HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.27.2014Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Historic and Architectural Review
Commission
of the City of Georgetown
February 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four
(4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for
additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
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 Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations
at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 6-8 (PTS), .14 acres, located at 718 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-
001)
B Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to
demolish the historic structure located at 706 W 14th St, bearing the legal description of Lot 1, Block A,
Friendly Will Baptist Church Subdivision, Section 1. (CDC-2014-004)
C Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to
demolish the historic structure located at 1718 Leander St, bearing the legal description of Outlot
Division A, Block 12 (PT), .90 acres. (CDC-2014-005)
D Review and possible action on the minutes from the January 23, 2014 regular meeting.
Adjournment
Adjournment.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times,
on the ______ day of __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72
continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations
at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 6-8 (PTS), .14 acres, located at 718 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-
001)
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2014-001 Staff Report Backup Material
Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-001 718 S. Austin Avenue Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: February 27, 2014 Agenda Item: A
File Number: CDC-2014-001
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior
alterations at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 6-8 (PTS), .14 acres, located at 718 South
Austin Ave.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Books on Tap
Applicant: Preston and Sarah Stone
Project Address: 718 S. Austin Ave
Relative Location: Northwest corner of S Austin Ave and 8th Street
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 6-8 (PTS), .14 acres
Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 1
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
Applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance for new business signage and exterior
lighting
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1885
Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Low
2007 - Medium
National Register Designation: Contributing Structure in NR District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed project at 718 S. Austin Avenue includes a projecting sign, canopy mounted
signage and window and door signage. Additionally, the applicant seeks approval for a
playbill box on the south façade and new exterior lighting along the south façade. The
structure is identified in the 2007 Historic Resource Survey as a medium priority structure.
Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-001 718 S. Austin Avenue Page 2 of 4
However, the completed restoration project removed the slip cover and restored many of the
character defining features, leading to a High priority designation.
The proposed signage includes door mounted signage incorporated in to the new door
handles, canopy mounted aluminum letters, window signage, a hanging sign and a projecting
sign on the south façade.
Canopy Mounted Signage: The proposed aluminum letters for the canopy mounted
signage are 17 feet in length and 2 feet tall, creating a total
area of 34 square feet. The canopy width is 35 feet.
Window Signage: The proposed vinyl window decals will replicate the
diagonal components of the business logo.
Hanging Sign: Two hanging signs are proposed for the structure, located
under the canopy edge on S. Austin Ave and 8th Street. The
carved MDO signs will be highlighted with gold leaf,
creating the business logo. The signs measure 1 foot by 4
feet, creating a total square footage of 4 feet.
Projecting Sign: The proposed projecting sign measures 2 feet by 2.8 ft,
creating a total square footage of 5.6 feet. The sign
construction will be carved MDO with gold leaf and
mounted above the 8th Street entrance.
Door Signage: Applicant proposes the installation of two copper handles
on the primary entrance on S Austin Avenue, with a third
handle on the 8th Street entrance. The business name will be
carved in to the copper, creating additional signage.
The applicant also proposes the installation of a 4 foot by 3 foot poster box on the 8th Street
façade, along with additional lighting next to the two 8th Street entrances.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Guideline 9.1 – Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program.
• The proposed signage plan complements the architecture of the structure
and incorporates details from the aluminum storefront in to the design.
Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-001 718 S. Austin Avenue Page 3 of 4
Guideline 9.2 – A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition
• The proposed signage blends with the design of the structure and does not
obscure any character defining features.
Guideline 9.3 – A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within.
• The proposed primary signage includes the name of the business.
Guideline 9.4 – A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within.
• The proposed secondary signage includes the name of the business.
Guideline 9.8 – A window sign may be considered.
• The proposed window decals are appropriate for the structure and accent
the aluminum storefront.
Guideline 9.9 – A hanging sign may be considered.
• The proposed hanging signs are appropriate for the structure and highlight
the entrances.
Guideline 9.10 – A projecting sign may be considered
• The proposed projecting signs are appropriate for the structure and
highlight the entrances.
Guideline 9.11 – Awning and canopy signs may be considered
• The proposed canopy sign accentuates the aluminum storefront and does
not obscure any character defining elements of the structure.
Guideline 9.17 – Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building façade.
• The aluminum letters mimic the design of the storefront and the wooden
signs accentuate the trim around the windows.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage and lighting project for 718 S. Austin
Avenue.
Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-001 718 S. Austin Avenue Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
The completed application packet is attached to this staff report.
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
January 2, 2013
Letter of intent for proposed construction
Project name: Books on Tap: Minor Improvements and Signage
Project Address: 718 S. Austin Ave.
Location: Southwest corner of the Square
Applicable Guidelines:
Each of our proposed alterations are in line with HARC’s design goals for Area 1 as laid out
on page 2 of the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Design Guidelines which ask store owners
“to design commercial buildings with storefront elements similar to those seen traditionally
(i.e., a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kick plates,
transom windows, midbelt cornices, cornices or pediments, and vertically-oriented
upper-story windows…”. In addition, in writing this proposal the authors were diligent in
adhering to one of HARC’s overall concerns, that “the integrity of an individual historic
structure is preserved” as can be found on page 7 of the Downtown and Old Town Overlay
Design Guidelines.
We are seeking approval:
-to replace the existing aluminum double doors with wooden double doors (stained with
Tudor Mahogany Finish) with high metal bronze kick plates and a custom handle based on
the business’s logo. -for a custom copper handle on the existing side entry door on 8th street
that will match the proposed double doors.
-to paint over the current aluminum framing on the storefront windows with bronze.
-for the addition of a single wooden door (stained with Tudor Mahogany Finish) with a
bronze kick plate to allow access to the future apartments on the second story.
-for signage to be placed on top of the front facing canopy and also above 1 of the side entry
doors.
-to hang wooden signs beneath the existing canopy, 1 above the front entry and 1 on the
southern side of the canopy facing 8th street.
-for lighting beneath the existing front canopy.
-for lighting flanking both sides of the existing side door and for lighting on the eastern side of
the proposed side door that is currently covered.
-for a free standing, wooden A-frame sign.
-for a display light box on the southern wall facing 8th street.
-to allow our logo to be printed onto the glass display windows and double doors facing Austin
Avenue as well as the existing 8th street door.
1
-for signage on the single door on Austin Avenue leading to the top floor indicating the
address and apartment numbers.
Guidelines and Policies Supporting the Exterior Remodel:
4.8 Replace missing original details in kind.
-We propose to paint over the aluminum framing with a bronze color which more
accurately matches materials used during the time period.
-This aligns with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation which
states: “10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in
such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
-This is also meets HARC’s policy as stated on page 44 of the Guidelines: “Policy:
Architectural metals should be protected against corrosion.”
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original
design as closely as possible.
-The existing doors and casing are not reflective of the same Period of Significance that
the remainder of the property is (i.e, the 1920s; see Guidelines page 73).
-There is photographic evidence of the subject property supporting the proposed
change (included in your packet).
-We propose to replace the aluminum/glass double doors with wooden doors with high
kick plates that more accurately represent the time period in which the building was
remodeled.
- The HARC Guidelines specify “wood is preferred as a replacement material.” (62)
-The proposed change would additionally enhance the overall integrity of the building
and provide a better representation of the building's Period of Significance. From page 33 of
the Guidelines:
Concept of “Integrity”
In addition to being historically significant, a property must also have integrity
-- a significant percentage of the structure must date from the period of
significance. The majority of the building's structural system and its materials
should date from that time and its key character-defining features also should
remain intact.
-Further support for the change is found on page 52:
Windows & Doors
Windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
features of historic structures. They give scale to buildings and provide visual
interest to the composition of individual facades.
2
-Also, when viewed in the totality of its environment, the proposed alteration would
assist the Commission in meeting it’s objective to create a cohesive and aesthetically
consistent pedestrian streetscape. We have included photographs of other storefronts on the
Square dating from the same period, most of which are located on the same block as our
building.
Commercial Facades
Commercial buildings should, for the most part, all relate to the street and to
pedestrians in the same manner: with a clearly defined primary entrance and
large windows that display goods and services offered inside. The repetition
of these standard elements creates a visual unity on the street that
should be preserved. (Emphasis added, Guidelines page 52.)
-Finally, the change speaks directly to the The Basic Presentation Principles for
Georgetown found on page 34 of the Guidelines:
1. Respect the historic design character of the building.
Do not try to change a building’s style or make it look older than it really is.
Confusing the character by mixing elements of different styles is not
appropriate.
***
4. Preserve key, character-defining features of the property.
Key features are those that help convey the character of the resource as it
appeared during its period of historical significance. These may include the
basic structural system and building materials, as well as windows, doors,
porches, and ornamentation. Typically, those items that are on the front
of the building or that are highly visible from a public way will be
most important.
(emphases added)
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition.
-Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural features. Use the shape of the sign to
help reinforce the horizontal lines of moldings and transoms seen along the street.
9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within.
-The primary sign should be easily viewable from a vehicle with as little visual clutter
as possible
9.8 A window sign may be considered.
-A window sign may be considered in addition to the primary building sign to convey
specific information regarding contact in formation (i.e. telephone number, email, or web
address of a business), other business locations, or list more than one (1) specific product or
service.
3
9.9 A hanging sign may be considered.
9.10 A projecting sign may be considered
9.12 A directory sign for multi-tenant buildings must be considered.
9.13 A portable sign may be considered, in the Downtown Overlay District.
-Portable signs are intended for pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk and can convey
specific information regarding contact information.
-An A-frame or sandwich board sign should be limited to 12 square feet of surface per
side and should in no case exceed four feet in height and three feet in width
9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic
building facade.
-A sign should be designed to integrate with the architectural features of a building not
distract attention from them.
9.16 Signs that are out of character with those seen historically and that would alter the
historic character of the street are inappropriate.
-Any sign that visually overpowers the building or obscures significant architectural
features is inappropriate.
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade.
-A simple, easy-to-read sign design is preferred.
-Typefaces that are in keeping with those seen in the area traditionally are encouraged.
-Painted wood and metal are appropriate materials for signs. Their use is encouraged.
Unfinished materials, including untreated wood, are discouraged because they are out of
character with the context of the Overlay Districts.
-Highly reflective materials that will be difficult to read are inappropriate.
11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the facade elements.
-We propose changing the aluminum framing to bronze in order to match the
proposed wooden doors and tie the elements of the building together for a more cohesive view.
-The second story of the building has already received permission from HARC to keep
with the brown color.
11.2 Paint colors should enhance individual building elements while creating a unified,
coordinated appearance for the entire structure.
-The proposed wooden doors and painted bronze framing on the front display windows
will keep a more unified front than the current aluminum framing that is not color
coordinated with the current HARC approved second story windows.
