HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_06.08.2020 HARC_ DemoNotice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission Demolition subcommittee meeting for
701 S College St
of the City of Georgetown
June 8, 2020 at 4:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r e gul ar me e ting wi ll c onve ne at 4:00pm on J une 8, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
https://geor getowntx.zoom.us/j/92529730106?
pwd=S 2 R N d H B l Z UtnN ngve U N W S H lmdU p Q dz09
If you'r e attending the live event on the we b, use a media-sour ce e xtension
(M S E ) - e nable d we b br owse r li ke Chrome, F i r e fox, or E dge. Safari is not
c ur re ntly supporte d.
To participate by phone:
Dial (Toll F r ee ) 833 548 0282
Webinar I D: 925 2973 0106
P assword: 193080
P ublic c omme nt wi ll be allowe d vi a the above c onfer ence c all number or the
“ask a que sti on” func tion on the video confe re nc e opti on; no in-pe r son input
will be allowed.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A T he His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n, ap p o inted b y the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertificates of Appropriateness
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P roc edures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
Page 1 of 30
· C omments from C itizens *
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce staff and the applic ant have addressed ques tions from the C ommis s ioners, the C hair of the
C ommission will open the public hearing. If a member o f the public would like to provid e comments on
the agenda item under dis cus s ion, the chair will as k if anyone would like to s peak. To speak, unmute
yourself and s tate your name and addres s . O nce the C hair has the names of everyo ne who would like to
speak, the C hair will c all the names in order, and when yo ur name is c alled yo u will have up to 3 minutes .
A speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker fo r a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the public
wis hed to allot their time to another speaker, they may do s o when their name is c alled by the C hair. P lease
remember that all c o mments and ques tions mus t b e addressed to the C ommission, and pleas e be patient
while we organize the s peakers during the public hearing portion.
• T he public also has the opportunity to provide c omments through the Q &A s ection of the Live Meeting,
loc ated on the right-hand s ide of your c omputer sc reen. P leas e provid e your full name and address for the
rec ord, and your c omment will be read by S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s peak has s poken, the C hair will close the public hearing and provid e a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B Disc ussion and possible recommendation for the demolition of a low priority struc ture loc ated at 701 S .
C ollege S treet - Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 8, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible rec ommendation for the demolition of a low priority s tructure located at 701 S .
C ollege S treet - Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Applicant is seeking the Demolition of a C ontributing His toric S truc ture (Low P riority) under the criteria of
los s of s ignificance as desc ribed in the attached letter of intent. T he UDC provides c riteria for evaluating
los s of s ignificance as outlined below:
T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion s hall make the following findings when
c onsidering a reques t for demolition or reloc ation of a struc ture:
a. Loss of S ignific anc e.
i. T he applicant has provided information that the building or s tructure is no longer historically,
c ulturally or architec turally s ignificant, or is no longer contributing to the his toric overlay
district; and
ii. T he applicant has es tablished that the building or struc ture has undergone s ignificant and
irrevers ible c hanges, whic h have c aused the building or s tructure to los e the historic, c ultural or
arc hitectural s ignificance, qualities or features which qualified the building or struc ture for s uc h
designation; and
iii. T he applicant has demonstrated that any c hanges to the building or s tructure were not c aused
either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent des truction, or
lac k of maintenanc e rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and
iv. Demolition or reloc ation of the building or s tructure will not c ause s ignificant adverse effect on
the historic overlay district or the C ity's historic res ourc es ;
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Demolition Report Template Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Photos Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Property Survey Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 3 of 30
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER:
MEETING DATE:
MEETING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
COMMENTS
Applicant:
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re-occupancy?
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the
structure to its original design?
