HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.23.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 23, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th Street Georgetown, T X 78626
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 Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
S taff P resentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to S taff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative P rocess
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 they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
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 C ons ideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the Marc h 28, 2019, April 25, 2019 and
May 9, 2019 HAR C meetings . Madison T homas, Historic and Downtown P lanner
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for a 1.) res idential
renovation, 2.) res idential addition, 3.) building height modific ation of 1-foot from the 15-foot maximum
Page 1 of 71
building height requirement to allow a building height of 16-feet, at the reques ted 15-foot s etbac k of the
underlying zoning district per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08.080.C 4.) a 10’ setback
modific ation along the north property line into the required 25’ setback to allow for a residential s tructure
(garage) 15’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.D; for
the property loc ated at 1302 C ollege S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.498 ac. Hughes Addition,
Block 4n/pt (2019-16-C O A). Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric and Downtown P lanner
C Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, 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 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 23, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the Minutes from the March 28, 2019, April 25, 2019 and
May 9, 2019 HAR C meetings. Madis on T homas , His toric and Downtown P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
3.28.2019 HARC Meeting Minutes Exhibit
4.25.2019 HARC Meeting Minutes Exhibit
5.09.2019 HARC Meeting Minutes Exhibit
Page 3 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: March 28, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
March 28, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Josh Schroeder; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Lawrence Romero;
Catherine Morales; Art Browner
Absent: Karalei Nunn; Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner;
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A Nomination and election of Vice-chair and Secretary for the 2019 Commission.
Motion by Browner to nominate Romero for Vice-chair for the 2019 Commission. Approved 7-0.
Motion by Catherine Morales, second by Browner for Parr to serve as Secretary for the 2019
Commission. Approved 7-0.
B Consideration and appointment of one member to the Demolition Subcommittee.
Motion by Browner to nominate Parr as a member to the Demolition Subcommittee. Approved 7-0.
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
Demolition of an approximate 1,300-sq.ft. residential structure identified as a low priority
resource for the property located at 903 N. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac.
Porter, N. Survey, (COA-2018- 063). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The low priority structure was identified on the 2016 Historic
Resources Survey. It was not included on the 1984 or 2007 historic resource surveys. The survey
identifies as the structure having an irregular plan and no stylistic influences, it also includes that
the “property lacks integrity”. The property was previously a residence but is currently owned by
Brookwood in Georgetown. They are currently using this structure for accessory uses for their
organization. They would like to increase the housing opportunities they have for their residents,
however the cost to retrofit this structure to meet their needs would be beyond the value of the
home. They have an additional historic residential structure that is a medium priority home next
door that they will be able to relocate. The structure has had the siding and windows replaced with
non-historic materials. There is wood rot damage and termite damage. The structure lacks a distinct
architectural style and integrity with non-historic materials.
Page 4 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: March 28, 2019
Commissioner Romero opened the Public Hearing.
Speaker Perez wants the commissioners to consider the amount of traffic which has greatly
increased, the size of vehicles/trucks and parking issues in a narrow street. The speaker has
experienced parking issues where others have parked in front of his house and driveway. He also
raised the issue of water drainage. He already experiences this problem when it rains and expects it
to worsen.
Commissioner Romero called the second public speaker.
Speaker Mohammed, raised concerns of high traffic in the area. The street is narrow, and this
problem is going to worsen if this demolition is approved.
Commissioner Romero called the third public speaker.
Jennifer Gwen, also raised the same concerns of high traffic that currently exists in the area. The
number of cars there is more than what it should be. This project should not be approved; the
infrastructure cannot support the amount of traffic.
Commissioner Romero closed the Public Hearing
Thomas clarified details of the applicant’s request for demolition and the board’s purview, which is
to review the request and if it meets the required criteria. Thomas provided more information
related to the process to develop on the property, zoning, and permitted use. Provided detailed
information on meeting criteria and staff review process.
Motion by Parr to approve COA-2018- 063. Second by Johnston. Approved 7-0.
D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a A Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1)
13’ 1" setback encroachment along the north property line into the required 25’ setback, allowing
for a residential structure 11’ 11" from the property line per the Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; 2)street facing patio addition, for the property located at 1601 E. 17th
Street, bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Nolan Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (2019-5-COA).
Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to expand the existing patio. The
application is also proposing to add a 520 sq. ft. carport to accommodate two cars. The required
height at the setback is a max. of 15’ and the applicant is proposing a height of 12’, which is lower
than the roof of the existing house. The proposed carport will be in the rear yard of the home
adjacent to Louise St., where a paved driveway currently exists. The applicant is requesting a
setback encroachment to allow the carport to be placed where the existing driveway is and parallel
to the existing house, which is set back 11’ 11.25” from the street side lot line. The Unified
Development Code Sec. 6.02.050 requires a street facing garage to be set back a minimum of 25’.
The applicant is requesting to place the garage 11’ 11.25” from the property line. The purpose of the
setback request is to allow the plane of the proposed carport line up with the plane of the existing
façade of the home, to keep a consistent setback line along Louise St. for this lot, and to reduce
conflicts of locating the proposed carport almost centered behind the existing house.
Page 5 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: March 28, 2019
Question by Parr regarding compliance and criteria. Thomas provided explanation of alternatives
for carport and compliance with the criteria.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion for denial of 2019-5-COA by Romero due to failure to comply with criteria A requirements.
Second by Parr, with open for discussion.
Discussion between the Commission members and Thomas about the design and layout requested
by applicant, and compliance with criteria.
Motion by Browner to approve 2019-5-COA. Second by Morales. Approved 3-2.
E Discussion and possible action regarding the potential Historical and Architectural Review
Committee meeting and training schedule for the 2019-2020 calendar year.
Thomas provided HARC training schedule and provided details for training. Additional topics for
training to be added and how training topics were selected.
F Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
At next HARC meeting, changes to UDC from Council perspective. HARC meeting twice a month.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Browner. Second by Parr. The meeting adjourned at 7:13 pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 6 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: April 25, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 25, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Josh Schroeder; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Lawrence Romero; Catherine
Morales; Art Browner; Karalei Nunn; Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Absent: Steve Johnston;
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and
Downtown Planner;
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the February 28, 2019 HARC
meeting. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Minutes were not attached. Will be reviewed at the following meeting.
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for : 1) 10’
setback encroachment along the property line adjacent to the unimproved Ash Street, into the
required 15’ setback, allowing for a residential structure 5' from the property line per the Unified
Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; for the property located at 407 E. 5th Street,
bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4 (COA-2018-59).
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to add a carport adjacent to the
existing garage at the rear and side of the lot which also contains a historic home. The carport is
proposed to be 240 square feet and will match the two other existing structures in roof pitch, roof
materials which is metal roofing, siding materials which is hardie and color. The applicant is
requesting a 10' encroachment along the property line adjacent to the unimproved Ash Street, into
the required 15’ setback, allowing a residential structure 5' from the property line. The applicant is
requesting this encroachment to align the carport up with the existing driveway and because other
areas for a carport on the site are limited.
Chair Schroeder open the Public Hearing, with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion by Nunn to approve COA-2018-59 with staff recommended conditions.
Romero sought clarification about property details and project details.
Motion to vote by Schroeder. Approved 8-0.
Page 7 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: April 25, 2019
C Public hearing and possible action for the demolition of a high priority structure located
outside of the historic overlay districts at 608 W. 15th Street. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic
and Downtown Planner.
Thomas presented the staff report. The structure was identified as a high priority structure on the
2016 Historic Resources Survey. It was also on the 1984 or 2007 historic resource surveys as a high
priority structure. According to the 2016 Historic Resource Survey, the single story structure is
estimated to have been built in 1890 and retains sufficient (architectural) integrity and is an
excellent or rare example of its type or style. The 2016 survey identifies the structure as an L-plan
with Folk Victorian stylistic influences. The property is not located in either of the historic overlay
districts but located in a neighborhood a few blocks west of Old Town. The applicant considered
relocation, however it has been confirmed that due to the structure and condition of the home,
relocation is not an option. The structure has deteriorated beyond a reasonable amount of repair
and maintenance. In its current state it cannot be re-occupied. To bring it to a livable condition, the
foundation would need to be leveled and the flooring replaced, the single wall construction would
need to be converted to double to allow for electric/gas and plumbing. Existing gas and water
plumbing pose safety issues due to the “makeshift” installation and it appears to have extensive
termite damage.