4
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to
demolish the historic structure located at 706 W 14th St, bearing the legal description of Lot 1, Block A,
Friendly Will Baptist Church Subdivision, Section 1. (CDC-2014-004)
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2014-004 Staff Report 1 of 2 Backup Material
CDC-2014-004 Staff Report 2 of 2 Backup Material
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: February 27, 2014 Item: B
File No: CDC-2014-004
Project Planner: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Report Date: February 21, 2014
Item Description
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition
request to demolish the historic structure located at 706 W 14th St, bearing the legal description
of Lot 1, Block A, Friendly Will Baptist Church Subdivision, Section 1.
Item Details
Project Name: Friendly Will Missionary Baptist Church Demolition
Project Address: 706 W 14th St
Location: Southeast corner of Railroad Ave and W 14th St
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block A, Friendly Will Baptist Church Subdivision, Section 1
Overlay: N/A – Listed on the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Surveys
Applicant: Jimmy Jacobs Construction
Property Owner: Friendly Will Missionary Baptist Church
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 2 of 7
Applicant’s Request
The applicant seeks approval from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(“HARC”) for a Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) for Demolition to demolish the
historic structure (Friendly Will Baptist Church) located at 706 W 14th St. The existing structure
is listed as a Low priority structure on the 1984 Historic Resources Survey and a Medium
priority structure on the 2007 Historic Resources Survey. The applicant wishes to demolish the
existing structure to construct a new 7,400-square foot structure with associated parking on the
subject property to accommodate the growth of church members since the existing structure
was built and meet all their needs (Attachment A, Tab 4).
Staff Analysis
The property subject to this request is generally located at the southeast corner of Railroad Ave
and W 14th St. It consists of an approximate 3,000-square foot stone and wood structure that was
previously used as a church and is currently vacant. The stone portion of the structure was built
(reconstructed) in 1945 according to the cornerstone on the building. The wood portion of the
structure was an addition completed in the 1980s.
In accordance with Section 3.13.D.1 of the Unified Development Code (“UDC”), “No building
or structure within the Downtown Overlay District, Old Town Overlay District or any other
Historic Overlay District or on the List of Priority Structures shall be demolished or
relocated unless such demolition or relocation is approved by the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission and a Certificate of Design Compliance for such demolition has been
granted. However, this authority shall not supersede the Building Official’s authority under
Chapter 15.40, “Dangerous Building Ordinance,” of the Georgetown Municipal Code.” The
subject property is outside of the boundaries of the Historic, Downtown and Old Town overlay
districts. However, the structure proposed to be demolished is listed on the 1984 and 2007
Historic Resources surveys. Consequently, a CDC for Demolition is required for this request.
UDC Section 3.13.010.D details the applicability requirements for a CDC for Demolition. In
accordance with the UDC, the Demolition Subcommittee was appointed on December 12, 2013.
The subcommittee met with the applicant and conducted a site visit of the subject property on
January 7, 2014, to establish the minimum requirements for application submittal. According to
the submitted application, the applicant is requesting a CDC for Demolition pursuant to Section
3.13.020.D.1.c: The structure poses an imminent threat to public health and safety; and Section
3.13.020D.1.e: Other special circumstances, as described and justified by the applicant.
The 1945 structure is identified as a Medium priority historic structure on the 2007 Historic
Resources Survey. The survey lists the following information regarding Medium priority
structures:
Resources assigned a MEDIUM preservation priority do not possess sufficient architectural or
historical significance to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP; however, they would
likely be a contributing resource if located within a historic district that is eligible for the NRHP.
MEDIUM priority properties are valuable resources that add to the area's overall character and
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 3 of 7
contribute moderately to an understanding of local history or broader historical patterns. Some
MEDIUM priority resources are typical examples of common building forms or architectural
styles from the late-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, such as the folk Victorian-
style L-plan house or the Craftsman bungalow. The category of MEDIUM priority may also
encompass significant properties that have experienced deterioration or have undergone moderate
alterations that detract from their integrity
The 1980s addition reduced the historic integrity of the original structure limiting the
designation to Medium priority. However, the historic context study provided in the
application (Attachment A, Tab 6) indicates that the structure is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the Area of Ethnic History (African
American) at the local level of significance; and Criterion C in the Area of Architecture at the
local level significance. Based on this report’s findings, the existing structure may now
potentially be considered a High priority structure in the Historic Resources Survey. An excerpt
from National Register Bulletin 15 outlining the Criteria is included with this packet. The full
National Register Bulletin can be viewed online at
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
The applicant’s agent indicated their willingness to work with the City of Georgetown to
develop a mitigation plan for demolition, which would include a positive preservation benefit
should the demolition be approved by the HARC. This agreement would be based upon the
Section 106 mitigation model of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as required for
federally funded or federally permitted projects.
Criteria for Approval
UDC Section 3.13.030 establishes the approval criteria for all CDC requests; UDC Section
3.13.040 establishes the supplemental approval criteria specifically for a CDC for Demolition
request.
Pursuant to UDC Section 3.13.030, the HARC shall determine whether to grant a CDC based on
the following criteria:
A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is
correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action.
The HARC Demolition Subcommittee established the minimum application requirements for
submittal of the CDC application at its January 7, 2014 Pre-Application Meeting. In addition to
the information required in the UDC, the Demolition Subcommittee requested the following
supplemental application requirements:
1. A Historic Context Report describing the structure’s historical and architectural
significance; and
2. An estimate of building restoration costs in lieu of a full restoration study.
The CDC for Demolition application was received on January 24, 2014, and deemed complete on
January 27, 2014.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 4 of 7
B. Compliance with any design standards of this Unified Development Code.
The UDC’s design guidelines do not apply to the demolition of an existing structure. The
proposed structure will comply with all requirements as specified in Chapter 7 of the UDC.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved.
In accordance with UDC Section 3.13.070, the applicant is proposing the reuse of all salvageable
building materials on the proposed structure, to include the reuse of the existing stones and
cornerstone in the new structure’s façade (Attachment A, Tab 4).
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic
properties.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character
with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question
will not be permitted.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to
approve a Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and
architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or
structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures
in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or
during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the
remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values.
As previously stated, in accordance with UDC Section 3.13.070, the applicant is proposing the
reuse of all salvageable building materials, to include the reuse of the existing stones and
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 5 of 7
cornerstone in the new structure’s façade (Attachment A, Tab 4). The proposed structure will be
in character with the existing structures of the area. Additionally, the subject property is not
located within any of the historic districts; therefore, applicable design guidelines are those
outlined in Chapter 7 of the UDC.
Pursuant to UDC Section 3.13.040, HARC shall consider the following criteria (in addition to the
criteria above) in determining whether to issue a CDC for Demolition:
A. The uniqueness of the structure as a representative type of style of architecture, historic
association, or other element of the original designation criteria applicable to such
structure or tract.
The Historic Context report dated January 23, 2014, submitted as part of this application
includes a briefing of the building’s and congregation’s history, and its relation to the history of
Georgetown and the African-American community in Georgetown. According to this report,
Friendly Will Baptist Church has played an important role in Georgetown’s African-American
community for more than one hundred (100) years, and thus is an important part of
Georgetown’s history. In addition, the report states that the existing “structure is an example of a
stone building tradition that was prevalent in the city and, particularly, in Georgetown’s
African-American community from the 1920s to the 1940s.” The report further states that “the
building’s unique craftsmanship is apparent in the arrangement and retention of the original
stone as well as the beaded treatment of the mortar. Friendly Will Baptist Church displays
integrity of location, materials, and workmanship to convey its architectural significance.”
B. The condition of the structure from the standpoint of structural integrity and the extent
of work necessary to stabilize the structure.
According to the applicant’s Letter of Intent (Attachment A, Tab 4), the main danger of the
existing structure is the possibility of a roof collapse, as well as significant foundation problems
and health hazards from the existing electrical and plumbing systems. The applicant also
submitted an analysis completed by a structural engineer on the feasibility of restoring load
bearing function (repair) to the existing structure (Attachment A, Tab 7). Per this report,
significant structural modifications will need to be completed to the existing structure to address
the structural deficiencies and outstanding items. According to the applicant and the structural
engineer report, the cost of repairing and preserving the existing church outweighs the cost of the
new proposed structure on the subject property (Attachment A, Tabs 4, 7 and 9).
C. Status of the structure under Chapter 15 of the Georgetown City Code containing
Building Safety Standards and rules governing Dangerous Buildings.
Per the Building Official’s Inspection report dated December 9, 2013, it appears that the current
structure meets the definition of a “dangerous building or structure” as defined in the City’s
Dangerous Building Ordinance. This is mainly due to the poor condition and structural integrity
of the structure, some of which were contributed due to lack of proper maintenance over the years.
It is important to note that this report does not “incur that the structure will immediately
collapse, but left without repair and maintenance continued deterioration will occur…” This
reports further states that the existing structure must be brought into compliance with current
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 6 of 7
codes should the cost to remodel exceed fifty percent (50%) of the current appraised market value
as determined by the Williamson County Appraisal District.
D. The HARC shall deny the application for demolition or removal unless it makes the
following findings:
* * *
3. For a request to demolish or remove a structure that poses an imminent threat to
public health or safety, unless it finds:
a. The structure is a documented major and imminent threat to public health
and safety.
b. The demolition or removal is required to alleviate the threat to public
health and safety.
c. There is no reasonable way, other than demolition or removal, to eliminate
the threat in a timely manner.
The engineer report dated December 17, 2013, and submitted as part of this application
(Attachment A, Tab 7), provides a description of the structural integrity of the structure.
This report identified a number of items in need of repair, including the roof and ceiling
(which is considered to be dangerous and thus should be removed or replaced) and foundation
(which has experienced significant changes in elevation). The applicant’s supplemental
materials also included the City of Georgetown Building Official report dated December 9,
2013 (Attachment A, Tab 8). The report identifies deficiencies within the building but does
not state that the only mitigation is demolition of the structure.
* * *
5. For a request to demolish, replace, or relocate a structure for special circumstances, it
finds:
a. The new structure is more appropriate and compatible with the historic overlay
district than the structure to be demolished or relocated.
b. The owner has the financial ability and intent to build the new structure.
HARC must first approve the CDC, if required, for the new structure before it
may consider the request for demolition or removal.
As previously stated, the structure is not located in any of the current historic districts.
Because of this, the proposed structure is not required to meet any additional (historic) design
guidelines or requirements, and no CDC for the new structure is required. As part of the
application packet, the applicant included a letter from the First Texas Bank showing the
financial ability to build the new structure (Attachment A, Tab 12). Furthermore, site plan
and building permit applications have been submitted and currently under review for the
proposed scope of work, which shows the applicant’s intent to build the new structure.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-004 - 706 W 14th St Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HARC make their findings based on the required approval criteria of
UDC Sections 3.13.030 and 3.13.040. Should the HARC approve the request, the documentation
of the existing structure and post-demolition requirements of UDC Section 3.13.070 shall apply.
Should the HARC deny the request, the demolition delay process outlined in UDC Section
3.13.010.D.2 shall apply. Any person aggrieved by the final action of the CDC has the option to
appeal to City Council within thirty (30) days of the final action in accordance with UDC
Section 3.13.0110.
Public Comments
As of the date of this report, the City has received two (2) written responses in favor of the
request (Attachment D).