Page 4 of 30
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 2
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
Other comments
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Based on:
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 5 of 30
Location
2020-19-COA
Exhibit #1
SCOLLEGEST
E 7TH ST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
PIN
E
S
T
E 6TH ST
E 8TH ST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
HOL
L
Y
S
T
ELMST ASH
S
T
HO
L
L
Y
S
T
PI
N
E
S
T
E 8TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 9TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 6 of 30
Letter of Intent – 701 S. College St.
Request to Raze House
We bought this property in the spring of 2019 and moved-in early July, after the college renters
vacated. We then spent months dreaming of and weighing the different ways we could add-on to the
main house so as to accommodate our larger-size family. Our hope was to also repair its many issues
and obvious years of neglect, making it a home that would once-again compliment the historic district.
After this initial brainstorming, we began talking with various professionals about how to realize
our ideas. We also started speaking with the city (largely Britin Bostick) about appropriate options.
Though early-on in the process we had builders inform us that a remodel would be futile given the
home’s condition, we were set on making it work. For one, we liked the idea of maintaining its
historicity, and two, we couldn’t fathom knocking down a house we just paid full-price for.
However, over the course of half a year, a pattern started to emerge. A professional would
come out for a bid. They would instead tell us that the structure needed to be razed. And then they
would hand us a card saying they would love to work with us if we decided to do a new build. (Based on
their experience, the amount of work needed to repair/remodel the property would effectively ensue a
demolition anyway, and therefore it made no sense financially to go about it in this fashion.)
We resisted this advice for months, until we got tired of banging our heads against the wall and
finally accepted it as the sound thing to do. Yes, we would eat our initial investment. But we came to
realize we would eat it even more if we tried to salvage it. We further had to admit that this house has
been altered so much that there is little that resembles the original structure. (The house underwent a
major remodel in the 80’s. The city has it ranked as low priority.) And again, what does remain cannot
be salvaged.
Despite the condition of our house, we absolutely love living in Old Town! The square is
convenient and great fun, there are abundant recreational opportunities with the San Gabriel River and
many parks and trails, and we adore our evening walks admiring the many historic homes and
surrounding architecture. Our new dream is to build a home befitting the neighborhood where we can
raise our kids and be a part of this wonderful community.
Please find attached two professional letters recommending that we raze our house. One is
from local builder, J. Bryant Boyd, and the other is from foundation repair expert, Douglas Foundation.
Sincerely,
Brad and Pam Helgerson
Page 7 of 30
May 11, 2020
Pam Helgerson
701 S. College Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Ms. Helgerson:
Thank you for reaching out and seeking a recommendation on the proper way to remodel your home. I
appreciate the interest in our company, and I hope that we can help you in some way. After touring the
home with you and seeing the condition of the structure I am not hopeful that your home can be
salvaged. I recommend seeking permission from HARC and the City of Georgetown to completely raze
the main structure on the site. I do not feel that the foundation system can be repaired without first
removing the structure above. Additionally, I can find no evidence that the numerous changes to the
home have protected the integrity of the underlying historic structure.
We have saved many homes here in Georgetown and I rarely suggest that a structure be removed.
However, in your case, I do not see a solution that will allow the structure to remain intact. Please let us
know if we can assist you with this matter moving forward.
Sincerely,
J. Bryant Boyd, AIA
Page 8 of 30
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Douglas Plauche
Pam Helgerson; Christopher Godwin; Amadeo Garcia
701 South College St Georgetown
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:20:31 AM
Good morning Pam. At the end of April you asked me to provide an evaluation of your
home's Pier & Beam foundation. I went to your home assisted with Amadeo Garcia who
would have assisted me with the evaluation by getting into the crawl space area below the
floor and map out the existing structural components. You had a goal of rescuing this home
from years of foundation settlement and perhaps to add a second story to the structure. Upon
our site visit we discovered there was not any accessible zone under the floor system and it
appeared the wood structural members were resting on the soil. This home does not have a
"crawl space" which in our experience means a possible total failure of wood structural
members due to moisture and insects, plus lack of ability to dry out from wet soil conditions.