Chair Schroeder open the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the Public
Hearing.
Motion by Parr to approve the demolition with the archival record.
Chair Schroeder called the applicant to the podium. Peyton Lewis, the applicant, spoke about
meeting the criteria, costs of moving the structure and restoring the structure. He also answered
questions from Commission members.
Motion second by Romero. Approved 8-0.
D Consideration and review of by-laws, including the proposed revision that would establish
provisions for two regular meetings per month and the attendance policy. Madison Thomas,
AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Thomas presented the by-laws and discussed the change for two regular HARC meetings per
month. There was a discussion of dates and when to hold the second meeting among commission
members. The Commission members agreed on the second and fourth Thursday of the month for
meetings.
E Presentation and discussion on the process and standards related to the Unified Development
Code HARC approval criteria. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Thomas reviewed the UDC approval criteria with the Commission members. Section 3.13 of the
Unified Development Code outlines the review and approval process for modifications, infill,
signage and demolition of historic resources both within and outside of the historic districts in
Page 8 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: April 25, 2019
Georgetown. Thomas provided an overview of the process and answered Commission member
questions.
Chair Schroeder asked Thomas questions regarding motions, clarification of details to be provided
when making a motion, including providing the reasons for denials.
F Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Next meeting is scheduled for May 9, 2019.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Romero. Second by Asendorf-Hyde. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 9 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: May 09, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 9, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Josh Schroeder; Lawrence Romero; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Art Browner
Absent: Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; Mark Moore, Assistant Chief Building Official
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action of the Minutes from the February 28, 2019 HARC meeting.
Nat Waggoner, Recording Secretary.
Motion by Romero, second by Asendorf-Hyde to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
4 – 0.
B. Consideration and possible action of the Minutes from the March 28, 2019 Special Session
HARC meeting. Nat Waggoner, Recording Secretary.
Motion by Romero, second by Asendorf-Hyde to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
4 – 0.
C. Consideration and possible appointment(s) of Commissioner(s) to the Demolition
Subcommittee. Nat Waggoner, Recording Secretary
Motion by Romero, second by Browner to approve adding Laralei Nunn to Demolition
Subcommittee. Approved 4 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Commercial Renovation at the property located at 806 S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal
description of a .07ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (PTS), (2019-14-COA). Madison
Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The property is a one-story wood frame commercial building
with wood siding, stepped wood parapet and a shed roof over the entrance. The 2016 Historic
Resources Survey identifies the structure as an excellent or rare example of its style and or has
significant associations and it retains sufficient integrity. It is also noted as a good example of an
early twentieth century frame commercial building and one of the city’s first auto garages. The
survey notes that the overhead door, porch posts and siding replaced between the 1984 and
2007 surveys. The applicant is requesting to replace the wood siding on all facades of the home
with hardie siding. It is unknown if wood siding was the original siding material used for this
structure, as it was originally an auto body shop. However, the 1984 Historic Resources Survey
identifies wood siding on the structure. The changes to the street-facing facades are HARC’s
purview.
Page 10 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: May 09, 2019
The applicant, Rob Skelton, is requesting to replace the existing wood siding on all facades of
the structure with hardie siding. These renovations will maintain the original look of the
building. The applicant would like to replace the wooden siding on the non-street facing facade
with 6” hardie plank siding. The existing siding is rotting and has gaps from the weather. Due
to the age of the siding, they no longer make the same size boards. The applicant would also
like to replace the front door and windows.
The Commission members asked the applicant various questions regarding the building, extent
of damage, renovations, and alternative materials to update the building.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the
Public Hearing.
Discussion among the Commission members, Thomas, and Moore. Moore answered various
questions regarding the building, damage to the building, material alternatives to renovate the
building, and criteria. The Commission members requested clarification from the applicant on
proposed renovations.
Motion by Romero to deny the application for 2019-14-COA based on non-compliance with
criteria 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.5. Second by Browner, adding Sec. 3.13.030 UDC Criteria, 3, 4 and 5
non-compliance.
Motion by Commissioner Schroeder to amend previous motion and deny the request based on
Design Guidelines policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5 and Criteria 3, 4 and 5. 4-0 approved to amend
the motion. Motion approved 4 – 0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Residential Renovation at the property located at 1304 E. University Ave., bearing the legal
description of .43ac. Outlot Division B, Block 11 (PT), (2019-20-COA). Madison Thomas,
AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood
(cypress and pine) siding on the home with hardie siding and replace the existing wood
windows with a fiber composite window. The home is identified in the 2016 Historic Resources
Survey; it is described as an 1890 L-plan with a one-and-a-half story wood frame dwelling with
a gable roof with shingles. The survey does not indicate a specific stylistic influence. Until
recently, the house had asbestos tile when the applicant removed the tile and found existing
wood siding underneath. The windows have signs of water damage, including peeling paint,
rot, and warping. The majority of the home was covered in cypress wood siding and with the
rear addition in pine siding. The changes on the street-facing facades are HARC’s purview.
The Commission had several questions relating to the criteria, effect of renovations on the look
of the home, and the issue of asbestos. There was also discussion about the design guidelines.
The applicant, Abdulwahab Makiya, spoke and explained that during prior renovations and
asbestos removal, it was discovered that home was built in two stages. The quality of the wood
has deteriorated over time. The applicant noted that he searched for a supplier for cypress
Page 11 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: May 09, 2019
wood but was not able to find anyone that could provide the material. In addition, there would
be extensive costs to preserve the home with similar original material.
Asendorf-Hyde had questions relating to the materials and alternatives. Moore provided
information regarding the home and damage. Moore provided an explanation of the difference
between pine and cypress wood, effect if used on the home, and other issues to be addressed in
the home. Asendorf-Hyde also had concerns related to the use of hardie and if it would change
the look of the home.
Thomas provided clarification on other parts of the home the applicant is renovating, and what
types of changes require approval of COA’s and which don’t.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth, and then closed the
Public Hearing.
Discussion among Commission members regarding aesthetic of the home, material use and
meeting criteria.
Motion by Schroeder to approve replacement of siding with hardie plank and replacing of
windows as requested by applicant. In favor by Schroeder and Browner. Opposed by Asendorf-
Hyde and Romero. Motion failed to achieve majority vote.
Nelson discussed providing additional information to help committee in decision making.
Provided suggestions regarding the item and further motions. Chair Schroeder had questions
related to suggestion of motion on conditions of meeting criteria and asked applicant further
questions regarding the project.
Motion by Asendorf-Hyde to approve 2019-20-COA with the condition that the applicant use
pine to replace the siding as opposed to hardie plank (based on criteria 5.1, 5.2, 5.4), and
approve the replacement of the windows as requested by the applicant. Second by Browner.
Approved 4 – 0.
F. Presentation and discussion of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Focusing
on the review and policies for the Downtown, Area 1 and Area 2. Madison Thomas, AICP,
Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. Thomas provided the Commission an overview of the
Downtown Design Guidelines Chapter 1, Chapter 12 and Chapter 13. Chapter 1 will focus on
the Designs Goals for Area 1, how the guidelines are used, and the format of the guidelines.
Chapter 12 has the guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay and
Chapter 13 is Infill Construction in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay.
Discussion between Thomas and Schroeder regarding commercial and residential uses of
buildings. Thomas explained the guidelines, allowing for flexibility by the Board. Schroeder
discussed guidelines and obtaining clarification on compliance of guidelines.
Thomas discussed the walking tour, to be scheduled before the next meeting on May 23, 2019.
G. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Page 12 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: May 09, 2019
Nelson promoted the gateways survey for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan currently on the
Department website for board members to take.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Browner, second by Romero. Meeting adjourned at 7:24 pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 13 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 23, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for a 1.) residential
renovation, 2.) residential addition, 3.) building height modification of 1-foot from the 15-foot maximum
building height requirement to allow a building height of 16-feet, at the requested 15-foot setback of the
underlying zoning dis tric t per Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08.080.C 4.) a 10’ s etbac k
modification along the north property line into the required 25’ s etbac k to allow for a res idential struc ture
(garage) 15’ from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.D; for
the property located at 1302 C ollege S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.498 ac . Hughes Addition,
Bloc k 4n/pt (2019-16-C O A). Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic and Downtown P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Historical Information Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Texas Historical Commission Letter Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Site Information and Tree Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 7- Public Comments Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 14 of 71
EL
M
S
T
ASH ST
PINE
S
T
E 15TH S T
E 13TH S T
MAPLE ST
S MAIN S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
OLIV
E
ST
S AUS
TIN AVE
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
S CO
LLE
G
E
S
T
S MYRTLE ST
E 9 TH S T
E 10TH S T
E 11TH ST
E 1 6 T H S T
WALNUT
ST
E 14TH ST LAUREL ST
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
SOULE DR
W 17TH ST
W 16TH ST
W 9TH ST
W 11TH ST
W 10TH S T
E 17TH ST
GEORG
E ST
W UNIVERSIT Y AVE
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E
RUTERSVILLED R
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
C Y R U S A V E
WALNUT
ST
E 1 7 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T E 16TH ST
E 1 4 TH S T
E 11TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 14TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 17TH STE 17TH ST
2019-16-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 15 of 71
(936) 634-6671 3913 SOUTH CHESTNUT, LUFKIN, TEXAS 75901 FAX (936) 639-6697
TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION # F-2731
March 8, 2019 (Revised May 11, 2019)
Mr. Mark Wolfe
% Division of Architecture
Texas Historical Commission
P.O. Box 12276
Austin, TX 78711-2276
Subject: Restoration of Lane -G. W. Riley House 1302 South College Street, Georgetown TX -
Letter of Intent (Revised)
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Lane – W. G. Riley House
1302 College Street. Georgetown, Texas
Reference is made to our Phase 1 submittal which is dated December 20, 2018 and which was
approved on January 8, 2019. Items number 1 thru 3 of the Phase 1 submittal have been completed
and work to implement the remaining four (4) items began on March 7, 2019.
Page 16 of 71
Lane - G. W. Riley House 1302 South College Street, Georgetown TX - Letter of Intent
(936) 634-6671 3913 SOUTH CHESTNUT, LUFKIN, TEXAS 75901 FAX (936) 639-6697
TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION # F-2731
The subject property is a “Recorded Texas Historic Landmark” described as follows:
One-and a-half-story wood-frame dwelling with central-hall with early rear ell addition; exterior
walls with board and batten; cross gable roof with wood-shingle covering; front elevation faces
east; one exterior and one interior stone chimney, each with corbeled cap; wood-sash double-
hung windows with 4/4 and 6/6 lights; single-door entrance with transom and sidelights; one-story
one-bay porch with shed roof on east elevation; wood posts.
Other noteworthy features include symmetrical three-bay facade; gabled extension with central
doorway rises above center bay; exterior chimney with ashlar-cut stone construction extends from
north gable end of original; interior stone chimney rises from rear ell; rear ell has gabled
extensions--two on north side and one on south side; each gable with 4/4 light windows.
Outbuildings include stone-lined cistern with pyramidal roof covering.
Historical Marker Text
Built 1872 by the Rev. S. J. Lane, chaplain, Southwestern University; founder, First Methodist
church, Georgetown. Bought 1903 by the Rev. George W. Riley (1853-1925), a grandson of Llano
County Indians' 1859 victim, the Rev. Jonas Dancer. G. W. Riley founded or served Methodist
churches in Abilene, Beaumont, Douglassville, Mineral Wells, Tyler, and other towns for 48 years.
He and wife, Beulah G. (Matthews) moved here to educate children; house remains in family.
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark - 1972
The intent of this project is to:
1. Completely restore the street-facing sides of the existing house. Specifically the board and
batten siding and historic windows will be retained, cleaned, repaired and repainted as
recommended by the National Park Service Standards for Rehabilitation.
2. Maintain the appearance of the street-facing East and North sides of the building unchanged
with the exception of two minor modifications (the non-historic shutters will be removed from
the east and south walls and the door above the east porch will be removed and one of the
windows removed from the south wall will be installed in its place as approved by THC).
3. Replace the existing composition roofing on the north and east sides of the house and on
the cistern pyramidal roof covering with cedar shake shingles (as shown on 1959 historic
photographs).
4. Regrade the lot to provide a level pad around the house without disturbing the existing trees
and install storm drainage as required.
5. Completely replace the existing foundation with new pads, piers, beams and floor joists and
rock skirting. The existing center portion of the floor, which is lower than the front and back
area floors will be raised to provide a continuous level floor at approximately 757 feet
elevation.
6. Increase the footprint of the house by approximately 380 square feet, by removing the
southwest wall of the front room and the south wall of the rear ell and building a new wall
from the south wall of the front room to back of the house.
7. The existing windows will be removed and stored. The removed siding will be stored and
then reused to repair the siding on the street facing sides of the house.
Page 17 of 71
G. W. Riley House 1302 South College Street, Georgetown TX - Letter of Intent
(936) 634-6671 3913 SOUTH CHESTNUT, LUFKIN, TEXAS 75901 FAX (936) 639-6697
TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION # F-2731
8. Install new pads, piers, skirting, floor joists, studs, rafters, decking, siding and insulation to
construct the two story addition by adding the two-story wall and changing the roof pitches.
9. Install cedar shake shingles on the steep portions of the new roof and architectural standing
seam roofing on the flatter portion.
10. Install new energy efficient windows and doors equal to Pella Architect Series Traditional
850 with ILT grille pattern on the addition south wall.
11. Install, seal and paint wood clapboard siding, equal to. "1" X 6" D Grade 105", on the south
and west walls of the addition.
12. Restore and paint the existing siding and windows on the west wall and the south wall of the
front room.
13. Remove the existing door on the west wall and install a new patio door equal to Pella
Architect Series Traditional 850 with ILT grille pattern at a location approximately three
feet north of the removed door.
14. Install a “wraparound” porch with a wood deck, square wood posts, limestone skirting and
architectural standing seam roofing (matching the style, slope and color of the roof on the
addition) on the south and west sides of the house.
15. Install a new, north-facing garage with architecture similar to the existing house on the
northwest portion of the property with a gravel driveway
16. Install “picket-style” fencing and gravel walkways.
17. Install site and exterior building accent lighting and landscaping appropriate to the site, using
native plants as much as possible.
The existing board and batten siding will be restored as recommended by the National Park Service
Standards for Rehabilitation by removing unsalvageable materials and replacing them with like or
similar materials to retain the existing appearance. Material removed from the existing south and
west walls will be used to patch the street facing walls. The retained existing windo ws on the
original structure will be restored and painted
The ceiling and floor structure above the east room will be upgraded, using wooden trusses, to
current codes to support the second floor which will lower the ceiling by twelve inches or less. The
existing east porch will be rebuilt and restored.
A second floor with stairs will be added to the west wing of the structure as part of the addition
resulting in an average ceiling height of approximately nine feet. The existing fireplaces will be
retained and repaired and the center fireplace hearth will be raised and modified to match the new
floor elevation. The foundations on both hearths will be rebuilt or repaired
The floor, walls and roof will be insulated and equipped with a vapor barrier. The existing floor
material will be salvaged and reused to the greatest extent practical and new or salvaged wall
materials will installed throughout. The existing light fixtures will be used where possible as will the
existing cabinets.
New HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems will be installed with a new underground electrical
service run to the northwest side of the building. Exterior lighting will be period appropriate. New
kitchen appliances and counters will be install along with three full bathrooms and one half -
bathroom. There will be three bedrooms, a laundry room, a mud room / entry hall and closets.
The well and well roof will be repaired and restored using the same materials.