Attachments
Attachment A – Application Submittal Packet
Tab 1 – Master Application Form
Tab 2 – Pre-Application Conference Forms
Tab 3 – CDC Checklist
Tab 4 – Letter of Intent
Tab 5 – Original Condition of the Structure
Tab 6 – Historic Context of the Structure
Tab 7 – Structural Engineer’s Report
Tab 8 – City Inspector’s Report
Tab 9 – Restoration of original building estimate
Tab 10 – Site Plans, Floor Plans and Elevations for new structure
Tab 11 – Renderings of new structure
Tab 12 – Bank Letter of Credit for new structure
Tab 13 – Mitigation Letter
Attachment B – Excerpt from National Register Bulletin 15
Attachment C – City of Georgetown Unified Development Code Section 3.13
Attachment D – Public Comments
Submitted By
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Historic Context and NRHP Eligibility Assessment
January 23, 2014
Prepared for:
Jimmy·Jacobs Construction
4411 South IH 35
Suite 100
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Prepared by:
Hardy·Heck·Moore, Inc.
David W. Moore, Jr., Senior Professional Historian
Tara Dudley, Ph.D., Architectural Historian
1507 North Street, Suite 1
Austin, Texas 78756
512-478-8014
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jimmy·Jacobs Construction contracted Hardy·Heck·Moore, Inc. (HHM) to research and
write a historic context narrative for Friendly Will Baptist Church located at 706 West
Fourteenth Street, Georgetown, Texas. The scope of the historic context includes a brief
history of the building and congregation and describes how the church property relates to
themes in the history of Georgetown and its African-American community. Per request of
the Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), HHM has also
prepared an evaluation of the property’s historical and architectural significance and an
assessment of the property’s eligibility for listing to the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP).
HHM architectural historian Tara Dudley, Ph.D., is the primary author of the historic
context. Dr. Dudley has 10 years’ experience as a professional architectural historian. Her
education and experience fully satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards. She has been involved in various aspects of historic preservation
and cultural resource management projects, including historical research and writing, such
as the preparation of architectural descriptions and historic contexts. From January 16 – 22,
2014, Dr. Dudley conducted primary and secondary research at the Georgetown Public
Library and Williamson County Clerk Office, the City of Georgetown Records Archive
(online), and various online sources for the 1940 U.S. census, newspaper articles, maps,
deed records, and information on previously designated historic markers related to
Georgetown’s African-American community. On January 21, 2014, Dr. Dudley conducted an
oral history interview with Pastor Rudy Williams and three members of Friendly Will Baptist
church whose ancestors were also members of the congregation and who helped construct
the church in 1945.
The historic context will be included as part of Jimmy·Jacobs Construction’s application to
HARC for a Certificate of Design Compliance. Friendly Will Baptist Church is listed as a
Medium Priority historic structure on the city’s “List of Priority Structures” and, as such, is
subject to Section 3.13 of the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code.
HISTORY CONTEXT
FOUNDING OF FRIENDLY WILL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, 1922 – 1936
In 1902, 22 black residents of Georgetown, many of them members of Berry’s Creek Baptist
Church, Wesley Chapel A.M.E. Church, and Macedonia Baptist Church, met at the Masonic
Lodge on Timber (present-day Martin Luther King) Street to consider the creation of the
city’s first black Missionary Baptist church in Georgetown.1 In 1905, Reverend J. J. Jackson
became Friendly Will Missionary Baptist Church’s first pastor and the congregation joined
the St. John District of African-American Baptist churches based in Austin.2 That year, the
“Little 22,” as the founding members were known, arranged for trustees W. M. Alexander
and M. M. Mauldin to purchase lot 5 in block 15 (northeast corner of present-day West
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 2
Fourth and Forest streets) from George Wilbarger for $25.00 (Figure 1).3 Church lore has it
that Wilbarger also moved a small wood-frame house to the property; it became the
church’s first permanent building.4 Ethel Moore, a former church clerk, recounts, “The
original building had hard benches, wood floors, was heated by a wood-burning stove in
winter and cooled by open windows in the summer.”5 Although several church members
left to form the Gay Hill Baptist Church (present Cavalry’s Hill Baptist Church at 1802 Bridge
Street) between 1920 and 1925, the church membership grew significantly in the 1920s
and 1930s.6
CHURCH RELOCATION, 1933 – 1945
Friendly Will Baptist Church’s wood-frame building on Forest Street burned in 1933. For
three years, until 1936, the church membership held services in the African-American
Masonic Lodge on Timber Street.7 Friendly Will is not listed under churches in the 1935
Georgetown city directory likely due to this transitional period.8 In 1936, trustees Louis
Toms, Jim Drake, and W. M. Shaw purchased parts of out lots 17 and 27 in “The Tracks”
neighborhood from Henry and Minnie Van Hoose for $141.00.9 On the site, church
members built a one-story, wood-frame building with a porch or bell tower, as depicted on
the 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance map (Figure 2). While the church did have a bell, the
congregation sold it on August 23, 1937, just one year after building the new church.10 With
the absence of a bell (and, therefore, no need for a bell tower) it is not clear what function
the projecting portion of the building served.
RECONSTRUCTION OF FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, 1945 – PRESENT
In 1945, under the leadership of Reverend J. N. Ussery of San Antonio, church members
reconstructed the 1936 wood-frame church. Men from the church hauled stone to build a
gabled-roofed, masonry-wall church with pyramidal-roofed towers at the front façade
(Figures 3 and 4). No plans for the new church are known to exist, and some of the builders’
descendants do not have knowledge of the decision behind their ancestors’ choice of
building form or materials. Builders laid the stone in a random pattern and beaded the
mortar joints between the stones. An arched doorway at the primary (north) façade
contained paneled double doors topped by a transom with two lights. Each tower featured
a wood-sash window; the side and rear façades held additional wood-sash windows. The
entry foyer was flanked by a bathroom on either side. The church’s deacons and ushers
utilized space inside the west and east towers, respectively.11 A large one-room sanctuary
dominated the church’s interior. Horizontal boards covered the interior walls (Figures 5-7).
Furnishings included handmade folding chairs and seats from the Palace Theater on South
Austin Avenue in downtown Georgetown (likely removed during the theater’s remodeling
in 1938).12 Members heated the church with a wood-burning potbelly stove.13 A flattened
archway delineated the raised pulpit area from the main sanctuary. The pulpit area
featured windows looking out the back of the church, housed the church’s piano and organ,
and was flanked by two additional rooms. The new church served approximately 100 to 125
families for services on the first and third Sunday of the month as well as for various
committee or “tribe” meetings and Sunday School.14 Members of Friendly Will were
baptized in the San Gabriel River near present-day Blue Hole Park as they had been since
the church’s founding.15 The church membership expanded in 1954 when Reverend O. T.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 3
Arnold became pastor at Friendly Will, bringing members of the Rocky Hollow Baptist
Church.16
With the congregation’s continued growth, they made various changes to the church and
church grounds from 1953 to 1964.17 Church members lowered the ceiling, plastered the
walls, laid carpet, and remodeled the pulpit. Another change was the purchase of an old
Army barrack building from Fort Hood to serve as a fellowship hall and to house Friendly
Will’s pastors.18 Friendly Will did not have a permanent pastor; since the church’s founding,
pastors came from other cities such as Austin, Killeen, and San Antonio on the weekends
when services were held.19 Whereas they had previously resided with church members,
pastors and their families now had housing in the Army barrack building placed behind the
church. The barrack building also accommodated events such as wedding receptions. In the
1970s and early 1980s, alterations to the actual church building included the addition of
paneling to interior walls, leveling of the floor, and laying of carpet.20
In the 1980s, the church buildings and property saw various changes and expansion. In
1983, several men and women of the church demolished the barrack building.21 Shortly
after, church members James Brown and Willie Bunton built the wood-frame addition to
the rear of the church to accommodate a baptistery and a new fellowship hall, complete
with a kitchen.22 At that time, church members laid tile and carpet in the sanctuary. The old
window openings at what was formerly the rear of the church, framed the opening to the
new baptistery that featured a painted wall mural. The towers housed the ushers’ room
and the finance room. The church expanded its property in 1986 with the purchase of a lot
adjacent to the church to the west.23 On it, they constructed the present parking lot.24 Then
in 1995, Friendly Will purchased additional acreage to the west and expanded the parking
lot.25 In 2002 and 2003, the church acquired its last plots of land. One was the acreage
located at the northeast corner of West Fifteenth and Railroad streets through which a
driveway currently extends to the parking lot from West Fifteenth Street.26 Friendly Will
purchased the presently unoccupied property behind the church building in two phases in
2002 and 2003.27
Presently, Friendly Will Baptist Church has 365 families on its rolls. The church remains
involved in various missions with other African-American churches in Georgetown and also
provides service to the African-American community at large.28
AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHURCHES AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN
GEORGETOWN, 1869 – 1964
The tradition of African-American church congregations serving Georgetown’s community
goes back to the city’s early years. In 1869, three years after the city’s incorporation in
1866, and only four years after the emancipation of slaves in Texas in 1865, a traveling
minister sent to serve blacks in Central Texas founded Wesley Chapel African Methodist
Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church in Georgetown. Initially, the congregation conducted services in a
brush arbor at the corner of West and West Fourth streets.29 Eight years later, a second
black church—St. Paul United Methodist Episcopal (U.M.E.) Church—came into being in
1874.30 Macedonia Baptist Church was established in 1881.31 Founded in 1902, Friendly
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 4
Will Baptist Church became Georgetown’s fourth predominantly black church. Members of
Friendly Will formed Georgetown’s youngest black congregation, Gay Hill Baptist Church, in
the early 1920s. Today, all of these churches form the Fellowship of Churches (along with
two churches from Round Rock), established in 1972.32
In the first half of the twentieth century, African Americans in Georgetown lived west of the
International and Great Northern (IGN) railroad tracks in areas known locally as “The
Ridge,” “Oil Mill,” “Grasshopper Town ,” and “The Tracks.”33 The 1935 Georgetown city
directory shows that families who were members of Friendly Will lived primarily at
addresses in three of the predominantly black neighborhoods. “The Ridge” surrounded the
terminus and areas north of the IGN railroad tracks. Here were many of Georgetown oldest
black institutions—the Odd Fellows Hall, the Masonic Lodge, Georgetown Colored High
School, and all four of the city’s black churches, including the first location of Friendly Will
Baptist Church (Figure 8). “Grasshopper Town,” where some poor white and Mexican
families also lived, was south of the tracks and close to the San Gabriel River in the area
around Eighth through Tenth streets.34 “The Tracks” was located along present-day
Railroad Street south of University Avenue near several old cotton gins.
