINUATION PAGE No. of
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM —TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No.
UTM Pt.
Acreage
1. County Williamson
City/Rural Georgetown
2. Name George Irvine House
GE
#12. Significance (cont"di: lumberman George Irvine. a Scottish immigrant,
for his own residence. George and Tom Irvine were owners and operators of
the Irvine Brothers Lumber Co. in the early 1880s. It was the first planing
mill in Georgetown. When his brother died in 1885. George Irvine operated the
business until 1892, when he sold it to Moses Hareli and Charles S. Belford.
The company eventually became Belford Lumber Co.
413, Relationship to Site (cont'd): High School (to east).
Page 26 of 66
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:409 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123804
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042524Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1886
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:Builder: George Irvine (Notes from 2007 Survey: non-historic 1-story side addition)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:293
ID:177
*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 George and Rebecca Irvine House
ID:123804 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.633626 Longitude -97.673403
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 27 of 66
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:409 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123804
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
Close-upPhoto Direction
WestPhoto Direction
Close-upPhoto Direction
Page 28 of 66
June 26, 2020
Ruth Zane
409 E. University St.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Recorded Texas Historic Landmark project review, George Irvine House porch cover, 409 E. University St., Georgetown,
Williamson County (RTHL)
Dear Ms. Zane:
Thank you for submitting information regarding proposed project work on your Recorded Texas Historic
Landmark (RTHL) received in our office on June 25, 2020. This letter represents the comments of the Executive
Director of the Texas Historical Commission.
The review staff, led by Pam Opiela, has completed its review of the project documentation provided and has the
following comments: the work proposed is to add a framed porch pergola to the rear of the house. The structure
should have the minimum number of attachments to the house. Each of these attachments will be made with as
little damage to the house as possible.
The work proposed meets The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. We waive the remainder of the waiting period and
work can begin on this project.
Any additional work proposed for the exterior of the building must be submitted to our office for review.
We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster
effective historic preservation. Thank you for your interest in the cultural heritage of Texas, and for the
opportunity to comment on this proposed project in accordance with Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
legislation. If you have any questions concerning our review or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact Pam Opiela at pamela.opiela@thc.texas.gov or 512/463-8952.
Sincerely,
Pam Opiela, Central and West Texas Project Reviewer, and Statewide Military Projects Reviewer
For: Mark Wolfe, Executive Director
Cc: Eloise Brackenridge, Williamson County Historical Commission (via email)
Page 29 of 66
MW/PO
Page 30 of 66
Page 31 of 66
409 E. University Patio Cover
2020-31-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
December 10, 2020
1Page 32 of 66
Item Under Consideration
2020-31-COA –409 E. University Patio Cover
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)for
the addition of a porch,patio or deck and a 5’-2”setback encroachment into the required 6’
side (north)setback for Lot 3 to allow a patio and deck structure 0’-10”from the lot line at
the property located at 409 E.University Avenue,bearing the legal description of Lots 3-4
and the south part of Lot 2 of Block 25 of the Glasscock Addition.
2Page 33 of 66
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition of a porch, patio or deck
•Setback encroachment
3Page 34 of 66
Item Under Consideration
Insert Project Image
4Page 35 of 66
GISD Hammerlun
Center
5Page 36 of 66
Current Context
6Page 37 of 66
1900 & 1905 Sanborn Maps
7Page 38 of 66
1910 & 1916 Sanborn Maps
8Page 39 of 66
1925 & 1940 Correction Sanborn Maps
9Page 40 of 66
1964 Aerial Photo
10Page 41 of 66
1974 Aerial Photo
11Page 42 of 66
George Irvine House –1987 Photos
12
Page 43 of 66
409 E. University Avenue –Site Survey & Sketch
13Page 44 of 66
409 E. University Ave. –Proposed Materials/Design
14Translucent plastic panel –proposed roofing material Wood pergola structure over wood deck
Page 45 of 66
Current Context –View from E. University Ave.
15Page 46 of 66
Current Context –View from Ash Street
16Page 47 of 66
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;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;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;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and 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 17Page 48 of 66
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
18Page 49 of 66
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
19Page 50 of 66
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•33 letters mailed
•One (1) Comment in favor
20Page 51 of 66
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for the deck and patio cover
additions and the setback modification.
21Page 52 of 66
HARC Motion 2020-31-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
22Page 53 of 66
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the salvage and re-use of materials , following up on the HAR C approval of
the demolition of the low priority struc ture at 1002 E. 14th S treet with the c ondition that the wood floors be
s alvaged for re-use.
IT E M S UMMARY:
HAR C approved a request for demolition of the low priority s tructure at 1002 E 14th S treet with 2020-18-
C O A in their regular meeting on T hurs day, June 11, 2020, as well as a reques t for new (res idential infill)
cons truction at the same property with 2020-26-C O A at the same meeting. T he applicant was s ubsequently
approved for demolition and new c onstruc tion with permit number 2020-58342 on June 12, 2020.
HAR C c ond itioned the ap p ro val o f the demolitio n with the requirement that the wo o d floor b e salvaged to
the extent feasible, with the c o nc urrence of the property owner. T he wood flo o r was s alvaged p rio r to the
demolition, and was refurb is hed and ins talled as a ceiling in a new house (res idential infill cons tructio n) at
1207 S . Walnut S treet, which was approved b y HAR C via 2019-37-C O A at their regular meeting on
T hursday, August 8, 2019.
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
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Staff Report Cover Memo
Page 54 of 66
1002 E. 14th Street Salvage Report
2020-18-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
December 10, 2020
1Page 55 of 66
San Gabriel
House B&B
2Page 56 of 66
2011 Street View
3Page 57 of 66
HARC Decision
HARC approved demolition of the existing Low Priority structure, with
the condition that the wood flooring be salvaged to the extent feasible.
4Page 58 of 66
Salvage Photos
5
HARC conditioned the approval of the
demolition with the requirement that
the wood floor be salvaged to the
extent feasible, with the concurrence
of the property owner. The wood floor
was salvaged prior to the demolition,
which occurred on July 2, 2020.
Page 59 of 66
Salvage Photos
6Page 60 of 66
Re -Installation Photos
7
A portion of the wood
flooring was refurbished
and installed as a ceiling
in a new house
(residential infill
construction) at 1207 S.
Walnut Street, which
recently completed
construction. The rest
remains in storage.
Page 61 of 66
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
COA FOLLOW-UP REPORT
FILE NUMBER: 2020-18-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1002 E. 14th Street
APPLICANT: Chance Leigh (Chance Leigh Custom Homes)
Background
HARC approved a request for demolition of the low priority structure at 1002 E 14th Street
with 2020-18-COA in their regular meeting on Thursday, June 11, 2020, as well as a request for
new (residential infill) construction at the same property with 2020-26-COA at the same
meeting. The applicant was subsequently approved for demolition and new construction with
permit number 2020-58342 on June 12, 2020.
Findings
HARC conditioned the approval of the demolition with the requirement that the wood floor be
salvaged to the extent feasible, with the concurrence of the property owner. The wood floor was
salvaged prior to the demolition, and was refurbished and installed as a ceiling in a new house
(residential infill construction) at 1207 S. Walnut Street, which was approved by HARC via 2019-
37-COA at their regular meeting on Thursday, August 8, 2019.
Salvaged wood floor in the front room of the house at 1002 E. 14th Street, which was demolished on July 2, 2020.
Page 62 of 66
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: December 10, 2020
Page 2 of 5
Salvaged wood floor in the house at 1002 E. 14th Street, which was demolished on July 2, 2020.
Salvaged wood floor in the house at 1002 E. 14th Street, which was demolished on July 2, 2020.
Page 63 of 66
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: December 10, 2020
Page 3 of 5
Salvaged wood floor in the house at 1002 E. 14th Street, which was demolished on July 2, 2020.
Page 64 of 66
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: December 10, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Salvaged wood ceiling in the house at 1207 S. Walnut Street.
Page 65 of 66
File Number: 2020-18-COA
Meeting Date: December 10, 2020
Page 5 of 5
Salvaged wood ceiling in the house at 1207 S. Walnut Street.
12/04/2020
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Attachments: None
Page 66 of 66