Page 18 of 71
G. W. Riley House 1302 South College Street, Georgetown TX - Letter of Intent
(936) 634-6671 3913 SOUTH CHESTNUT, LUFKIN, TEXAS 75901 FAX (936) 639-6697
TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION # F-2731
A new, north-facing garage with architecture similar to the existing house will be installed on the
northwest portion of the property. The total slab area is 600 square feet (560 Sq. Ft. interior area)
with an unfinished attic above. The garage is designing to look similar to the main house with 10’
high walls and 12:12 pitch roofs. The garage will be frame construction on a slab-on grade with
“Hardiplank” siding with battens to simulate the board and batten siding on the house. The windows
will be single pane, multi-light simulating the existing windows. Two steel personnel doors with
windows will be installed. The garage doors will be 9’ x 7’ steel panel equal to Amarr Oak Summit
1000 with Stockton windows. The space above the garage will be unfinished and used for storage
and accessed with a pull-down stair. The roof will be constructed similar to the house roof using
cedar shake shingles. The driveway will be gravel topped with SB2 material. A variance in the
setback from the property line which is approximately 15 feet from the curb (30’ setback from the
curb) is requested to avoid damage to historic tree #1080 (Reference UDE Section 8.02.050.B.1)
A variance is requested for a new “picket style” fencing, not to exceed 4 feet in height and with 50
transparency will be installed between the house and the garage and between the garage and
existing high fence and the house and the existing high fence on the south side of the lot. Because
of the size of the lot and the height of the building walls, it is felt that a 3 foot fence would be out of
proportion and would not screen the condensing units or contain pets. Landscaping will be
enhanced in accordance with HARC guidelines.
The garage will be cover approximately 7.2% of the back yard. The impermeable area of the
structures will be approximately 12.61% of the total lot.
Our intent is to preserve the historic character of the house and create a usable two-story
contemporary residence by add a large dormer (gable extension) on the south (non-street facing)
side of the house using materials that clearly distinguish the addition from the historic portion of the
building. The wrap around porch replaces the removed screened-in porch and provides significant
outdoor living space with a minimum impact on the street facing facades.
Attached are the documents for Phase 1 for your reference and the plans for the demolition of
existing facilities and the restoration and construction of the addition, porch and garage. Please let
us know other ways we can save and restore this beautiful building.
The foundation and condition of the lower portions of the siding have been found to be in worse
condition than originally anticipated, but we are working on ways to overcome the existing
conditions. We would appreciate an expedited review (and hopefully approval) of this project so that
we can keep the foundation contractor on the job to install the foundations for the addition and
wrap-around porch.
SINCERELY,
T. L. (Tom) Paxson PE, FNSPE
President
Enclosures: Phase 1 Documents, Demolition Drawings, Renovation Drawings, Garage Drawings
Cc: Madison Thomas, City of Georgetown Historic & Downtown Planner
Page 19 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A2.1
2
A2.1
Page 20 of 71
FFE = 755.83'
FFE = 756.42'
FFE = 756.93'CO
V
E
R
E
D
WO
O
D
PO
R
C
H
WOOD STEPS
SCREENED
PORCH
0.498 AC
PT OF BLOCK 4
THOMAS L. PAXSON &
JANIS ANDERSON-PAXSON
DOC. NO. 2018095092, OPR
ANTENNA
15' BUILDING LINE
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
6' BUILDING LINE
10
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
25' STREET FACING GARAGE
BUILDING LINE
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082 1083
8.
3
'
6.2'
3.
3
'
5.5'2.
4
'
6.5'
32
.
2
'
18.2'
8.
4
'
46.2'
15
.
7
'
45.7'
752
7
5
3
75
2
7
5
4
75
5
75
8
75
9
7
5
7
75
6
7
5
5
75
5
75
2
75
2
S 87° 46' 08" W 180.83'
N
0
2
°
0
1
'
1
7
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
4
'
N 87° 44' 29" E 180.93'
S
0
1
°
5
8
'
2
0
"
E
1
2
0
.
0
3
'
1
:
2.03'
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
/ // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // /
756
SB-Parcel : 1
0.498 AC.
21,703 SQ.FT.
WF
FFE = 755.83'
FFE = 756.42'
FFE = 756.93'CO
V
E
R
E
D
WO
O
D
PO
R
C
H
WOOD STEPS
SCREENED
PORCH
0.498 AC
PT OF BLOCK 4
THOMAS L. PAXSON &
JANIS ANDERSON-PAXSON
DOC. NO. 2018095092, OPR
ANTENNA
15' BUILDING LINE
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
6' BUILDING LINE
10
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
25' STREET FACING GARAGE
BUILDING LINE
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082 1083
8.
3
'
6.2'
3.
3
'
5.5'2.
4
'
6.5'
32
.
2
'
18.2'
8.
4
'
46.2'
15
.
7
'
45.7'
752
7
5
3
75
2
7
5
4
75
5
75
8
75
9
7
5
7
75
6
7
5
5
75
5
75
2
75
2
S 87° 46' 08" W 180.83'
N
0
2
°
0
1
'
1
7
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
4
'
N 87° 44' 29" E 180.93'
S
0
1
°
5
8
'
2
0
"
E
1
2
0
.
0
3
'
1
:
2.03'
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
/ // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // /
756
SB-Parcel : 1
0.498 AC.
21,703 SQ.FT.
WF
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
CS1.1
Page 21 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D1.1
Page 22 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
F1.1
Page 23 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D1.1
Page 24 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D1.2
Page 25 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D1.3
Page 26 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D2.1
1
1
Page 27 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D2.2
1
1
Page 28 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D2.3
1
1
Page 29 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D2.4
1
1
Page 30 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
D3.1
2
D3.1
Page 31 of 71
FFE = 755.83'
FFE = 756.42'
FFE = 756.93'CO
V
E
R
E
D
WO
O
D
PO
R
C
H
WOOD STEPS
SCREENED
PORCH
0.498 AC
PT OF BLOCK 4
THOMAS L. PAXSON &
JANIS ANDERSON-PAXSON
DOC. NO. 2018095092, OPR
ANTENNA
15' BUILDING LINE
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
6' BUILDING LINE
10
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
25' STREET FACING GARAGE
BUILDING LINE
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082 1083
8.
3
'
6.2'
3.
3
'
5.5'2.
4
'
6.5'
32
.
2
'
18.2'
8.
4
'
46.2'
15
.
7
'
45.7'
752
7
5
3
75
2
7
5
4
75
5
75
8
75
9
7
5
7
75
6
7
5
5
75
5
75
4
75
3
75
2
75
2
S 87° 46' 08" W 180.83'
N
0
2
°
0
1
'
1
7
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
4
'
N 87° 44' 29" E 180.93'
S
0
1
°
5
8
'
2
0
"
E
1
2
0
.
0
3
'
1
:
2.03'
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
/ // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // /
/
/
756
WF
FFE = 755.83'
FFE = 756.42'
FFE = 756.93'CO
V
E
R
E
D
WO
O
D
PO
R
C
H
WOOD STEPS
SCREENED
PORCH
0.498 AC
PT OF BLOCK 4
THOMAS L. PAXSON &
JANIS ANDERSON-PAXSON
DOC. NO. 2018095092, OPR
ANTENNA
15' BUILDING LINE
20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
6' BUILDING LINE
10
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
I
N
E
25' STREET FACING GARAGE
BUILDING LINE
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082 1083
8.
3
'
6.2'
3.
3
'
5.5'2.
4
'
6.5'
32
.
2
'
18.2'
8.
4
'
46.2'
15
.
7
'
45.7'
752
7
5
3
75
2
7
5
4
75
5
75
8
75
9
7
5
7
75
6
7
5
5
75
5
75
4
75
3
75
2
75
2
S 87° 46' 08" W 180.83'
N
0
2
°
0
1
'
1
7
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
4
'
N 87° 44' 29" E 180.93'
S
0
1
°
5
8
'
2
0
"
E
1
2
0
.
0
3
'
1
:
2.03'
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
O
H
W
/ // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // /
/
/
756
WF
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
CS1.2
1
1
1
Page 32 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A1.1
Page 33 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A1.2
Page 34 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A1.3
Page 35 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A1.4
Page 36 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A2.1
1
1
1
Page 37 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A2.2
1
1
1
Page 38 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A2.3
1
1
1
Page 39 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A2.4
1
1
1
Page 40 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A4.1
2
A4.1
Page 41 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
3
A4.2
1
A4.2
4
A4.2
2
A4.2
1
1
1
1
1
Page 42 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
1
A4.3
2
A4.3
Page 43 of 71
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
NO
.