As the city’s black population occupied all of these areas in large numbers, Friendly Will’s
relocation from “The Ridge” to “The Tracks” did not imply any significant type of migration
of the black community. Since Gay Hill, then located on West Fifteenth Street in the “Oil
Mill” neighborhood,35 was the only black church south of University Avenue, the move
served to accommodate residents who lived in “The Tracks.” Charity between members of
the African-American community appears to have been a factor. Friendly Will purchased
the property from Henry Van Hoose, the son of former slaves who moved to Georgetown
from Alabama and purchased lots 17 and part of lot 27 in 1906. Although they were
members of Wesley A.M.E. Church, the Van Hooses owned various properties along West
Fourteenth and Fifteenth streets and aided Friendly Will in their time of need. In fact,
members of Friendly Will built their church on the same lot as the Van Hoose residence
(Figure 2).36 While white families occupied Hart Street at the 1940 U.S. census, most of the
immediate neighborhood around Friendly Will Baptist Church (West Thirteenth through
Fifteenth streets) was occupied primarily by black families.37 Church families living in “The
Ridge” and “Grasshopper Town” neighborhoods continued to attend Friendly Will despite
the move. Church members who attended in the 1950s as children, recall walking to church
services and events along the IGN tracks from one part of town to the other.38 In the 1950s
and beyond, Friendly Will Baptist Church continued to serve as a link to the city’s African-
Ameri can neighborhoods and focal point of African-American life.
AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE IN
GEORGETOWN, 1869 – 1945
In the early twentieth century, Georgetown’s black churches were all wood-frame buildings
(Figure 9). These buildings were built by the male members or “Brothers of the Church.”39
They ranged from simple linear buildings to more high-style buildings with elaborate forms
and Gothic Revival stylistic features, most notably arched and lancet windows with stained
glass.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 5
A tradition of stone-building took root in the African-American community in the 1910s. St.
Paul United Methodist Church appears to be the first non-residential building constructed
of stone in the black community (Figure 10). Built in 1912, it featured the more elaborate
two-story form of some black Methodist churches as well as Gothic stylistic details in the
pointed arch and lancet windows. When the Georgetown Colored High School was rebuilt
in 1923, it also was constructed of stone (Figure 11). While these buildings bore a
resemblance to other historic institutional and commercial stone buildings in the city’s
downtown area such as the 1888 jail (Figure 12), the face of the stone was less rusticated,
and the blocks were rough-cut and laid in a more random pattern.40 Decades later,
Reverend Ussery and members of Friendly Will adapted this stone-building tradition to suit
their needs when they reconstructed the church on West Fourteenth Street. While the
church followed the footprint and basic form of the existing wood-frame church building,
they added towers and substituted detailed beaded mortar for more high-style
architectural details.
ASSESSMENT OF ELIGIBILITY
Friendly Will Baptist Church has played an important part in the life of Georgetown’s
African-American community for over 100 years. The congregation was founded in 1902
and established itself in an important early African-American neighborhood. After the
original church building burned in the 1930s, church members rebuilt in an underserved
black neighborhood, maintaining communal and religious ties with the community and with
Georgetown’s other black churches. The church has owned the land on which it sits since
1936. It is an important part of Georgetown’s black history. Friendly Will Baptist Church is
recommended Eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A in the Area of Ethnic History
(African American) at the local level of significance.
Friendly Will Baptist Church does not have any associations with the life of any significantly
important individual or individuals. Therefore, it is recommended Not Eligible under
Criterion B.
Friendly Will Baptist Church has no stylistic influences. It is a common form with a gabled
roof and two towers flanking the front of the building. The church has a 1980s wood-frame
addition at the rear. It is, however, an example of a stone building tradition that was
prevalent in the city and, particularly, in Georgetown’s African-American community from
the 1920s to the 1940s. Friendly Will Baptist Church is the only surviving example of and
the last tangible link to that tradition. As such, Friendly Will Baptist Church possesses
architectural significance since it embodies “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction” per NRHP criteria. While the neighborhood around the church has
changed, the church building remains in its 1945 location. The building’s unique
craftsmanship is apparent in the arrangement and retention of the original stone as well as
the beaded treatment of the mortar. Friendly Will Baptist Church displays integrity of
location, materials, and workmanship to convey its architectural significance. Based on this
evaluation, Friendly Will Baptist Church is recommended Eligible for NRHP listing under
Criterion C in the Area of Architecture at the local level of significance.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 6
Figure 1. Friendly Will Baptist Church on the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map.
Figure 2. Friendly Will Baptist Church on the 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 7
Figure 3. Friendly Will Baptist Church. Photo by HHM.
Figure 4. Friendly Will Baptist Church. Photo by HHM.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 8
Figure 5. The interior of Friendly Will Baptist Church during service, ca. 1945. Photo courtesy of Paulette Taylor.
Note the doorway to the Ushers’ Room in the east tower.
Figure 6. Reverend and Mrs. J. N. Ussery with female church members, ca. 1945. Photo courtesy of Paulette Taylor.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 9
Figure 7. Reverend and Mrs. J. N. Ussery with male church members, ca. 1945. Photo courtesy of Paulette Taylor.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 10
Figure 8. “The Ridge.” Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map, 1916.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 11
Figure 9. Georgetown’s wood-frame African-American churches:
Left: St. Paul Methodist Church (1904-1912), ca. 1910. Photo courtesy of Georgetown Heritage Society, illustrated
in Images of America: Georgetown.
Center: Wesley Chapel AME (built 1904). Photo by HHM.
Right: Macedonia Baptist Church (1914-1975), ca. 1914. Illustrated in Macedonia Baptist Church Historical Album.
Figure 10. St. Paul Methodist Church’s stone building constructed in 1912/1920. Illustrated in Histories of Pride.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 12
Figure 11. The second Colored School (later Marshall-Carver School) built in 1923. Photo by Luis W. Atlee,
Williamson County Sun. Illustrated in Histories of Pride.
Figure 12. Williamson County Jail , 1888. Photo from http://www.georgetown-
texas.org/Old_williamson_county_jail.htm.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Martha Mitten, ed. Georgetown’s Yesteryears. Volume 1. Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage
Society, 1985.
. Georgetown’s Yesteryears. Volume 2. Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society, 1985.
. Georgetown’s Yesteryears. Volume 3. Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society, 1987.
. Georgetown’s Yesteryears. Volume 4. Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society, 1987.
. The Gracious Gift: The Negro Fine Arts School, 1946-1966 Easing the Transition from
Segregation to Integration. Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society, 1998.
City Directory, Georgetown. 1935.
Deed Records. “Williamson County Clerk Public Access Records.” https://deed.wilco.org/RealEstate/
SearchEntry.aspx?e=newSession (accessed January 16, 2014).Friendly Will Baptist Church.
Personal collection of Paulette Taylor.
Friendly Will Baptist Church. Account book. 19441955. In the possession of Mrs. Paulette Taylor.
. A Homecoming Celebration. 1996. In the possession of Mrs. Paulette Taylor.
. Secretary’s Minutes. 1934-1949. In the possession of Mrs. Paulette Taylor.
Josey, Donna Scarbrough. Images of America: Georgetown. Charleston: Arcadia, 2010.
Macedonia Baptist Church. Macedonia Baptist Church Historical Album: 129 Years, 1881-2010. Clara
Scarbrough Texas History Room, Georgetown Public Library, Georgetown, Texas.
May, Joyce. “For Church, One Door Closes and Another Opens,” Williamson County Sun, October 16,
2013: 5A-5B.
Newspaperarchive.com (accessed January 16, 2014).
Oral Histories: Memories of Marshall and Carver Schools and Desegregation in Georgetown, Georgetown
Public Library, Georgetown, Texas.
Robinson, Mary, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams. Interview by Tara
Dudley. Personal Interview. Georgetown, Texas, January 21, 2014.
Rountree, Walter. Map of Georgetown, Texas [map]. 1905. County Clerk. Williamson County Justice
Center, Georgetown, Texas.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 14
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. Georgetown, Texas [map]. 1916, 1925, 1940. “Digital Sanborn Maps,
1867-1970.” http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/splash.html (accessed January 16,
2014).
Scarbrough, Clara. Land of Good Water: takachue pouetsu: a Williamson County, Texas, History.
Georgetown: Williamson County Sun Publishers, 1990.
Stratton, Brad, et. al. Histories of Pride: Thirteen Pioneers Who Shaped Georgetown’s African American
Community. Georgetown: City of Georgetown, 1993.
U.S. Census. Population Schedule. Georgetown, Texas. 1940. Series T627, Roll 4166, Sheet nos. 2-3.
“HeritageQuestOnline.” (accessed January 21, 2014).
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 15
ENDNOTES
1 Friendly Will Baptist Church, A Homecoming Celebration (1996), 2; Brad Stratton, et. al., “The ‘Little 22’:
Friendly Will Baptist Church,” Histories of Pride: Thirteen Pioneers Who Shaped Georgetown’s African American
Community (Georgetown: City of Georgetown, 1993), 22.
2 Stratton, 22.
3 George Wilbarger to W. M. Alexander and M. M. Mauldin, book 117, page 154, August 9, 1905; Stratton, 22;
Friendly Will Baptist Church, 2.
4 Stratton, 22; Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, and Paulette Taylor, interview by Tara Dudley, personal
interview, Georgetown, Texas, January 21, 2014.
5 Stratton, 22
6 Stratton, 22-23, 25.
7 Friendly Will Baptist Church, 3.
8 City Directory, Georgetown (1935), 2.
9 Henry and Minnie Van Hoose to Louis Toms, Jim Drake, W.M. Shaw, book 284, page 157, September 22,
1936.
10 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Secretary’s Minutes, 1934-1949.
11 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams.
12 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams; The
Georgetown Palace Theater, “The Palace Theatre: A Brief History,”
https://www.georgetownpalace.com/history.php (accessed January 22, 2014).
13 The church was later warmed by space and gas heaters. Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick,
Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams.
14 Ibid.
15 Stratton, 22.
16 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming, 4.
17 Stratton, 23.
18 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming, 4.
19 Joyce May, “For Church, One Door Closes and Another Opens,” Williamson County Sun, October 16, 2013:
5B.
20 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams; Friendly Will
Baptist Church, Homecoming, 4.
21 Ibid; Stratton, 23; Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming, 6-7.
22 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming, 7.
23 Isabel Carranco to Friendly Will Baptist Church, book 1448, page 816, November 8, 1986.
24 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming , 7.
25 Carl F. Vahrenkamp to Friendly Will Baptist Church, October 18, 1995.
26 Weldon R. Copeland to Friendly Will Baptist Church, October 4, 2002.
27 Lois Charlene Coker to Friendly Will Baptist Church, September 6, 2002; Marcos Herrera to Friendly Will
Baptist Church, March 7, 2003.
28 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams.
29 Stratton, 11.
30 Ibid.,, 17. According to Clyde McQueen in Black Churches in Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University
Press, 2000), St. Paul U.M.E. was founded in 1865 which make that the oldest black church in Georgetown.
31 Stratton, 24.
32 Friendly Will Baptist Church, Homecoming, 6.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
FRIENDLY WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Page 16
33 Martha Mitten Allen, Georgetown’s Yesteryears, volume 3 (Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society,
1987) 4-5; Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams; Harvey
Miller, interview by Ben Trollinger, personal interview, Georgetown, Texas, February 4, 2009, Oral Histories:
Memories of Marshall and Carver Schools and Desegregation in Georgetown, Georgetown Public Library,
Georgetown, Texas.