We suggested that all the interior flooring would need to be removed to access the foundation
and perhaps several of the interior and exterior walls as well because of wet rot and/or access
requirements. Then I pointed out that we would of course have to raise the floor to meet a
current standard and to provide an actual crawl space. I also said we are experts at doing this
and could possibly provide some budgeting ideas but could not provide an actual quote
without tearing into the project. Of course the family would need to move out of the home
during the repairs. Upon further reviewing the house construction, it became obvious that
over the years this home had some extensions and remodeling done, including a second floor
on the rear. I suggested that most likely these rooms were attached to an out of level original
structure and "leveling" the entire building would most likely disrupt the connectivity of the
separate units. This typically causes major renovation nightmares as years of
different builders and different agendas make for an unknown cost to recover the building into
a modern monolithic structure and it is most probable that it would be better to tear down all
or most of the building and start over from scratch. In my opinion, there is not enough left of
any historical value in the current home to consider "historically" rebuilding this home. I
suggested that perhaps the city of Georgetown may understand this home is not perhaps on the
highest priority to save because it apparently has slipped under the radar into just an average
older home needing significant structural repairs and not a diamond in the rough. Just one
opinion from a master expert on P&B foundation repair. Douglas
Douglas Plauche
Founder & President
Douglas Foundation Solutions
12510 Edwards Hollow Run
Austin, TX 78739
Office: 512-291-0709 | Fax: 512-276-6617
www.douglasfoundationsolutions.com
Page 9 of 30
Insulation exposed where siding has decayed.
(above and to left)
Condition of porches- dipping and severe
splintering (left and below)
Hole in wall (circled in red on left)
Page 10 of 30
Crack in siding (left)
Large tree root grew
into home (right)
Condition of siding and
exposure to elements
Page 11 of 30
Interior no longer bears any historical
significance due to previous remodel(s) (above
and below)
Front portion of roof is being supported by
chimney. Note the swaying. (below)
Page 12 of 30
Porch roof is swayed. Roof is swayed (another
shot of chimney upholding it. (below)
Decay of porch pillars. (left)
Fireplace front remodeled in brick. Original was
stone and walled in behind the new front. (below
left and below right)
Hole in bathroom wall (left)
Page 13 of 30
Foundation
and ceiling
not level (left
and above
right and
above left)
Bathroom
ceiling too
low- not
Page 14 of 30
Current roof
constructed
over original
roof (note
shingles)
causing original
elevation to
change (left)
Tree Saplings
used originally
as shown in
attic. (left)
Stone chimney
in attic proves
current brick a
facade. (right)
More examples of rotting/damaged siding from
water entry, animals, and negligence over the
years. (below)
Page 15 of 30
Page 16 of 30
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 College St 2016 Survey ID:125220
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041474Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 10/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1885
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl siding, windows, door, and porch posts; rear addition)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:972
ID:662
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:125220 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Latitude:30.637552 Longitude -97.671739
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 17 of 30
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 College St 2016 Survey ID:125220
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
EastPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 18 of 30
Page 19 of 30
701 S. College Street
2020-19-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
Demolition SubcommitteeJune 8, 2020
Page 20 of 30
Location Map
Page 21 of 30
1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Section
Page 22 of 30
C. 1934 Photo –SU Special Collections
Page 23 of 30
Site Photos
Page 24 of 30
Site Photos
Page 25 of 30
Site Photos
Page 26 of 30
Review Questions
•What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any
structural changes that should be made to the structure for re-
occupancy?
•Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What
changes have been made to the structure (excluding cosmetic features)?
Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure to its original
design?
Page 27 of 30
Review Questions
•May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
•May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
•Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a
historically significant style, architecture, craftsmanship, event or
theme?
Page 28 of 30
Review Questions
•Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so,
which ones?
•Other comments
Page 29 of 30
Recommendation
•Approval
•Approval with Conditions
•Disapproval
Page 30 of 30