DA
T
E
BY
DR
A
W
N
CH
E
C
K
E
D
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
TL
P
TL
P
DA
T
E
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
DA
T
E
E4117
DA
T
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
TL
P
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
03
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
9
3
A4.4
1
A4.4
4
A4.4
2
A4.4
Page 44 of 71
Williamson County
Historical Commission
About
Home
Cemeteries
History
Oral Histories
Links
G. W. Riley House
(also called Lane / Riley House)
Historical Marker
Georgetown, Texas
circa 1872
click on thumbnail image for an enlarged view
1302 College Street
Lane - G. W. Riley House
GPS Coordinates
Latitude: 30.63222 - Longitude: -97.67183
Degrees, Minutes, Seconds
+30°37'55.99", -97°40'18.59"
UTM 14 R - Easting: 627316 - Northing: 3389393
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
Page 45 of 71
Lane-Riley House. 1302 College. One-and a-half-story wood-frame dwelling with central-hall with
early rear ell addition; exterior walls with board and batten; cross gable roof with wood-shingle
covering; front elevation faces east; one exterior and one interior stone chimney, each with corbeled
cap; wood-sash double-hung windows with 4/4 and 6/6 lights; single-door entrance with transom
and sidelights; one-story one-bay porch with shed roof on east elevation; wood posts. Other
noteworthy features include symmetrical three-bay facade; gabled extension with central doorway
rises above center bay; exterior chimney with ashlar-cut stone construction extends from north
gable end of original; interior stone chimney rises from rear ell; rear ell has gabled extensions--two
on north side and one on south side; each gable with 4/4 light windows. Outbuildings include stone-
lined cistern with pyramidal roof covering.
Historical Marker Text
Built 1872 by the Rev. S. J. Lane, chaplain, Southwestern University; founder, First Methodist
church, Georgetown. Bought 1903 by the Rev. George W. Riley (1853-1925), a grandson of Llano
County Indians' 1859 victim, the Rev. Jonas Dancer. G. W. Riley founded or served Methodist
churches in Abilene, Beaumont, Douglassville, Mineral Wells, Tyler, and other towns for 48 years.
He and wife, Beulah G. (Matthews) moved here to educate children; house remains in family.
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark - 1972
Reverend George Washington Riley (G.W. Riley) (1853 - 1925)
Historical narrative by Nancy Mundinger
Daughter of Reverend Jonas Dancer
Mother of Reverend George Washington Riley Wife of William McKendree Riley.
Reverend Riley was born February 24, 1853 at Honey Creek cove and was six years old when
his Grandfather was killed by the Indians. The family abandoned this settlement and moved to
Williamson County and settled near Roundrock. He graduated and later taught at the Greenwood
Masonic Institute in Old Roundrock. At that time, Mr. Davis S. Switzer was head of the institute.
to fought in the Civil War at the age of 16.
Reverend Riley was licensed to preach at the age of 24. He joined the East Texas Conference in
October 1889.
He was a circuit rider often preaching in ranch houses, He organized numerous and built
numerous Methodist churches including Tyler, Douglasville, Beaumont and Mineral Wells - the
first Methodist Church in Abilene. He belonged to several Texas Conferences during his 48 year
ministry.
He died on March 6, 1925; this was a Tuesday and he had preached the day before.
Clementine Dancer Riley (1832-1915)
Historical narrative by Nancy Mundinger
Daughter of Reverend Jonas Dancer
Mother of Reverend George Washington Riley Wife of William McKendree Riley.
Clemontine Dancer Riley was born in Tennessee in 1832. Rode horseback to Texas at the age of
15, and helped her father drive the stock. Her mother and younger children rode in a wagon.
She was married in Austin, a village in 1850, to William McKendree Riley who was born in
Kentucky in 1825. He moved to Texas and fought in the Mexican war. He died at his horse ranch
in 1895. This couple moved with Reverend Dancer and two married daughters , Tennessee Jane
and Matilda, and younger brother, James, to Llano County in 1850. They settled in a community
which they called Honey Creek Cove, 14 miles south of Llano town. They built cabins on the
banks of Honey Creek near a beautiful spring with an enormous boulder beside. Wild game, fish
and Honey was plentiful. Their life pleasant in spite of the fact that Indians were constantly to be
Page 46 of 71
feared and the women folk never went for water without carrying a rifle.
In 1859, Reverend Dancer left the cabin early one morning to meet other settlers to widen a road
that would accommodate buggies. The first such road to be endevored toward the town of Llano.
When the other settlers arrived, they found his tools scattered and his body with seven arrows in
it and he had also been scalped. The Comanche Indians were so fierce that Clementine Riley
and her family moved from Honey Creek to Round Rock.
Clementine Dancer Riley lived in this house in Georgetown from 1908 until she died there in
1915. She is buried at Bear Creek Cemetery in Burnet, Texas along with her husband, William
McKendree Riley.
When Rev. Riley moved his family to Georgetown, Annie Pearl, the eldest daughter, was 16. The
year was 1906. Miss Riley had just graduated from Alexander Colligiate Institute in Jacksonville,
Texas (a Methodist School founded by Dr. Isaac Alexander, a Methodist minister who had ridden
horseback from Virginia after graduation from Emory and Henry).
Alexander Institute later became known de as Lon Morris Junior College. Rev. Riley was
president of the Board of Trustees at Alexander Institute. The faculty members were from
Oberlin, Vanderbilt, Southwester, and the University of Texas.
Buelah Maud Riley, the second child, was 14. She attended The Southwestern Prep School
located in the old three story stone building which was on the site of the present Georgetown
High School.
Susie Blewett, age 12, attended Georgetown Public Schools as did George William Riley, age
10.
When the College Street home was bought in 1908 Rev Riley kept his appointments in other
churches in central Texas coming home when he could. In the summer Mrs. Riley would join him
leaving the girls to keep house and to send their brother to summer school at the University.
Young Riley preferred calf riding on the Yearwood Ranch to school work.
GARDEN, by Nancy Mundinger
The south three quarters of the length of side lot was planted in a garden in the spring and fall.
Rev. Riley planted Irish and sweet potatoes, was beans, black eyed and English peas
(sometimes called saucer peas because they were so difficult to grow, seldom growing more
than a saucer full. Since they had to be planted Christmas week, they often froze.) A favorite after
school snack was a cold biscuit with fresh radishes and onions. Bermuda onions were hung in
bunches from the barn rafters.
Okra, bell peppers, tomatoes, butter beans that were "fence grown, Kentucky Wonders , also
known as poll beans, were planted each season. Kershaw, a long necked sweet vegetable of the
pumpkin family grew on ground vines. Also lady peas a white, black-eyed peas was grown. Mrs.
Riley canned and preserved from peach trees, plum and pear. She was a wonderful cook having
been taught by her mother as she was growing up in Mississippi. She assisted her mother in
preparing large quantities of food for the field hands on their farm where cotton was grown.
Rev. Riley planted several hackberry trees in the yard which he had dug in the woods. A lilac
bush is still blooming each year as is a very large purple crepe myrtle that is still growing,
spreading, and blooming. These came from a plantation about three miles from Cameron, Texas.
A lady called Aunt Lizzie Wilson. lived in a house that is still standing that was built before the
Civil War. She gave these plants to Rev. Riley from her yard in 1908
MUSIC LESSONS, by Nancy Mundinger
Annie Pearl Riley took music lessons at Alexander Institute. having had earlier training in Tyler.
Page 47 of 71
She had a lovely soprano voice always singing with the choir. She played the organ as soon as
her feet barely touched the pedals. Papa would call for the songs he knew she could play at
prayer meeting. He also took her with him to sing at funerals in country churches.