34 Ibid.
35 Stratton, 25.
36 Martha Mitten Allen, Georgetown’s Yesteryears, volume 4 (Georgetown: The Georgetown Heritage Society,
1987), 104-105. An apartment building adjacent to Friendly Will Baptist Church occupies the site of the Van
Hooses’ home.
37 Areas examined 600 and 700 addresses on West Fifteenth Street, 1300 block Hart Street, 700 addresses
Fourteenth Street. White families occupied homes at 600 addresses on West Fourteenth and on 1400 block of Hart
Street. 1940 U.S. Census, Lanie Richardson enumerator, April 6-8, 1040, Sheets 3B and 4A.
38 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams.
39 Macedonia Baptist Church, Macedonia Baptist Church Historical Album: 129 Years, 1881-2010, n.p., Clara
Scarbrough Texas History Room, Georgetown Public Library, Georgetown, Texas.
40 Interview with Mary Robinson, Loretta Sedwick, Paulette Taylor, and Reverend Rudy Williams; Paulette
Taylor, interview by Suzanne Stallings, Georgetown, Texas, January 30, 2009, Oral Histories: Memories of Marshall
and Carver Schools and Desegregation in Georgetown, Georgetown Public Library, Georgetown, Texas.
December 17, 2013 DELIVER VIA EMAIL
Friendly Will Baptist Church
706 West 14th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attn: Jimmy Jacobs
RE: Existing Structure Evaluation
706 West 14th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Job No.: 1316013017.001A
Firm # 002685
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
Scope:
We evaluated the existing structure to render an opinion on the feasibility of restoring
load bearing function (repair) versus rebuilding a new structure. During the site visit the
following items were investigated:
1. Roof framing
2. Ceiling framing
3. Wall framing
4. Joist and girder floor system
5. Foundation
1 and 2 Roof and ceiling structure:
The current roof structure is comprised of “home built” 2x wood trusses. The trusses
are spliced in many places and would NEVER be allowed in construction today. There
are locations at nodes where only two nails are used and several places where tension
and compression struts are “spliced” with a scabbed 2x4 block. One of the
compression struts was broken. It is arguable that these are absolutely unsafe and
people should not be allowed in the building. The only option allowable for the ceiling
and roof is to be completely removed and replaced with new roof trusses. We also
noted that there were significant signs of water damage throughout the ceiling indicating
that there are numerous roof leaks that need to be investigated. Based on the elevation
differences we noted in the foundation it may be very difficult to keep the roof from
leaking with the 4 and 5 inch differentials in relative elevation noted in the foundation.
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Broken chord of “home-made” truss, note the scabbed 1x4 at the splice
location, there are many more splices like this one
Bottom chord splice of truss system
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
The two peaks are not at the same height
3 Walls:
The original walls were constructed utilizing stone. The original structure did not have
wood exterior walls and the stone walls were plastered on the interior face for a smooth
interior. We noted that the windows were doubled and there was a window in the stone
and then another window set inside a wood wall. We also noted several locations
where the paneling was coming off and we could see the interior face of the stone
exterior. We were surprised to see that the inside face of the stone was smooth. It
made sense that the stone walls were the load bearing walls and no wood wall was
used along the exterior. The stone walls were most likely dug into the soil and placed
on a “rubble” type strip footing. We believe that this strip footing is independent of the
joist and girder floor system and the stone wall is not tied back in any way. Some time
during the life of the structure, non-load bearing exterior wall was constructed on the
inside. The stone walls are leaning badly in some places and the roof system is bearing
on the stone walls as the “new” exterior walls are non-load bearing.
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Non-load bearing exterior wall with plastered interior face of exterior
stone wall. Note the new studs are relatively plumb but the exterior wall
is leaning outward
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Front “sight line” of the church
Right “sight line” of the church
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Front left corner of building (from the inside)
4 Joist and girder floor system:
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
The joist and girder system is most likely not code compliant with modern joist span
tables. It is also most likely that the girders are not sufficient to support a modern day
live load. We also believe that the floor system is comprised of spot footings and is
independent of the exterior load bearing wall. The important issue to note is that any
stabilization and “leveling” done to the exterior stone wall will be independent of the joist
and girder system and another complete system will be required to stabilize and level
the “floor”. Additionally, the venting of the floor system is covered up with planters in the
front and completely blocked by the new foundation addition along the rear. We believe
that the floor system is most likely full of mold and will need to be completely removed.
-3.0”
-2.5” -0.5”-2.0”
-1.5”
-1.5”
0.0”
+2.0”
0.0”
-2.0”
0.0”
-2.2”
-2.0”
Theoretical cross-section of wall
and floor
Theoretical floor joist and girder layout
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Photo of floor venting – with modern day codes it is most likely the
amount of venting is not sufficient
Photo of floor venting – many of the vents are covered up
5 Foundation system:
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
We believe the foundation is comprised of a strip footing for the support of the exterior
stone wall and independent spot footings for the support of the joist and girder floor.
The problem with this configuration is that it is very difficult if impossible to “lift” a spot
footing. Most repair systems are installed along the side of the foundation element and
that is not advisable for a spot footing. The footings would have to be removed and
piers installed as replacements. Additionally, the stone wall is most likely supported by
an unreinforced “rubble” footing and to execute a lift on this would require the
installation of a concrete support beam along the perimeter of the building. The beam
would need to have “corbels” created to go under the exterior wall in order to lift the wall
clear of the expansive clays. The following photos will illustrate the magnitude of the
elevation differentials experienced in the building. Another point to discuss is that the
complicated stone wall lift will need to be coordinated with the slab on ground addition.
The addition will need to be lifted as well to be clear of the expansive clays and stay at
the same elevation as the newly lifted main body of the church. It is common during a
procedure such as this to have serious plumbing repairs to perform as well.
Right elevation view
+2” 0.0”
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Right elevation view – rear addition
0.0”-3.0”
+2”-0.6”
Front elevation view
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
+1.5” +0” -2.2”+0”
+0”
Elevation view rear wall of sanctuary
-2” +1”+2” +2”
Elevation view rear wall of sanctuary
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
+0” +0.5”+2”
+0”
+1.5” +2.0” +1.5”
Elevation view rear wall of sanctuary
Elevation view rear wall of sanctuary
+0.0”
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Extensive honeycombing and exposed rebar on the foundation addition
Exposed sewer line - unusual
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
Conclusions:
1. The roof and ceiling are dangerous as constructed when compared to
modern construction and should be removed and replaced
2. The walls are independent and non load bearing for most part of the
construction. The exterior stone walls are out of plumb and do not have
any significant restraint from rotation.
3. The joists and girders are most likely undersized for modern live loads and
will need to be reinforced. The whole system has been poorly vented for
decades and the likelihood of extensive rot and mold is expected and
significant removal, reinforcement and replacement is expected.
4. The foundation is experiencing significant elevation change due to the
expansive clays. We measured approximately 4 inches of elevation
deviation in the floor that is supported by the foundation. In order to
improve the load bearing function the whole system it should be lifted clear
of the expansive clays. That will require removing the entire floor system
and creating an intricate strip beam around the perimeter in order to lift the
stone wall.
Based on our observations and the data collected we believe that the costs of
remediation would far outweigh the cost of building a new structure.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service, please call if you need further
information.
Sincerely,
Consultants & Engineers
A
Christopher S. Copeland, P.E.
Vice President
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
2804 LONGHORN BLVD. AUSTIN, TX 78758 512.835.7000 FAX 512.836.7942 TOLL FREE 877.855.3041
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
• These observations do not intend to provide an exhaustive analysis of the structural or
foundation conditions and does not intend to convey the impression that detailed
measurements, or examinations of the superstructure or the hidden elements of the
structure were performed. Hidden elements would include framing or floors covered by
sheetrock, brick veneer, carpeting or tile, etc.
• The observations, discussions, and conclusions in this report are based solely on the Field
Observations contained in the report. The observed conditions are subject to change with
the passage of time. The Field Observations and this report are not to be construed in any
way as a guarantee or warranty as to the future life, performance, and need of repair or
suitability of purpose of the subject property.
• Detailed structural calculations were not performed and a report that the structure is in good
condition does not imply that it meets all Building Code provisions.
• Soil borings and materials testing are not included in this investigation, unless specifically
reported.
• These observations do not include an examination or opinion regarding electrical,
mechanical, plumbing systems or appliances, or roof or wall waterproof condition.
• Water damage or rotted wood will be noted if obvious, but the limited scope of the
examination precludes observations of all structural members, and hidden defects may be
present. Surface drainage may be noted in general as being adequate or inadequate to
prevent casual water from entering the structure or ponding adjacent to foundation, but no
evaluation of regional or lot drainage was done to ensure that floodwaters do not rise above
the levels of the foundation and enter the building.
• Termite damage was specifically not examined for and is not a part of this scope of work.
Page | 1
706 West 14th Street
December 9, 2013
Inspection Report for 706 West 14th Street – Friendly Will
Baptist Church
I have reviewed the engineering report by MLAW Engineers, dated December 2,
2013.I have also spoken with Christopher S. Copeland, P.E. to obtain permission
to use the report in accordance with the “Limitations of Report” statement which
is included, as stated by the Engineer of record. This report was forwarded by
Mr. Jimmy Jacobs to the City of Georgetown on December 4, 2013 for the
purpose of a review.
I also made a site visit on December 5, 2013. I used the City of Georgetown
Dangerous Building ordinance as a guideline only to be able to make
determinations if the structure could be deemed as a “dangerous building or
structure”.
I am attaching a list of definitions from the Dangerous Building ordinance that
determines if in fact this or any other structure can be considered dangerous.
This report would not supersede the engineering report dated December 2, 2012
by MLAW, but would be in used in conjunction with this report.
Note: My response to the definition for a Dangerous building or structure is in
“red” print. If the particular definition or violation is not applicable, then N/A
will be the response.
"Dangerous building or structure" means any premises, building or
structure that is:
1. Regardless of the structural condition of the building or structure, unoccupied
by its owners, lessees, or other invitees and is unsecured from unauthorized entry
to the extent that it could be entered or used by vagrants or other uninvited
persons as a place of harborage or could be entered or used by minors; or
Response: The structure is vacated, although locked could be entered through a
window or even through a door by breaking through the door. The structure is
not adequately secured by the boarding up of windows and doors.
2. Boarded up, fenced, or otherwise secured in any manner if:
a. The building constitutes a danger to the public even though secured
from entry; or
Page | 2
706 West 14th Street
Response: Yes, again although it is locked, the building could still be
entered. The danger that could occur is from a fire started by uninvited
persons for a place of harborage.
b. The means used to secure the building are inadequate to prevent
unauthorized entry or use of the building in the manner described in
subdivision (1) of this definition; or
Response: Simple locks on the exterior doors do not adequately secure the
building from entry.
Note: For the definitions a-n under definition #3, all the definitions shall
apply for the structure to be defined or considered as dangerous:
3. Dilapidated, substandard or unfit for human habitation and a hazard to
the public health, safety and welfare. A building, premises or structure
that contain the following defects shall be considered a dangerous
building or structure under this definition:
a. Those buildings or structures whose interior walls or other
vertical structural members list, lean or buckle to such an extent
that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity falls
outside of the middle third of its base.
Response: Although there is some leaning if the exterior walls, the
overall structure members do not list or lean outside of the middle
third of its base.
b. Those buildings or structures which, exclusive of the
foundations, show 33 percent or more damage or deterioration to
the supporting member or members, or 50 percent damage or
deterioration to the non-supporting enclosing or outside walls or
covering;
Response: It is apparent that there is 33 percent or more damage
or deterioration to the roof system supporting member or
members. In addition, 50 percent damage would also apply to the
outside walls or coverings due to wood rot and exterior walls
leaning which are consistently moving due to the soil conditions.
The exterior walls that are leaning and moving, also add
additional stresses to the roof system.
Page | 3
706 West 14th Street
c. Those buildings or structures:
i. Which have improperly distributed loads upon floors
or roofs or in which the same are overloaded, or which have
insufficient strength to be reasonably safe for the purpose used; or
ii. In which the stress in any material, member or portion
thereof, due to all imposed loads, including dead load, exceeds
the stresses allowed in the Building Code adopted by the City for
new buildings;
Response to i and ii – Right at 75% of the structure would apply in
this section due to the site built roof truss system, excess of all
imposed loads on the foundation system, which has failed,
including dead loads exceeding the stresses allowed by the
current building code.
d. Those buildings or structures which have been damaged by fire, flood,
earthquake, wind, or other causes so as to have become dangerous to life,
safety or the general health and welfare of the occupants or the general
public;
Response: Lack of maintenance would be considered “other causes”
resulting in poor building performance.
e. Those buildings or structures which have been damaged by fire, flood,
earthquake, wind, or other causes to the extent that the structural
integrity of the building or structure is less than it was prior to the
damage and is less than the minimum requirements established by the
Building Code adopted by the City for new buildings;
Response: The structural integrity of the building has been compromised
due to the lack of maintenance over the years and due to the soil
conditions present at this location. This is considered from “other
causes”.
f. The condition of the structure or building is likely to cause sickness or
disease, so as to work injury to the health, safety or general welfare of
those living therein or to persons or property in its vicinity;
Response: This is not a dwelling unit however persons occupy this
structure as a place of assembly. One item that caught my attention was
the fact that the baptismal water supply was not protected against cross
contamination with a backflow prevention device which is required by
codes for a number of years.
Page | 4
706 West 14th Street
g. A building, structure, or portion thereof which, as a result of decay,
deterioration or dilapidation, is reasonably likely to fully or partially
collapse;
Response: Although the majority of the structure has some structural
stability problems, the roof system would be the main concern at the
present time of the possibility of a partial structural collapse. With the
continued deterioration of the foundation system, in large part due to the
soil condition, the failure of the exterior walls would become more
apparent over time.
h. Those buildings or structures having light, air and sanitation facilities
which are inadequate to protect the health, safety or general welfare of
human beings who occupy the building or structure;
Response: It is evident that the plumbing (sanitation) facilities have been
removed, to include the water heater. The general welfare of the public
occupying the structure would be compromised. The HVAC units were
still available and without electrical power, which has been disconnected,
it would be difficult to determine if adequate lighting would be available.
i. Those buildings or structures having inadequate facilities for egress in
case of fire or panic or those having insufficient stairways, elevators, fire
escapes, or other means of communication in order to evacuate in a
timely and expedient manner in order to avoid injury or peril from
within;
Reason: Currently, the means of egress to an exit during an emergency
event is compromised to due to an obstruction along the travel path. No
occupant content has ever been determined for this occupancy due to the
age of the structure, no congregation’s pews were present nor any type of
seating in order to determine the number exits require for this occupancy.
Overall, the means of egress and exiting requirements are not adequate
for this occupancy.
j. Those buildings or structures which have:
i. Parts thereof which are detached that they may reasonably be
expected to fall and injure members of the public or property, or
Response: If the site built roof trusses release or buckle due to
wind loads, the roof elements could have a potential to become
disconnected thus creating a hazard for the public;
ii. Any exterior appendage or portion of the building or structure
that is not securely fastened, attached or anchored such that it is
Page | 5
706 West 14th Street
capable of resisting wind or similar loads as required by the
Building Code adopted by the City for new buildings;
Response: Some of the exterior siding on the new addition along
with the soffit material is not secured properly. If not attached
properly, the required wind loads could not be resisted.
k. Those buildings, structures, or a portion thereof, that do not contain
sufficient space for sleeping or occupation of the building;
Response: Not sure at this time what the desired occupant content would
be determined. The building has been vacated.
l. Those buildings or structures which because of their condition are
unsafe, unsanitary or dangerous to the health, safety or general welfare;
Response: Yes, this building could be considered all the above due to the
lack of sanitary plumbing facilities and roof system along with a
deteriorating foundation system.
m. Those buildings or structures that are unsafe, unsanitary or not
provided with adequate egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or is
otherwise dangerous to human life, or, which in relation to existing use,
constitute a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment;
Response: Yes, all the above as I have stated in other portions of this
report which defines a dangerous structure. With the structure being
unsecured from a boarded up standpoint, unauthorized persons can enter
the building and create a fire situation. This structure now appears to
have become abandoned.
n. Those buildings or structures that have been constructed or maintained
in violation of a specific requirement of any of the codes adopted in Title
15 of this code or contrary to any State law.
Response: Yes, the building has been maintained in violation of specific
code requirements as contained in Title 15of the Georgetown Municipal
Code.
In conclusion, the structure is not currently performing well due to years of non-maintenance.
As I have outlined under the dangerous building definitions, I believe that the structure would
meet the definition of what is considered a “dangerous building or structure”.
Page | 6
706 West 14th Street
This report is not to incur that the structure will immediately collapse, but left without repair
and maintenance continued deterioration will occur and a collapse could be a real possibly at
some point in time.
Keep in mind that it does not only have to be a lack of structural integrity of the building as the
only consideration of what defines a dangerous building, but also the interior environment such
as sanitary for plumbing and mechanical and also fire code related requirements.
I fully concur with the engineering statements as provide by the MLAW engineering report.
As with all existing structures, if the cost to remodel the structure exceeds 50% or more of the
current appraised market value as determined by Williamson County, then the entire structure
shall be brought up to current code. In this case the appraised market value by Williamson
County for the structure is at $34,063. The contractor estimate to remodel the entire structure is
estimated at $1,100,000 and this figure could be exceeded. Therefore, the entire structure would
have to be reconstructed to present day code.
Since I am now of the condition of the structure and that it has been vacated, it needs to be
boarded up and totally secured to prevent unauthorized entry. I would also advise that due to
the structural condition of the roof assembly the Fire Department use extreme caution if the
building has to be entered.
Please let me know if anyone would like to discuss this report with me. I can expand on
responses and comments made in this report.
Thank you,
David F. Hall, CFM
Building Official
Cc: file
ATC Contractors Inc.
P.O. Box 932 Telephone: (512) 930‐3988
Georgetown, TX. 78627 Facsimile: (512)869‐1189
justinatwpf@aol.com
Historical Restoration and Remediation Completed Projects
Project Name: St. Edwards University Main Building Entrance Restoration
Owner: St. Edwards University
Architect: ArchiTexas Inc., Larry Irsik
Telephone number: (512) 444-4220
General Contractor: ATC Contractors Inc.
Contact person (GC): Nathan Roppolo
Telephone number: (512) 656-6545
Length of business Relationship: 20+ years
Subcontract amount: $150,000
Year of Project: 2010
Project Description: We historically renovated the entry way by completing the following:
mechanically removing exterior mortar at the main entrance of the building. Tested and matched
original mortar and re-pointed entry way. Removed damaged stone and replaced with new stone as
per plans and specifications by ArchiTexas. Re-built and repaired two arches. Patch existing
sprawling stone. Installed Dutchman face on deteriorated stone. Chemically cleaned exterior stone at
entry way. Installed a cementations waterproof deck coating, and perimeter copper flashing at
second story balcony.
Project Name: Veterinary Center TAMU
Owner: Texas A&M University
Architect: Prozign Architects, Inc.
Telephone number: (713) 977-6060
General Contractor: Workman Commercial
Contact person (GC): Tim Dakai
Telephone number: (832) 300-9006
Length of business Relationship: 20+ years
Subcontract amount: $678,000
Year of Project: 2009-2010
Project Description: Remove cast stone window sills and brick headers at each window location,
replace flashing with copper thru-wall flashing, and reset cast stone sills and brick headers to match
existing stone, brick and mortar. Patched spalls in cast stone window sills.
ATC Contractors Inc.
P.O. Box 932 Telephone: (512) 930‐3988
Georgetown, TX. 78627 Facsimile: (512)869‐1189
justinatwpf@aol.com
Project Name: Rehabilitation of the Historical Coca-Cola Production building and Warehouse
Owner: Howard Payne University
Architect: Gregg Free and Associates
Telephone number: (512) 458-9139
General Contractor: ATC Contractors
Contact person (GC): Stan Pena, head of physical plant
Telephone number: (325) 647-6409
Length of business Relationship: 10 years
Contract amount: 1,100,000
Year of Project: 2008-2009
Project Description: We were the general contractor for this project. The scope of work included
demolition, concrete, masonry, stucco, drywall, painting, electrical, and hvac. Project consisted of
rehabilitation of a Coca-Cola warehouse to accommodate the Fine Arts Department for Howard
Payne University.
Project Name: Foundation Stabilization and Re-Roofing of the French Legation Museum, Austin, TX.
Owner: Daughters of the Republic of Texas
Architect: John Volze and Associates
Telephone Number: (512) 476-0433
General Contractor: ATC Contractors Inc.
Contact person (GC): James Roppolo
Telephone number: (512) 930-3988
Year of Project: 2012
Project Description: Added concrete footings and piers in the basement to stabilize the structure. We
removed the old wood shake shingles, installed filler wood between batten on roof deck, installed
wood shakes shingles with copper flashings and copper gutters.
Project Name: VOLAR Barracks, Fort Hood, TX.
Owner: United States Government
Architect: Secord and Lebow Architects
Telephone Number: (940) 767-7478
General Contractor: Guyco Contractors
Contact person (GC): Ronnie Goodwin
Telephone number: (254) 532-8637
Length of business Relationship: 20+ years
Subcontract amount: $115,000
Year of Project: 2010
Project Description: Installing waterproofing tape around metal flange windows. Installing joint
sealants where metal flange abuts to stucco finish, and control joints in stucco.
ATC Contractors Inc.
P.O. Box 932 Telephone: (512) 930‐3988
Georgetown, TX. 78627 Facsimile: (512)869‐1189
justinatwpf@aol.com
Project Name: Lyric Theater, Brownwood, TX.