BARN, by Nancy Mundinger
A large frame barn was located on the back of the lot with a buggy shed and stalls for cows and
horses. There was also a fenced cow lot. Their large horses were Prince and Major. In
Georgetown they also had a buggy. Once during a deep snow Papa (Rev Riley) put runners on
the buggy so all of the family could enjoy a country drive. The girls all wore crocheted
fascinators, a crocheted shawl or scarf put overhead and tied under chin, making a beautiful
frame for the face.
The roads were so narrow with trees growing to the edge of the road, great care was needed to
keep the hub of a buggy wheel from scraping. Occasional places were provided in the road for
buggies and wagons to pass.
Finale, by Nancy Mundinger
The children studying was all done by kerosene lamps on pine tables. The eldest graduated with
distinction from Southwestern University elected to the Scholorshio Society being one of seven
out of an enrollment of eight hundred.
The girls slept in the upstairs room led to by a small staircase. Grandma Riley (Clementine
Dancer Riley) and her grandson George slept in a back bedroom. A long hall ran down the center
of the house. Rev. and Mrs. Riley slept in the north room with a fire place and the parlor was on
the south side of the hall, each room being 12x18 feet. The hall itself was 8 feet wide. At 8:30
each evening Grandma would say, "Brother, it is our bedtime" so they would leave the fireside.
Grandma was standing putting on overshoes when she fell and broke her hip at age 83. She died
soon after and was buried at Bear Creek Cemetery in Bertram. Her body was taken there by
train. Her husband and his family is also buried there. Rev. and Mrs. Riley are buried in Dallas at
Grove Hill Cemetery.
view PDF of marker dedication
for more info also view
http://www.georgetown-texas.org/
view more Historical Markers in Georgetown
view view other communities pages
Home | Bylaws | Calendar | Contact | Members | Information Links | Oral Histories
Page 48 of 71
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:1302 College St 2016 Survey ID:124456
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042785Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1872
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: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:1021
ID:657
*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 Lane-Riley House
ID:124456 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.632186 Longitude -97.672139
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 49 of 71
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:1302 College St 2016 Survey ID:124456
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
Well
SouthPhoto Direction
SouthPhoto Direction
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 50 of 71
Page 51 of 71
Page 52 of 71
Page 53 of 71
' -· ,, ,,,..
S"~.e>/.;:-:/""""" 'fie>'
!3th Street ( f»aimetto} pert;
~· ~,.-,<. /,0,,,-,>;I"'. • \ .{n-""§."' ( 'J J J ----l!, ?w~..-r-(;,;,f~'.) \ 'l rrw. fJ .-,,v.-,.t-
~ .£-
1;}>" ~ iS' '¥..# ~tq ,...¢>
0. ~ ...
·•t ... ·~ d .. l~ ,!el,
~~ A,~
~ ~ ..:;f.~"
~ ,,,ffi ~
w,,r
8
I J?L\ l -. ;I'!>-.<.'.. ' ..,
:?!::-'I'; (:;,Ibo@~
~.:;fa' or...~\ .
<(,~., '!>.,~ ,C?i'
';:'\1~\ '~,, \ (,\ ~. ~ _i{\ ,,'b'b . \.. ~ '.ii ~rq~ ,,. ---Iii;~..,.....:::::;;.......,._
'#i.4'"'-
·~
~ ~ ·~1~' ..... < ~ ..... (l>· (i ~· .::'.<. &"" ~ t <!>
-,,,,,,;::_·-~ 11::.
/,()
'.1:-~ "\; ......
": " ,~ ~ ... :i.. .. :.. . cl-' -~ ~&
1.Me e,,:1/~4 W--/
7'-t.-' .. i!Nfo..ry w,,,,.r
p..,.,,.,;;, @4f:-'Zl?'"'
"\!'
t-.t.•
'""«:> y-
r'\ j)i"-" v·
I: .. ,
~~
\'! "'
(I) ... .....
(/)
;. ~ ( ;;-;,, ... J. -/l!l'f.G'} -~~~ -~-.... ------···--;;:;;;;-7 ~ ( ~ /koJ?rJ '-'<W'=!fti>·><.-: M1P.7!8i· i y·~
I &.>· ; g i ~ ..;c j
--I J'.0 cf .·g ! co ~-'bo iil' I --~'~ ~'°'~ ~~ I ~<;i.'1$~f'/.;'1,, . I ~ , Q)
Ol
tl) -v \ .. , ~>if' I ~· ~~ I '?:!<.<ZI' ¥:--
r.:}>"" ');): ~-$ r::,""
fb'\ ~{:;.. ~((, '
0 u
~~· ('; 1§ ·\' ~!..> ~ 9.1
"' ~45 ~· "O 'It'
Mrs. Pearl Riley Whcttley Tract
A Portion of Block 4 of-the Hughes Addition
to the City of Georgetown
Williamson County} Texas
1. po~ ~-83"'<'.L _ Rl:iGll~il
l'ROA=SSI !J\W $UllVSYOR, ~0 H!.ll'l1'$\'
CE!llTil'Y THAT tl'li: A®lll!. l'J.AT COAAli!CTI.. Y
l!<lP~!lliENTS 1'.HE P~ AS Pml'IMltrul .fl\' Ml
OWfHS-GROJmll' SIJR-VlZY PIW'O~!il \llWlm MY
SUPSJll~OO Af4il $1Rl!Ot\ON Ol\l 1'}lf!. i14:M;;
DAY ())" ~~~ _ . ,:.;/?""""4 .-' 0 T1i.E P~O?Ellw Pl.An~ kif €oN m PORREcr' Iii-ID
Tl·IER<! Me NO . 1\!'f'Al!ENi DmCWANC~,
COMJ'~ICT$, SHORTAQES 11>1 AA'.E.1!, OOli!OOJlfl!( tlNE
CONl'UCTS, ENCROACHMOOS, O\IERU\l'P1NG OF.
!'t®tl ~TATEMENT: l HAVE ~ '!'H£ ~ RillURAWCE
AilM$lll/\TlCN's !'U)OO N1'W!l;l MAI' FO!t ~/#¢.tQo ... ,..,.
O!lllmTY, :rexAS, ~NITY NO.. ~:9~ Efl'E01lVI! DATE S]f~_,,.t@ 7 tMilP INOJCATES 111Ar ms .... . . . ........ 111 zone A (Sl'l:CW..fl.OO!Hll\ZARO ~$HOWNON a COJI:,2.0C . Oi'W)twr. =~~~~~~~=i:i.~f~ ~ Al'IDIOR l!l'!M1T\Jllfil. THe1USOH. wn.i.. -ae ~ fflOllJl l't~'Oli! ~1.oop tlAMAGE. !:IN !iAAE ~ GRMll!li. ™-ic:i® ~ . AW Wit.I. OOCUR ol\ml. ~ !:!eG!f!ll' ·!MY 5
lllmllWEP ,f!Y-~ W N~ifl!AAI. ~!!$,-1111~ l'l.OQO
$TJl'rl!MENT SW\U. Nt:l'i' ·Ml!"AT'E Uilllll.rnt ON "l'lllO l>A!l'f G)' "11-ll! ~VM.
~~
IMF'l!OVlalileNTS, 111slll!J! oriwrv
LINES 01~ ROAti$ !II!