Owner: Lyric Theater Committee
Architect: Gregg Free and Associates
Telephone number: (512) 458-9139
General Contractor: ATC Contractors Inc.
Contact person (GC): James Roppolo
Telephone number: (512) 930-3988
Length of business Relationship: 20+ years
Contract Amount: $262,000.00
Year of Project: 2009-2010
Project Description: Renovated the historical Lyric Theater by stripping paint on the exterior brick,
completed masonry infill’s, replaced tile at entry, miscellaneous drywall, framing demolition, painting,
and stucco.
Project Name: Lee County Courthouse Balcony stabalization
Owner: Lee County
Architect: WJE
General Contractor: ATC Contractors Inc.
Contact person (GC): Ken Moss
Telephone number: (512) 930-3988
Length of business Relationship: 5 years
Contract Amount: $205,000.00
Year of Project: 2012
Project Description: Structural balcony repair in the main court room, remove original brick and pour
concrete beam for exterior wall stabilization, re-install original brick. Partial re-roof of portico’s.
Additional Trade References:
1. Bob Foster- Consultant (512) 517-5040
2. Pat Norman-(AIA) (512) 469-4969
3. David Hoffman (AIA) (254) 471-5935
4. Jim Whitten –Consultant (512) 914-4943
5. Pat Sparks P.E. ( 512) 310-7727
6. Greg Free-Consultant ( 512) 458-9151
7. Bill Zapalac –Contractor (512)306-8888
8. Chuck Larosche P.E. ( 512) 835-0940
9. Sam Pfister- Owner (512) 818-0728
7'
-
6
"
6'-0" AT DUMPSTER SCREEN
1'-0"1'-0"
1'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
3'-0" LAP
6'-0" AT MONUMENT SIGN
1'-0"1'-0"
1'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
3'-0" LAP
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
1
SL
O
P
E
S
A
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
S
:
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
SI
T
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DU
M
P
S
T
E
R
S
C
R
E
E
N
/
S
O
U
N
D
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
W
A
L
L
A
N
D
G
A
T
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
2
LE
G
E
N
D
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
MO
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
3
J JACOBS CONSTRUCTION
3613 WILLIAMS DRIVE SUITE 102
FAX: 512.930.0358
OFFICE: 512.930.0370
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
0102 03 04 05 06 07 08 0910 11 12
13 14 15 16
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
1
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
1
X
NO
T
E
:
J JACOBS CONSTRUCTION
3613 WILLIAMS DRIVE SUITE 102
FAX: 512.930.0358
OFFICE: 512.930.0370
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
LE
G
E
N
D
1H
R
R
A
T
E
D
W
A
L
L
F
R
O
M
F
L
O
O
R
T
O
B
O
T
T
O
M
O
F
R
O
O
F
D
E
C
K
.
R
E
F
E
R
TO
2
/
A
4
.
2
W
A
L
L
T
O
E
X
T
E
N
D
F
R
O
M
F
L
O
O
R
T
O
B
O
T
T
O
M
O
F
R
O
O
F
D
E
C
K
.
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
2
A
A
3-
2
1
-
1
3
AD
D
E
N
D
U
M
A
A
0102 03 04 05 06 07 08 0910 11 12
13 14 15 16
3'-11"2'-0"
112"
112"
5'-11"
3'-11"
J JACOBS CONSTRUCTION
3613 WILLIAMS DRIVE SUITE 102
FAX: 512.930.0358
OFFICE: 512.930.0370
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
FI
N
I
S
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
1
LE
G
E
N
D
X
1.
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
P
O
R
C
E
L
A
I
N
T
I
L
E
F
L
O
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
B
A
S
E
T
O
S
L
O
P
E
T
O
D
R
A
I
N
S
2.
P
A
I
N
T
A
L
L
R
O
O
F
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
,
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
,
D
U
C
T
W
O
R
K
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
S
B
L
A
C
K
FI
N
I
S
H
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
HA
L
F
W
A
L
L
1
2
0
&
1
2
1
2
A
A
3-
2
1
-
1
3
AD
D
E
N
D
U
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A A A
A
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
J JACOBS CONSTRUCTION
3613 WILLIAMS DRIVE SUITE 102
FAX: 512.930.0358
OFFICE: 512.930.0370
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
1 2
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
PA
N
E
L
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
WE
S
T
&
N
O
R
T
H
SC
R
E
E
N
P
L
A
N
K
S
D
E
T
A
I
L
3
1
3-
2
1
-
1
3
AD
D
E
N
D
U
M
A
A
A
A
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
J JACOBS CONSTRUCTION
3613 WILLIAMS DRIVE SUITE 102
FAX: 512.930.0358
OFFICE: 512.930.0370
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
1 2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
EA
S
T
&
S
O
U
T
H
1
3-
2
1
-
1
3
AD
D
E
N
D
U
M
A
A
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to
demolish the historic structure located at 1718 Leander St, bearing the legal description of Outlot Division
A, Block 12 (PT), .90 acres. (CDC-2014-005)
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2014-005 Staff Report Backup Material
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-005 – 1718 Leander St Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: February 27, 2014 Item: C
File No: CDC-2014-004
Project Planner: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Report Date: February 21, 2014
Item Description
Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition
request to demolish the historic structure located at 1718 Leander St, bearing the legal
description of Outlot Division A, Block 12 (PT), .90 acres.
Item Details
Project Name: 1718 Leander St Demolition
Project Address: 1718 Leander St
Location: West side of Leander St, at intersection with 18th St
Legal Description: Outlot Division A, Block 12 (PT), .90 acres
Overlay: N/A – Listed on the 2007 Historic Resources Surveys
Applicant: Greg Weber
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
Applicant’s Request
The applicant seeks approval from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(“HARC”) for a Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) for Demolition to demolish the
historic structure located 1718 Leander St. The existing structure is not listed on the 1984
Historic Resources Survey and is listed as a Low priority structure on the 2007 Historic
Resources Survey. The applicant wishes to demolish the existing structure to construct new
residential structures.
Staff Analysis
The Low priority structure was previously used as a private residence and is currently vacant.
The original portion of the structure was built in 1947 and has seen multiple additions since the
original date of construction. Most of the additions were completed without permits and do not
meet current building codes. Most of the character defining features of the structure have been
removed or destroyed, significantly reducing the historic significance of the structure.
In accordance with Section 3.13.D.1 of the Unified Development Code (“UDC”), “No building
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-005 – 1718 Leander St Page 2 of 5
or structure within the Downtown Overlay District, Old Town Overlay District or any other
Historic Overlay District or on the List of Priority Structures shall be demolished or
relocated unless such demolition or relocation is approved by the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission and a Certificate of Design Compliance for such demolition has been
granted. However, this authority shall not supersede the Building Official’s authority under
Chapter 15.40, “Dangerous Building Ordinance,” of the Georgetown Municipal Code.” The
subject property is outside of the boundaries of the Historic, Downtown and Old Town overlay
districts. However, the structure proposed to be demolished is listed on the 2007 Historic
Resources survey. Consequently, a CDC for Demolition is required for this request.
UDC Section 3.13.010.D details the applicability requirements for a CDC for Demolition. In
accordance with the UDC, the Demolition Subcommittee was appointed on December 12, 2013.
The subcommittee met with the applicant on January 23, 2014, to establish the minimum
requirements for application submittal. According to the submitted application, the applicant is
requesting a CDC for Demolition pursuant to Section 3.13.020.D.1.e: Other special
circumstances, as described and justified by the applicant.
The 1947 structure is identified as a Low priority historic structure on the 2007 Historic
Resources Survey. The survey lists the following information regarding Low priority structures:
Properties categorized as LOW are neither individually eligible for listing in the NRHP nor
potentially contributing resources within a historic district. The baseline consideration for
determining the preservation priority was age; non-historic age properties located within a
historic district were automatically assigned a LOW preservation priority. Resources of historic
age were considered LOW priority if they could not be associated with a significant architectural
style, building form, construction method, or trend in local history. Also, resources of historic age
that had been severely altered to the extent that their architectural and historic associations were
no longer understandable, or that new alterations overwhelmed the visual interpretation of the
original or historic appearance, were assigned a LOW priority.
The multiple additions and deletions reduced the historic integrity of the original structure
limiting the designation to Low priority. This finding is supported by the Historic Resources
Survey form included with the packet.
Criteria for Approval
UDC Section 3.13.030 establishes the approval criteria for all CDC requests; UDC Section
3.13.040 establishes the supplemental approval criteria specifically for a CDC for Demolition
request.
Pursuant to UDC Section 3.13.030, the HARC shall determine whether to grant a CDC based on
the following criteria:
A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is
correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-005 – 1718 Leander St Page 3 of 5
The HARC Demolition Subcommittee established the minimum application requirements for
submittal of the CDC application at its January 23, 2014 Pre-Application Meeting. In addition to
the information required in the UDC, the Demolition Subcommittee requested the following
supplemental application requirements:
1. A Historic Survey Form describing the structure’s historical and architectural significance
The CDC for Demolition application was received on February 3, 2014, and deemed complete on
February 3, 2014.
B. Compliance with any design standards of this Unified Development Code.
The UDC’s design guidelines do not apply to the demolition of an existing structure. The
proposed structure will comply with all requirements as specified in Chapter 7 of the UDC.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved.
The integrity of the current structure has been significantly compromised due to the additions
and removal of character defining elements.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic
properties.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character
with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question
will not be permitted.
The subject property is not located within any of the historic districts, thus this criteria does not
apply.
H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to
approve a Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and
architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-005 – 1718 Leander St Page 4 of 5
3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or
structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures
in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or
during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the
remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values.
The proposed structure will be in character with the existing structures of the area. Additionally,
the subject property is not located within any of the historic districts; therefore, applicable design
guidelines are those outlined in Chapter 7 of the UDC.
Pursuant to UDC Section 3.13.040, HARC shall consider the following criteria (in addition to the
criteria above) in determining whether to issue a CDC for Demolition:
A. The uniqueness of the structure as a representative type of style of architecture, historic
association, or other element of the original designation criteria applicable to such
structure or tract.
The Historic Survey Form submitted on February 3, 2014 states the structure is “common post-
war minimal traditional type with significant alterations resulting in a lack of integrity.”
Although the existing structure may have originally incorporated elements of the Minimal
Traditional style, those elements have been significantly altered and the structure no longer
stands as a strong example of the architectural style.
B. The condition of the structure from the standpoint of structural integrity and the extent
of work necessary to stabilize the structure.
According to the applicant’s Letter of Intent, the main danger of the existing structure is the
threat posed by unapproved additions, removal of interior walls, condition of existing electrical
systems and deterioration caused by lack of windows and doors.
C. Status of the structure under Chapter 15 of the Georgetown City Code containing
Building Safety Standards and rules governing Dangerous Buildings.
The structure has not been reviewed by the Chief Building Official.
D. The HARC shall deny the application for demolition or removal unless it makes the
following findings:
5. For a request to demolish, replace, or relocate a structure for special circumstances, it
finds:
a. The new structure is more appropriate and compatible with the historic overlay
district than the structure to be demolished or relocated.
b. The owner has the financial ability and intent to build the new structure.