P!./\OE, il'XCEPT M
SHOW!~ HEftEl'.lll!,
AND &AID !'l'l.OPE«r.Y
MAS AOOESll 10
ANO F!\OM A
OSPIC/l.TIOO
ftOMJWAV, SX<".f:PT
AS l!l·l0\11/N HSRECXl'L
;:
JOa NO • ..§_ps-Af
Page 54 of 71
' . ~-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DAN MUNDINGER ·
BED\!{} 0.498 of an ll(;fe of land, being a poni011 of Block 4, of the Hughes Addition 1o !be City
of Gc<lrgctown, Tex~IS, (un Umecorded Addition). being that cerll!ln lract of land as conveyed to
Mrs. Pearl Riley Wi1atley !)y deed as reci>rded in Volume 233, Page 48. of lhe Deed Records of
Wi1Jiamson C-01mty, Texas. Surveyed on the ground in tile mouth of August, 2004, under the
supervisim1 of Don H. Bir.oe!I, Registered 'Professional Laud Surveyor, and being more
partlcularly <iesci:il.led a.~ follows;
BEGINNJNG at a l" pipe found at ihe intersection of!he south line -0f 13111 (Palnwlto) Street <lOd
the we.<;t line o.f College Street. marking Ute Nonheas1 corner of the above-referenced Block ·l,
being tbe Northeast corner of the above-referenced Wbudey tract, for tlte 1'1-0rtheast corner
hereof;
THENCE, along the said west line of College Street, being the east line of lhe said Block 4,
S 0° 13' 30" W. 120.0.1 feet 10 a l" pipe fouud marking Jhe Southeast corner of the said Whatley
tract, being the Nonl1easl corner of ~hat certain tr.,;ict ofland as conveyed to Fa:rley W. Snell and
wife, A1ll1 Clarke Snell, by deed as recorded in Vo!.ume 839, Page 11. of the Deed Records of
Williamson County, Texas, for the Southe.as! corner hereof;
THENCE, N 89° 59' 30" W, 180.83 feet 10 an iron pin fo1iml oo the wesl line of the said .Block
4. markfng t:lle South.west corner of the said Whatley tract, being Lbe Northwes.t ~omer of the said
Snen tract, ihe Northeast comer of that certafo tract of laru:l as conveyed to Gus A. Lundblad l:ty
deed as remrded in Voh!me 325, Page 572, of lhe Deed Records of Williamson co,un!y, Texas.
and tlle Sow:heast corner of that certatn o·act {)f lood ai; conveyed to Fil:'(;! United Meiliodist
Church of Geargewwn of record in Volume 1913, Page 532, of the OffJcJal Records of
Wi!Jiamson C'.ounty, Texas, for the Soothwe,st corner bereof;
THENCE, N {)Q ll' 3D'" E, 119.99 feet to an iron pin f<>und on the said soulh line of l3u' Street.
marking the Northwest corner of the said 'BlQCk 4, befog !he N<)rthwe<;t corner of lhe ~aid
WhaUey trai;:t and the Northeast comer of the said Plrsl United Methodist Church of Georgetown
trn<.i, for the Nortlrwest corner hereof;
THENCE. <tloug the said si:.rn!h !:i.ne of 13'" Street, Eas1 iS0.91 feet, to the Place of BEGINNING
and containing 0.49S of an acre ·of Jan<!.
STA TE'. OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WlLUAMSON
}
}
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
•
I, Do:n H • .Bizzell., Registered Profmional I.and Sm:veyor, oo hef'<by certify that this s\lj'Vey was
made on the ground of the property lega:lly described hereon and is cor.rect, alld that there are no
apparent discrepancies, conflkis, o:v.erlapping of imprm-ements, visible utility foies oi mads in
place, except as shown ou the ac.compa,nying pl~ and ttia! said property bas access to and from a
public roadway, to U1e best of my knowledge lllld belief.
To certify ~ell, witness my h~d seal at ~rgetown, Williamson County, Texas, this the
/ iJ day of · . ;lf.t¥$.t:-~. ,,,.,~, 2004, A.D.
20548-ld.doc
li1tl~~~l'l:ro
&1~I1J,11;«t>:f~l3
Page 55 of 71
Page 56 of 71
Page 57 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 1 of 13
Meeting Date: May 23, 2019
File Number: 2019-16-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 1.) residential
alteration, 2.) residential addition, 3.) building height modification of 1-foot from the 15-foot maximum
building height requirement to allow a building height of 16-feet, at the requested 15-foot setback of the
underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C 4.) a 10’ setback
modification along the north property line into the required 25’ setback to allow for a residential structure
(garage) 15’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D;
for the property located at 1302 S. College Street, bearing the legal description of 0.498 ac. Hughes
Addition, Block 4n/pt (2019-16-COA). Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Residential Renovation
Applicant: Pax-Sun Engineering, Inc.
Property Owner: Tom Paxson
Property Address: 1302 S. College St.
Legal Description: 0.498 ac. Hughes Addition, Block 4n/pt
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1909
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: Lane- Riley House
Texas Historical Commission Designation: Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to preserve the existing structure through maintenance and repair on
the existing windows and siding. Additional proposed changes and reviewers are listed below:
Portions of the request are reviewed by HARC per UDC 3.13.010, including:
Street facing additions on a contributing structure (porch 610 sq. ft.)
Garage setback modification ( 10’ modification)
Garage height modification at (1’ modification in height)
Fence height modification (1’ modification)
Page 58 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 2 of 13
Other elements of the request are review by staff per UDC 3.13.010, including:
Non-street facing additions on a contributing structure (379 sq. ft.)
Street facing on a non-contributing structure (new garage)
Roof material restoration (cedar shakes)
Paint changes
Restoring a historic and architectural feature (changing the door to a window on the 2nd floor)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject structure is identified as a Center Passage plan house constructed in 1872. The 2016
Historic Resource Survey identifies it as a high priority structure, and an excellent or rare example of its
type/ style, has significant associations which retains sufficient integrity. There is a significant amount
of research that has been done on this historically significant structure. These supporting documents
are included in the project attachments.
The applicant is proposing to add 379 sq. ft. to the existing 1305 sq. ft. without modifying the overall
building height or original roofline. There will also be a 610 sq. ft. wrap-around porch to the rear of the
existing structure which will be two minimally visible street facing facades. The portion of the porch
visible from S. College St. is approx. 8.5’ in width and setback from the front façade of the historic home
by 21’. The portion of the porch that is visible from E. 13th Street will also be 8.5’ in width and about 2’
from the north façade of the home. The street view will have a shed roof, wooden columns and the same
foundation as the original home. The addition will not add any street facing facades or create any new
visibility of structure or roof from the street. The addition will be significantly smaller than the existing
square footage of the property.
The applicant is also proposing a 600 sq. ft. garage to be built behind the existing structure, facing E.
13th Street. It will have hardie siding with battens, wood windows and cedar shake roof to mimic the
visual appearance of the historic house on the property. The applicant is requesting a modification to the
required 25’ street-facing garage setback requirement. The proposed setback is positioned 15’ from the
property line, to accommodate for the 32” Live Oak that is located directly behind the proposed garage.
The critical root zone of this tree is 16’, approximately the same distance the applicant is requesting to
place the garage from the tree. The Old Town Overlay requires that structures meet the 15’ height at the
prescribed setback. This structure will be 16’ in height at the 15’ setback, 1’ over what the code allows.
This request is to accommodate for the roof design and pitch of the existing historic house. The purpose
is to create a cohesive design across the site.
Fences located in a front yard or a side setback abutting a local or collector-level street are
permitted with the limitation of a 3’ high fence in the Old Town Overlay. The applicant is
requesting to install a 4’ high fence to assist with screening the condensing units and containing
pets.
Page 59 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 3 of 13
The property is Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, which does require proposed changes to be
reviewed by the Texas Historical Commission. They review project to the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards. These standards were used to write the Design Guidelines, however, they are more stringent
from a preservation standpoint. The Texas Historical Commission will review the proposed changes and
provide the applicants with their recommendations. It is important to note, that they cannot enforce any
recommendations or best practices, only the city has the ability to implement regulations.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS
& ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed porch will be
added to a new non-street
facing facade and only a
minimal portion of the porch
will be visible from the street.
The façade to which the porch
is being added is not a primary
façade.
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority
Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character
retained.
Due to special circumstances, a structure’s historic priority
may change over time (because a reduced number of
similar style structures in stable condition still exist within
the district or city, or if unknown historic information
becomes available that adds significance).
Complies
The proposed addition is
minor. The Texas Historical
Commission has also reviewed
the proposed changes and
provided a letter in support,
which is included in the
attached materials.
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that
have occurred to the building.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the
original building, even in subtle ways, such that the
character of the original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and
new structures may help to define an addition.
Complies
The porch is approximately 8.5’
in width on the street facing
facades and will be minimally
visible with the shed roof and
posts. These materials are
compatible and the placement
of the porch and use of a
different roofing material
Page 60 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 4 of 13
The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building, in appearance, detail,
and material.
Even applying a new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-
exterior-additions.htm
identify it as being a new
structure.
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The porch is being added to the
south façade of the home and
will be setback approx. 21’ from
the front façade of the home.
This helps to visually
differentiate it from the original
home.
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented earlier in this chapter.
Partially Complies
The south façade of the house
will include a porch addition.
The materials, including
original windows, removed
from the original structure to
allow for the porch addition,
will be used to repair and
replace the historic materials on
the street-facing facades of the
home. The windows will be
saved for future replacement if
needed.
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a
residential addition would be significantly larger than the
original building, one option is to separate it from the
primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a
smaller connecting structure.
Complies
The porch addition will have
the same foundation and
design for the deck, posts, stairs
and trim as the original
structure.
Page 61 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 5 of 13
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that
of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for
commercial buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original
roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original
roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the
original building.
Complies
The porch roof is shed style,
typical of historic porches. The
original is a simple gabled
CHAPTER 8 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.25 A new fence may be considered in transitional areas with a
residential context.
A fence that defines a front yard should be low to the
ground and “transparent” in nature.
• A front yard fence should not exceed three feet in height.
Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards
and are inappropriate.
Chain link, concrete block, unfaced concrete, plastic, solid
metal panel, fiberglass, plywood, and mesh construction
fences are not appropriate.
− A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard
counterpart may be considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for
fence standards. N/A
Partially Complies
The applicant is requesting 4’
instead of 3’. The change will
still meet the purpose of the
policy, in that the majority of
the guidelines are being met.
The 4’ tall fence would be able
to screen mechanical
equipment for a corner lot with
two street facing sides. The
fence will still define the front
yard and have a transparent
nature.
CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback.
− Align the new non-residential building front at a setback
that is in context with the area properties- N/A
− New residential buildings should meet the minimum front
setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased
setback if the block has historically developed with an
extended setback- N/A
Complies
The porch is added to the south
and west facades.
Page 62 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 6 of 13
Generally, additions should not be added to the front
facing façades.
− Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks. N/A
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be
maintained and respected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining
and protecting historic building materials.
Complies
The materials on the south
façade that will have the new
addition will be used to repair
the existing materials on the
two street-facing facades. They
will repair the windows and
siding pieces that were
identified as being damaged on
the Plans & Renderings.
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not
appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The porch will be made of
wood.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building or period of
significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The addition of the porch will
not damage the existing
historic features.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes
that have occurred to the building.
An addition should be distinguishable from the original
building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of
the original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and
new structures may help to define an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park
Service.
Complies
The porch is approximately 8.5’
in width on the street facing
facades and will be minimally
visible with the shed roof and
posts. It will be setback approx.
20’ from the front façade.
Page 63 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 7 of 13
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from
the front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The porch is being added to the
south façade of the home and
will be setback from the front
façade of the home approx. 21’.
This helps to visually
differentiate it from the original
home.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented in this document.
Partially Complies
The south façade of the house
will include a porch addition.
The materials, including
original windows, removed
from the original structure to
allow for the porch addition,
will be used to repair and
replace the historic materials on
the street-facing facades of the
home. The windows will be
saved for future replacement if
needed.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a
residential addition would be significantly larger than the
original building, one option is to separate it from the
primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a
smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
Complies
The porch addition will have
the same foundation and
design for the deck, posts, stairs
and trim as the original
structure.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-
defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
Complies
The porch is being added to the
south façade of the home and
will be setback from the front
Page 64 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 8 of 13
façade of the home approx. 21’.
This helps to visually
differentiate it from the original
home.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of
the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate
for commercial buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
Complies
The porch roof is shed style,
typical of historic porches. The
original is a simple gabled.
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be
protected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting
architectural features.
Partially Complies
The south façade of the house
will have the addition placed
on it, and these materials will
be used to repair and replace
the historic materials on the
street-facing facades of the
home. The extra windows will
be saved for future replacement
if needed.
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be
avoided.
Addition of a porch may be inappropriate
Complies
The proposed porch is
appropriate and will not
detract from the existing house
or its features.
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be
preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when
additions are proposed.
See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving
individual building elements.
Complies
Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Modification
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness,
per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base
zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District.
2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate
of Appropriateness for a setback exception:
Page 65 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 9 of 13
Approval Criteria
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a
matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed location of the garage
is appropriate as it is being proposed
at the rear of the lot near an existing
curb cut. There are a significant
amount of existing trees around on
the lot which limit the potential
locations. It would not be
appropriate to locate the garage off
of S. College Street, due to the
significant amount of trees between
the structure and the lot line. There is
not sufficient room to place the
garage on the lot between the
property line and the house to
accommodate the 25’ setback. The
proposed location is ideal, however
if the structure were to be pushed
back a tree would have to be
removed. There is a 32” Live Oak
that is located directly behind the
proposed garage. The critical root
zone of this tree is 16’, and the
proposed distance from the structure
to the tree will be approx. 16’ to
accommodate for the critical root
zone.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into
the setback;
Complies
Placing the garage between the south
property line and the house would
require significant grading and
would be impactful to the overall
character of the existing structure.
The garage should not be placed in
the yard between the front of the
house and S. College St. There is no
room on the E. 13th Street side
between the property line and the
house to meet the 25’ setback
requirements. The only feasible
location is between the rear of the
Page 66 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 10 of 13
home and the west (rear) property
line. The structure could be placed
back further, however it would
require a tree to be removed.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property is
located;
Partially Complies
The block is defined by the
properties adjacent to Ash St., E. 14th
Street, S. College Street and E. 13th
Street. There are a few other
accessory structures that are a similar
distance setback from these streets.
There are accessory structures that
are located further into the rear of
the properties behind the existing
homes at 503 and 506 14th Street.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be
set closer to the street than other units within the block;
Partially Complies
The block is defined by the
properties adjacent to Ash St., E. 14th
Street, S. College Street and E. 13th
Street. There are accessory structures
that are a similar distance setback
from these streets, specifically the
two structures located at 1310 S.
College Street. There are also a few
properties with accessory structures
that are located further into the rear
of the properties behind the existing
homes.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure
removed within the past year;
N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure
that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and
encroachment as proposed;
N/A
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure
is significantly larger than the original;
N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
N/A
i. Reserved.
j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
There are a few other properties
along the block that have a two-car
Page 67 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 11 of 13
garage carport of a similar size and
scale.
k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting
their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed location of this
structure will not negatively impact
the adjoining property, which is
parking lot.
l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent
structures; and/or
Complies
The setback from the street property
line of 15’ which would allow the
maintenance of the structure.
m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Complies
The proposed location of the
structure is to retain a safe distance
from the existing trees on the
property.
Additional Criteria for Approval of a Height Modification
HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A
only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved:
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the
Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and
preserved; and
N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and
Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the
Town Square Historic District; and
N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the
Downtown Overlay District.
N/A
Fences located in a front yard or a side setback abutting a local or collector-level street are allowed with
the following limitations:
Page 68 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 12 of 13
1. Fences shall be limited to four feet in height, except in the Old Town
Overlay District where height is limited to three feet.
Does not comply
The proposed
additional fencing is
proposed at 4’. It is only
1’ over what the code
requires.
2. Fences shall be at least 50 percent (50%) transparent. For example, a
wrought iron fence or picket fence that has openings the width of the
picket.
Complies
3. Chainlink fences are prohibited in these locations. Complies
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially
Complies
Seeking
modifications
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
Seeking fence
modification
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
N/A
Page 69 of 71
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-16-COA] – 1302 S. College St. Page 13 of 13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed addition location, proposed materials, height and massing meet the
Design Guidelines. The design respects the historic integrity of the existing building and does not have
a significant visual impact on the historic structure. The proposed garage modification of height and
setback meet the above criteria and work to retain the existing trees on the property as well as create a
cohesive design between the two structures on the site. The proposed fence height of 4’ will not
negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Approval is recommend for all requests.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received one comment in favor of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 4- Historical Information
Exhibit 5- Texas Historical Commission Letter
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 70 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 23, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Updates, C ommissioner ques tions and c omments . S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor
IT E M S UMMARY:
Update on UDC amendments
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager
Page 71 of 71