HARC must first approve the CDC, if required, for the new structure before it
may consider the request for demolition or removal.
As previously stated, the structure is not located in any of the current historic districts.
Because of this, the proposed structure is not required to meet any additional (historic) design
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2014-005 – 1718 Leander St Page 5 of 5
guidelines or requirements, and no CDC for the new structure is required. As part of the
application packet, the applicant included documentation showing the financial ability to
build the new structure. Furthermore, site plan and building permit applications have been
submitted and currently under review for the proposed scope of work, which shows the
applicant’s intent to build the new structure.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HARC make their findings based on the required approval criteria of
UDC Sections 3.13.030 and 3.13.040. Should the HARC approve the request, the documentation
of the existing structure and post-demolition requirements of UDC Section 3.13.070 shall apply.
Should the HARC deny the request, the demolition delay process outlined in UDC Section
3.13.010.D.2 shall apply. Any person aggrieved by the final action of the CDC has the option to
appeal to City Council within thirty (30) days of the final action in accordance with UDC
Section 3.13.0110.
Public Comments
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comments on the application.
Attachments
Applicant’s supporting documentation, including all information requested by the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission’s Demolition Subcommittee.
Submitted By
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action on the minutes from the January 23, 2014 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes of HARC 1/23/2014 Backup Material
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present Anna Eby, Chair; Jennifer Brown; Nancy Knight; David Paul; Tim Urban;
and Mary Jo Winder.
Commissioners in Training present: Raymond Wahrenbrock
Commissioners absent: Richard Mee, David Paul and Martine Rousseau due to ice storm
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager;
Andreina Davilla, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; Shelley Hargrove,
Main Street Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Call to Order by Eby at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the
recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be
permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
Legislative Agenda:
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the December 12th Regular HARC
Meeting
Corrections noted by Winder: Item 4, change wording in motion from transom to store front
windows; and, Item 8, complete the action with list of volunteers and motion. So noted.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes with the modifications. Second by Urban.
Approved 4 – 0. (Brown came in after the vote.)
2. Discussion and possible action on Downtown Master Plan adoption recommendation.
Synatschk presented the draft plan and explained that the document was to establish the
vision of the downtown area, and it is not a regulating plan. He presented the timeline of
public meetings and proposed readings of the ordinance at the council meeting.
Commissioners provided comments. Overall, they stated the elements were good. Winder
expressed concern that there was not enough emphasis on historic preservation in the plan.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
Synatschk stated comments were still being accepted.
Motion by Knight to authorize the Chair to sign a letter in support of the document.
Second by Winder. Approved 5 – 0.
3. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for infill
construction at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 5, .165 acres, located at 201 East 9th Street
(CDC-2013-049)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks a CDC for Infill Construction on a
vacant parcel located within the Downtown Overlay. The proposed project includes a two
story structure with a low stone wall adjacent to the street and parking located at the rear of
the structure. The proposed two story structure is to provide overnight lodging for guests.
The structure will be clad in stone and stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The new
design is based on previous HARC comments and the architect used the historical Owen
House as a model for the structure. The architect, Raul Saldivar, the architect of this project,
designed the building to merge architecturally with the buildings of the area.
Eby opened the Public Hearing at 6:34 p.m.
Susan Firth, speaking for the Heritage Society, reminded the Commissioners to use the
Guidelines for guidance in considering this project. She asked that they consider the
character of the building, the scale of the building and keep it with the character of the
neighborhood.
Larry Olsen, of 300 E. 9th Street, stated he looks forward to having the Inn in the
neighborhood. He asked that the commission look at the buffer yards as described in the
UDC, consider placing stone on the back wall instead of the solid stucco material, and asked
that a screening fence or shrubs be placed on the backside of the parking lot so that the car
lights would not shine into the adjacent house.
David Kellerman, of 912 Shinnecock Hills Drive, representing the Main Street Advisory
Board, expressed that the city needs this business downtown. It is a beautiful building that
will be a good transition from downtown into the residential neighborhood. He asked that
the commissioners consider the cost of any proposed changes for the developer and asked
that there not be any more delays on this project.
Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut Street, stated he feels the commissioners should deny the
CDC based on the design not meeting the guidelines 13.10, 13.13, 13.16, 13.22, and 13.6. he
does not believe the building fits the character of the neighborhood. He agrees with the
concern about the necessary setbacks and encourages traditional elements be used. He
encourages a design that will fit the neighborhood.
Eby closed the Public Hearing with no further speakers coming forth.
The applicant, A.K. Makiya, spoke to the comments. He agreed that it is important to have
a buffer with the neighboring house. He wants to harmonize with the style and character of
the city, but to do run the business it is difficult to reduce the size of the building. He stated
he was trying to work with everyone.
Commissioners deliberated. They asked the applicant why he would not put this on two
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
lots since there is another lot between his building and the restaurant on the north corner.
He explained that he did not own that lot. There was discussion of which plans were most
current. Winder stated she could approve the plans conceptually, but not in detail. She felt
the scale and size were appropriate but wants the look to be more residential, using
modulation and more windows.
Urban appreciated the new application, but felt the 3D drawings misrepresented the size
and scale of the development. Brown liked the idea of using an iron fence instead of a stone
wall around the perimeter, to open up the front façade. Knight was asked to provide exact
items that she felt were missing from the application. She listed lighting, mechanicals,
trash-screening, and concern about the ten foot buffer. She appreciated the materials board,
but felt there should have been color samples in the package.
There was discussion among the commissioners regarding what was asked of the applicant
and what was brought forward. They discussed the need for consistency of the
applications. After much discussion, the following motion was made.
Motion by Urban to approve the CDC for 201 E. 9th Street with the following amendments
to the application: The approval included these conditions:
· Require more modulation on the side facing 9th street both sides of the building.
· Require more openings/windows on the sides facing 9th street and on the back of
the property, so that the building appears more residential in nature.
· The front fence shall be an open style, made of wrought iron.
· The rear buffer should be reviewed to ensure compliance with UDC buffer yards,
considering it backs up to residential property
· The rear fence shall be solid, so that no light from vehicles passes through to
impact the residential property behind it.
· Consider (not required) a different, darker color palette on the shutters and
courtyard wall.
· Consider changing the rear façade from stucco to masonry.
Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 1. (Knight opposed.)
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for
exterior alterations and signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), .16 acres, located at 1004
and 1006 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-002)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval to alter a Medium
Priority historic structure located in the Area 2 of the Downtown Historic Overlay. The
Applicant proposes to install new awnings across the length of the structure, with signage
included on the awning. Applicant also proposes a multi-tenant sign to be mounted on
existing poles in the parking lot. The current poles are 14 feet high, but will be reduced to 10
feet in height to comply with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code.
Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed it.
There was a question about the location of the signage (lettering) on the awning. It was
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
explained that the ReImagine portion of the sign would be centered between the two tenant
spaces it occupies in the building.
Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 5 – 0.
5. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for
exterior alterations and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (WC/PT), .4434 acres
located at 118 E 8th St. (CDC-2014-003)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval from HARC for
awning signage. The current awnings will be replaced in kind with a change of name for the
agent. Commissioners did not have questions.
Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, close it.
Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as requested provided the awning is the same as
the existing. Second by Urban. Approved 5 – 0.
6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for
exterior alterations at Snyder Addition, Block 50(S/PT), .66 acres, located at 1604 Olive St.
(CDC-2013-060)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project for the historic structure located
at 1604 Olive Street is designed to rehabilitate the existing structure while increasing the
usability and livability of the space. The 1955 structure was altered in the 1970’s, which
included enclosing the garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the section of the house
that previously contained the garage, and add a 1,237 square foot addition. Due to the
setback from the street and the corner location, the property has limited options for
expansion without severely impacting the primary structure.
Winder commented that since this is a non-contributing structure, she feels is should be and
is compatible with the neighborhood.
Motion by Winder to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Knight. Approved 5 – 0.
7. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for
exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St.
(CDC-2013-061)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project for the 1912 Mary De Bardeleben
House, a High Priority Historic Structure, is designed to rehabilitate the existing structure
while increasing the usability and livability of the space. The National register eligible
historic structure is one of many structures in the historic core constructed by the Belford
Lumber Company. Due to the significant setback from the street, the property has limited
options for expansion without severely impacting the primary structure.
Bryant Boyd, the architect for the owner, was available for comments or questions.
Eby opened the Public Hearing.
Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut Street, expressed concerns that the house will lose its historic
value, style, look and character if this application is approved. He cited design guidelines
14.7, 14.12, and 14.15.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
The Public Hearing was closed with no further speakers coming forth.
Bryant Boyd provided additional 3D pictures. He explained that he is helping this family
make this house more livable. He explained that the only part of the original structure that
was being touched/ removed was the screened porch. Any new portions of the house
would be of different materials so as to distinguish the difference. They will be using
landscaping to diminish the long lines of the front of the house.
Urban questioned the work changing the historic priority status of the house. Synatshck
explained that the new portions of the house would be clearly different than the existing
materials so it would maintain its high priority status.
Knight expressed concern about the abrupt change of materials from wood to stone and the
overwhelming use of stone on the front wall. She suggested using the stone only for the
skirting and column footings. Winder agreed that the stone overpowers the wood siding
and is too prominent. Joel Goode, the owner, discussed his options with the commissioners
and stated he would reduce the amount of stone if it meant he could get approval for the
CDC.
Motion by Knight to approve the CDC provided the sand stone would not be used on the
façade, but only for the skirting and the columns. Motion died with no second.
Winder moves to approve the CDC with the condition that the stone is eliminated and
either wood siding, clapboard or wood shingles are used to differentiate the new portion of
the façade. Motion died with no second.
Motion by Winder to approve the CDC with the condition that the stone cladding be
replaced with wood or wood like siding and approved for use on the underpinning and
columns. Second by Knight. Motion failed, 2 – 3. (Eby, Brown and Urban opposed.)
Motion by Urban to approve CDC-2013-061 as presented. Second by Brown. Approved 3
– 2. (Winder and Knight opposed.)
8. Discussion on proposed project at 902 Forest St.
Bryant Boyd made a presentation of a proposed change to a residential structure that was
built in 1925 and is a medium priority listed structure. The applicant wants to add on to the
existing structure and Boyd presented proposals of how he would do this, asking the
commissioners to comment. There was discussion of differentiation and how to define that.
Not everyone sees that the same way. There was also discussion of coming to consensus on
expectations of the commission as a whole and how the applicants should try to address
those expectations. It was noted that there would be training for the commission once the
new members are added in March.
9. Questions and comments from HARC Commissioners in Training. None at this time.
10. Updates from staff and reminder about the February 10, 2014 Sign Subcommittee and the
February 27, 2014 HARC meetings.
Synatschk stated that after the posting of this agenda, it was determined that there would
not be a sign subcommittee meeting on February 10.
11. Adjournment. Eby adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting: January 23, 2014
_______________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Anna Eby, Chair Attest, Tim Urban
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Adjournment.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY: