HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_03.22.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 22, 2018 at 5:30 PM
at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
REVISE D AGENDA
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* 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.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
A Co nsideration of the Minutes from the February 22, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Secretary
B No mination and elec tion of Vice-c hair and S ec retary fo r the 2018 Co mmis s ion. Karen Frost, Rec o rding
Secretary
C Co nsideration and appointment o f Demolitio n Sub committee. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
D Co nsideration and review o f by-laws, inc luding attendance p o licy. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary
E Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
demolition of an ap p ro ximate 340-s q .ft. additio n at the rear o f the res idential s tructure fo r the p ro p erty
loc ated at 1227 Churc h Street, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.2 ac . C o d y Ad d ition, Blo ck 1, Lot 16
Page 1 of 80
(COA-2018-003). Madison Tho mas , AIC P, His toric & Do wntown Planner
F Co nsideration and possible actio n to amend C OA-2018-002 for recons truc tion, alteratio ns and changes to
the existing b uilding lo cated at 1102 S. Aus tin S treet to remove c o nditions pertaining to installation of a
mural on the s outh/s treet facing façade and autho rize staff to wo rk with the ap p licant to s elect an
alternative c o ns is tent with the d es ign guid elines .Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
G Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n the 2016 His toric Res o urc es S urvey Rep o rt and d emo lition proc es s .
So fia Nels on, Planning Direc tor
H Introduction o f res o urc es and materials to the His toric and Arc hitec tural Review Commis s ion. Res ourc es
includ e: Unified Develo p ment Co d e, Do wntown and Old Town Overlay Design Guid elines, His to ric
Res o urc es Survey, and the Do wnto wn Master Plan. Mad is o n Tho mas , AIC P, His toric & Downtown
Planner
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the February 22, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HARC_02.22.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood,
Vice-Chair; Karl Meixsell, Lawrence Romero and Catherine Morales (alternate)
Absent:
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Andreina Davila, Current Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner;
and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:02 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration of the Minutes from the January 25, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Hood, second by Romero to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
setback modifications to an accessory structure located at 1212 Vine St., bearing the legal
description of 0.15 ac., Block 11(PT) out of the Snyder’s Addition.
Waggoner presented the staff report. The applicant has requested approval for two setback
modifications; an approximate 3-foot setback modification from the 6-foot minimum side setback
requirement and an approximate 7-foot setback modification from the 10-foot minimum rear
setback requirement of Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.02.050. The applicant is also
seeking approval for the addition of a front facing façade, created with the placement of the
accessory structure whose south elevation is parallel to the property line along 13th Street. Staff
recommends approval of the application based on the findings given.
Zach Sienkel, owner and applicant, spoke and explained the need for the setback modifications.
Browner asked about the future use needing an engineered foundation. Sienkel stated his intent
was to only use this as a garage and if the use changed, he would have to change the foundation.
He also replied that he would erect a bollard to protect the gas meter that is near the driveway.
Chair Bain opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the hearing.
Motion by Romero to approve the application of COA as submitted. Second by Bohls.
Approved 7 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a COA for the modification of a street-facing façade and a
request for an exception to allow an encroachment of 3-foot 7-inches into the side setback, of a
property located at 1812 Eubank St., bearing the legal description of 0.24 acres, lot 6, block 4 of
Page 4 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
the Eubank Addition – Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to expand their existing historic
home as well as add accessory structures in the rear of the property to allow for more usable
square footage. The applicant proposes to add a front porch to the home’s façade facing Eubank
Street. Additionally, the northeast corner of the home is currently in the side setback, and the
addition of the proposed porch will further encroach into the setback by 3 feet 7 inches. An
exception granted by HARC is needed to allow the proposed porch to encroach into the side
setback.
The addition to the existing structure will be towards the rear of the property. All accessory
structures including the workshop, the pool house and the garage will be located at the rear of the
property and are subject to staff review.
The applicant is also proposing changes to the exterior of the home including the replacement of
exterior (non-historic) siding and the enlargement of the northern most existing window on the
front façade. The exterior of the home is covered with vinyl siding, but the applicant recently
discovered a wood, shiplap like siding that exists underneath the vinyl. The applicant is seeking
to remove all existing siding, including the wooden siding and replace with hardi-siding.
HARC’s review is required for the proposed porch addition, the exception to allow the porch to
encroach into the side setback, removal of the historic wood siding and the alterations to
windows on the street facing façade (from the rear addition and the window enlargement).
Ronald Zarriello, the applicant spoke and explained that they love Georgetown and want
to move here. They want to increase the size of the bungalow and replace the exterior
siding, which was previously replaced by particle board, with hardi-siding. He also
wants to add a front porch to add to the charm of the home. Hood asked him to consider
not extending the porch to obstruct the window, to the right of the front door, and is
concerned about the encroachment being needed. Mr. Zarriello stated he would be happy to
work with staff to rectify this.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
Elaine Zevold, next door neighbor, explained the entire street has these same house location
issues on their lots and they are excited to have the new neighbors. She also has a front porch and
says they appreciate being able to use it.
With no more speakers coming forth, Chair Bain closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Hood to approve this application with the exception of the variance of the
setback modifications for the front porch, which should be redesigned to not fit into
the setbacks. Second by Browner. Approved 7 -0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
replacement of the roof and the addition of new roofing materials for an existing portico located
at 1236 S. Main St., bearing the legal description of 0.16 ac. Morrow Addition, Block B (NE/PT). –
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing portico roof
due to water damage and replace it with a larger, pitched hip roof.
Page 5 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
The current portico was constructed in approximately 1945, shortly after the construction of the
main house. The applicant has provided a written statement documenting their research on the
property to determine the historic significance of the portico. From what was provided, they
believe that the portico was not original to the home, but added at a later date. They provided
blueprints that show existing footers of a large porch that was previously removed before the
portico was constructed.
The design of the flat roofline has resulted in water damage, requiring numerous repairs since
construction. The applicant is seeking to remove the flat roof of the existing portico, and replace it
with a pitched hip roof to eliminate water pooling and intrusion which has caused rot and
damage. The footprint of the proposed roof will also be slightly larger than the existing one, to
provide additional aide with water runoff and protection of the portico structure. The proposed
roof will be plated with copper.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines refer to porches as the prime feature of the
front façade that boast character-defining features and possess historical importance that should
be preserved. The architectural styles of porches differ in scale, materials, height, etc. that
typically correspond with the architectural style of the house. The Downtown Design Guidelines
reinforce the concept of historical significance and integrity with the Basic Preservation Principles
for Georgetown focusing on respecting the historic character of the building, preserving key
character-defining features of the property and repairing deteriorated historic features, and
replacing only those elements that cannot be repaired. The sequence of preservation actions
should be to replace those features beyond repair while designing any new feature to be
compatible.
Because the applicant is requesting to replace the roof, instead of maintaining and repairing the
damaged portions, the proposed portico varies in style and size and therefore does not comply
with the Design Guidelines’ direction to maintain the existing location, shape, details and
columns of the porch. However, it is typical of Colonial Revival homes to have porticos with both
styles of rooflines, flat and pitched. Both styles can be found among historic homes within
Georgetown.
Using materials to match those that have been used historically is the best approach. If a
substitute material is considered, it should be similar in color, design, composition and texture to
the original. Changing to a copper roofing material neither meets the intention of the guidelines
for identifying a substitute material, nor is compatible with the main structure’s roofing material
or with the materials used in the surrounding neighborhood.
The contractor with TA Todd, speaking for the applicant, agrees the copper is not consistent with
the neighborhood and states the applicant is agreeing to go with a standing seam metal material
for the roof. Terri Burke, owner, agreed and is happy to bring a color, gray, from the exiting roof
to the portico. Hood expressed agreement with the metal.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
Liz Weaver, 1221 S. Main Street, spoke and approves of the changes to bring this house and
portico back to its original style.
Motion by Meixsell to approve the application with the standing seam metal roof as discussed.
Page 6 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
Second by Assendorf-Hyde. Approved 7 – 0.
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
reconstruction, alterations and changes to the existing building, and new signage that is
inconsistent with applicable guidelines for the property located at 1102 S. Austin Ave. - Nat
Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report. He explains that legal staff has given direction that was
not part of the original report. Since the publication of the staff report, legal staff has determined
the window covering on the north and south windows should not count against the 50% signage
calculations. The applicant will not use the historic photos of Georgetown as part of the
storefront as originally suggested. They are asking for a review and recommendation of the wall
sign on the south elevation. There is also a revision from the staff report for the location of the
monument sign on the south side of the building.
The applicant is requesting approvals for: the addition of two (2) signs (primary, window) along
University Avenue; the addition of three (3) signs ((primary, 2 x window) along Austin Avenue
(This approval requires an exception to the regulations pertaining to signage within the
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.); the addition of two (2) signs (window), closure of
(1) one (existing) window and addition of a door along 11th Street; the addition of an internally
illuminated monument sign at the driveway along University (This approval requires an
exception to the regulations pertaining to signage within the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.); the modification of the primary entry point along the south elevation; and the
addition of down lighting (gooseneck) along east and south elevations.
This project is more compliant with pedestrian scale than with historic character. Significantly
increasing or decreasing the area of glass. The pedestrian feel is to be enhanced and a blank wall
is to be avoided. The applicant is working with staff on the south facing wall to install a mural to
break up the blank wall.
Staff recommends approval of material selections as presented. Consider placing monument sign
at intersection of Austin Ave/University at the SE corner of the property.
Guideline 9.21 is not currently achieved, applicant is seeking additional information on how to
achieve 9.21. Staff recommends applicant use down lighting (gooseneck) and discourages use of
internal illumination even if applicant can meet Guideline 9.21. Applicant is seeking internal
illumination.
Staff does not support signage along the horizontal face of the drive thru cantilevered canopy on
the west elevation. Staff recommends consideration of hanging signs below the awning for
additional signage opportunities. Examples exist within the district and include Wildfire on
Austin Ave, and State Farm on 8th Street.
The applicant does not consider the “red wall” color to be signage and will be asking HARC to
consider approval. Staff is asking for consideration to revise the corporate color (red walls of
window 1 and window 2) be reduced to meet the 50% requirement. Staff also asks for consideration
of using a white wall color with the red heart banded by white outline. Staff requests the
applicant remove the awning on the southwest corner (west elevation) and add down lighting for
future mural illumination. Staff requests removing the brick inset along the south elevation at the
SW corner to allow a flush surface for the mural.
Page 7 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
Don Pfizer, the applicant, spoke about the building elevations. They did add the change on the
entrance as had been requested by the commission, the awning stayed the same. The mural
agreement is being drafted. He is asking that the building permit be allowed to be released,
instead of waiting for the final agreement of the mural. The window signs have not changed
from the original concept. They are still gray scale with red letters on the north elevation. There
has been an addition of signage on the south and east elevations. He reports that currently there
is 244 square feet of existing signage and they are asking for only 150 square feet.
He is asking for the monument sign at the driveway to be either backlit or to have up lighting.
Staff is recommending only one primary sign on the north façade, 11th Street,
The monument sign is proposed at the driveway, staff wants it on the corner. The material
selection for the entry point on the south elevation, tower element, is agreed upon.
Commissioners asked questions.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
William Harris, 560 E 19th Street, stated Chapter 6 emphasizes the importance of this intersection.
He is concerned about the amount of signs being requested and the loss of the Georgetown
graphics that were being used.
Larry Olsen, 300 E 9th Street, described the history of this building. The church was demolished
and this current building was built as brand new. He thinks the current signage is visual
pollution and supports two primary signs which he thinks is reasonable and an improvement.
He supports backlit signs.
Erin Allen, 705 E. 3rd Street, does not feel this use is a good thing for Georgetown’s image and
does not want a CVS in downtown. Agrees that if it is going to happen, it should have two
primary signs.
With no other speakers coming forth, Chair Bain closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioners offered comments.
Mr. Pfiozer responded to the comments. There was a discussion of the window interior design
and an example of what could be installed was shown. He said the historical photos for the
windows were pulled by CVS but he could take it back to them if the commission requested.
Browner comments he appreciates the applicant adding the 11th Street entrance and is keeping the
same materials on the exterior of the building. He appreciates the applicant working with staff to
stay within the Design Guidelines. Bohls asked if the applicant wants to change their signage
after a year, will they be required to come back to the commission? Waggoner explained that if
the signage is outside the standards of the Design Guidelines, then yes, otherwise it would be
reviewed by staff.
Commissioners discussed possible proposals and approvals. There was concern about the mural
being done outside of the process
Motion by Hood to approve COA-2018-002 as submitted so applicant can move to the
permitting phase, with two primary signs, with modification to the tower and north elevation
to be white with red heart to make a more subtle solution, and use of the secondary sign for
Page 8 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
the southwest entrance as the applicant has shown in their application, using the gooseneck
down lighting. Second by Bohls.
Discussion by the commission. Meixsell was concerned about the two primary signs and thinks
there is too much signage. Hood looks at this application at cleaning up some of the existing
signage. Romero agrees with Hood in regards to reducing the number of signage, but feels that
the window signage will be too much and would like to see the historic photos used again.
Hood amended his motion to include the addition of historic photos on the east (2 windows on
the northeast elevation facing Austin Avenue) and north (2 windows) windows and 11th Street,
not the ones with hearts, if possible. Second by Bohls. 7 – 0.
Vote on original motion, 7 – 0.
G. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design of a mixed use property located at 204 E. 8th St.
Ave - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Bohls recused himself. Morales took his seat. Nelson thanked Commissioner Bohls for his service
to the board.
Nelson opened the case. A copy of the applicable guidelines was given to the commission to help
summarize comments. Waggoner reported that this application has been submitted but staff has
not reviewed it. Waggoner reviewed the previous action taken by HARC for this case and
explained that the applicant is submitting a new design and wants to discuss how it responds
substantially to this denial.
John Readyhough spoke for the new application. He said they stepped it down and set it back off
the front lot line, making a courtyard in the front.
Commissioners offered comments. Questions about the back side. Height at the highest point is
41 feet 6 inches. On Church Street the highest elevation is 37 feet. They are proposing to put the
parking underneath the building, subterranean. They said the brick is really the same color as the
600 Degrees building, but the renderings are distorting the colors.
The bottom floor will probably be restaurants and the two top floors will be office space. There
was a discussion about changing some of the stone on the bottom floors to be brick, but it “felt
like” too much brick. The inside corner piece is just an architectural focal point for the entrance.
They will use dark bronze windows on the second and third floor as a contrast to the first floor
and restaurants. The courtyard concept is appreciated. Concern about back side of the building
being still too large.
They were questioned about meeting with the neighbors and they said it was liked by all that met
with them. Browner thinks this is getting closer to being meaningful, inviting and organic. This
is much better. Commissioners questioned why they were reviewing this concept if it has already
been submitted. Synatschk said they can amend their application if needed. Parking for this
building is different from the previous submission by having one way in and one way out. They
are also now taking advantage of the underground parking to gain more parking, increase the
green space with the courtyard and reduce the mass.
Hood thinks they meet Guideline 13.1. Assendorf-Hyde is concerned about the busyness of the
stone type. The developer suggested looking at the building on Rock Street west facing wall to
get the feel of the rock and brick being used. Hood would like to see a variation from the
Page 9 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
sandstone which he feels can be overpowering. He asks them to consider a stronger contrast.
Nelson asked the commissioners to use the distributed checklist for comparing projects to the
guidelines.
H. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings.
• Next regular HARC Meeting, March 22, 2018
Adjournment
Motion by Romero, second by Maxsiel to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero
Page 10 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Nomination and electio n o f Vic e-chair and Sec retary for the 2018 Commiss io n. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 11 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and ap p o intment of Demolition S ubc o mmittee. Karen Frost, R ec ording Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
A minimum of two members are need ed to s erve o n the Demo lition Subc ommittee, whic h reviews ,
d is cus s es and makes recommend ations to the C o mmis s io n regarding ap p lic ations for d emo lition of
s tructures o n the His to ric Resources Survey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 12 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and review of b y-laws , inc luding attend anc e polic y. Karen F ro s t, R ecording Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Bylaws HARC Backup Material
Page 13 of 80
Page 14 of 80
Page 15 of 80
Page 16 of 80
Page 17 of 80
Page 18 of 80
Page 19 of 80
Page 20 of 80
Page 21 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) fo r the
d emo lition of an approximate 340-sq.ft. addition at the rear of the residential s truc ture for the property
lo cated at 1227 C hurch S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of 0.2 ac. Co dy Additio n, Bloc k 1, Lo t 16
(COA-2018-003). Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His to ric & Downto wn Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The home loc ated 1227 Church S treet, is identified as a low priority s tructure in the City’s 2016 His toric
Resources Surveys Reports (HRS R). The attac hed garage at the rear o f the property, es timated to have
b een b uilt after the ho me was c o nstruc ted, was us ed as a garage and later as a b o nus / laund ry ro o m when
the struc ture was fully enclosed. The garage has incurred a s ignificant amount of water damage due to the
d rainage on the property and b ecaus e the s truc ture was no t rais ed to the s ame finis hed floor elevatio n as
the ho use was . Rehab ilitatio n o f the s tructure wo uld req uire the struc ture to b e rais ed, the ro o fing to be
recons tructed, water s ealing of the exterior, and rewiring based o n current s tand ard s . Ad d itionally, there
ap p ears to be termite d amage o r foundatio n repair needed b as ed on preliminary find ings . T he s tructure was
covered in vinyl s id ing, and had wood s id ing b eneath. The struc ture does no t p o s s es s any s ignificant
architec tural features , nor d o es it represent the work of a spec ific architec t or c rafts man.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the subject
property that are located within City limits were notified of the CoA application (25 notices mailed), and one
(2) signs were posted on-site on March 5, 2018. To date, staff has received zero (0) written comments
regarding demolition from the interested public.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with conditions to salvage the historic materials on the structure, namely the wood
siding. After consideration of the date the addition was built, its lack of historic, and architectural integrity we
do not feel that requiring the creation of a historical archive including archival-quality photo-documentation,
and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished is appropriate.Should
HARC make a motion to approve the request with conditions, staff recommends that the following conditions
be included in the motion:
1) All salvageab le materials shall be id entified and p ro vided to s taff within 30 days of ap p ro val o f the COA.
2) List of s alvageable materials s hall inc lude the metho d in whic h the materials are to be s alvaged .
The o p tions b efo re HARC inc lude:
Approve (as pres ented b y the applic ant, d emolitio n)
Deny (as pres ented by the ap p licant, demolition)
Approve with c ond itions (his toric arc hival do c umentation and /or s alvage)
Page 22 of 80
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The Applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Downto wn and His to ric Planner, and Sofia Nelso n, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HPO Demolition Report Exhibit
Demolition Subcommittee Report & Recommendation Exhibit
His toric Res ources Survey Form - 1227 Church Exhibit
Letter of Intent: Demolition Reques t Exhibit
Page 23 of 80
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-003
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1227 Church St., Georgetown TX 78628
APPLICANT: Matthew MacConnell
Background
The home located 1227 Church Street, is identified as a low priority structure in the City’s 2016
Historic Resources Surveys Reports (HRSR). The attached garage at the rear of the property,
estimated to have been built after the home was constructed, was used as a garage and later as
a bonus/ laundry room when the structure was fully enclosed. The garage has incurred a
significant amount of water damage due to the drainage on the property and because the
structure was not raised to the same finished floor elevation as the house was. Rehabilitation
of the structure would require the structure to be raised, the roofing to be reconstructed, water
sealing of the exterior, and rewiring based on current standards. Additionally, there appears to
be termite damage or foundation repair needed based on preliminary findings. The structure
was covered in vinyl siding, and had wood siding beneath. The structure does not possess any
significant architectural features, nor does it represent the work of a specific architect or
craftsman.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the Certificate of
Appropriateness application (25 notices mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site on
March 5, 2018. To date, staff has not received any public comments.
Findings
This attached garage addition to a low priority structure does not contribute to the significance
of the area. The structure has been modified over time; lacking architectural integrity. The
HARC Demolition Subcommittee including the HPO and Chief Building Official conferred on
February 8, 2018, and found little salvage or relocation value in the structure. The applicant did
offer to reuse the existing wood siding if it were in condition to be salvaged. Staff recommends
approval with conditions to salvage the historic materials on the structure, namely the wood
siding. After consideration of the date the addition was built, its lack of historic, and
architectural integrity we do not feel that requiring the creation of a historical archive including
archival-quality photo-documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or
structure proposed to be demolished is appropriate. Should HARC make a motion to approve
the request with conditions, staff recommends that the following conditions be included in the
motion:
Page 24 of 80
File Number: COA-2017-015
Meeting Date: March 22, 2018
Page 2 of 2
1) All salvageable materials shall be identified and provided to staff within 30 days of approval
of the COA.
2) List of salvageable materials shall include the method in which the materials are to be
salvaged.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Page 25 of 80
Page 26 of 80
Page 27 of 80
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address ZOOK, JEFFREY J, 1227 S CHURCH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6801
Latitude:30.63123 Longitude -97.675391
Addition/Subdivision:S3440 - Cody Addition
WCAD ID:R041539Legal Description (Lot/Block):CODY ADDITION, BLOCK I, LOT 16, ACRES .2
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 28 of 80
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story house with no particular style clad in vinyl siding with an irregular plan, cross-gabled and hipped roof,
attached garage at the rear, and a partial-width, inset porch with a shed roof and single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Siding replaced, windows replaced, garage addition at rear, roofline altered on façade
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Gabled
Vinyl
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 29 of 80
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl windows and siding)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Upon reassessment, due to alterations,
priority has been lowered from the previous
survey.
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:795
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 30 of 80
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1227 Church St 2016 Survey ID:125738
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
EastPhoto Direction
Page 31 of 80
1227 CHURCH ST. REMODEL
To Whom It May Concern:
Owners, Jeff and Lisa Zook purchased this home in 2013 with a dream of moving to
Georgetown. And with their last child heading off to college soon, they are finally
making this dream a reality. We are looking for your help and support in renovating
this home, to allow ample space for their family, while maintaining the character of
the structure.
Siding/Paint:
The house is currently covered in vinyl siding. Upon removal of the existing
vinyl siding, we discovered that the current wood siding is completely covered by
insulation board. We removed a section of the insulation board, to discover that the
underlying wooden siding, in that area, is deteriorated to the point of needing
replacement. We are proposing to leave the existing wood siding and insulation
board, and cover the structure in James Hardie lap siding. Similar to the houses
immediately to the right and left, this product will help to preserve the structure
and character of the house. The house color will be an off-white, Benjamin Moore
Swiss Coffee.
Windows:
The existing single pane windows leak air and water, and result in high
heating and cooling charges. We are proposing to utilize Andersen 100 Series
Single-Hung Windows, with divided glass, to match existing size and location on the
house. A patio door has been added to the master bedroom, on the rear of the
structure, for additional egress, per the homeowners’ request. We will switch to
undivided glass in the rear addition.
Demolition of Attached Garage/New Addition:
To the east, facing Myrtle Street, the structure has an attached single car
garage. Prior to purchase, this portion of the structure had been converted to a
utility space and game room. The current condition of this area is substantially
deteriorated, as the foundation has failed, resulting in water entering the structure
during periods of rain. The flooding has also caused structural damage to the
supporting walls. To repair this portion of the structure correctly, the converted
garage will need to be removed, and proper foundation installed. Due to the costly
nature of this repair, and in an effort to adaptively use the space, we propose to
construct an addition, as opposed to simply rebuilding the garage. As identified in
Section 7 of the Design Guidelines, the addition will be located to the rear of the
structure, and be compatible with the primary building. We will match the existing
roof, siding, and paint to complement the existing structure, but also maintain the
original character of the home.
Page 32 of 80
Due to the close proximity of the existing house to the building set-back, and
non-conforming nature of the proposed addition, we are requesting an exception to
the building height standards. The original plan for the addition was redesigned to
meet the minimum 6’ set back; however, the height to accommodate the second
story will exceed the standards. Our plan is not to overwhelm or detract from the
character of the historic district, but rather to be compatible to the height, scale, and
massing of the neighboring two-story houses, and contribute to the aesthetics of the
area. It is our goal, based on the relationship of this structure to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity, to reinforce and preserve the character of the
historic district.
Floor to Area Ratio: 37.8%
Impervious Cover Ratio: 41.5%
We greatly appreciate your help and consideration, and look forward to working
with you.
Page 33 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to amend COA-2018-002 fo r rec o nstruc tio n, alterations and c hanges to
the exis ting build ing loc ated at 1102 S. Aus tin Street to remo ve cond itions p ertaining to ins tallatio n o f a
mural o n the s o uth/s treet fac ing faç ad e and authorize s taff to work with the applic ant to selec t an alternative
cons is tent with the d es ign guidelines .Nat Waggoner, AICP, Lo ng Range Planning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
On February 22, 2018 the His toric and Arc hitec tural Review Co mmittee (HARC ) approved a Certificate o f
Appropriatenes s (C OA) fo r rec o nstruc tion, alterations and c hanges to the exis ting build ing, and s ignage
that was inc ons is tent with the design guid elines for a property lo cated at 1102 S. Aus tin Avenue. An
element of co ns ideratio n and d is cus s io n was the inc lus ion of a mural on the s outh/s treet facing facade.
Since the app ro val o f the COA, the applic ant has d ecided to not purs ue a mural, given that mutually
agreeable terms have not been reac hed b etween the ap p licant and city.
Action Requested:
Staff is req ues ting HARC autho rize staff to work with the ap p licant to s elec t an alternative c o mp liant
d es ign for the lo c atio n p revious ly anticipated fo r a mural. Optio ns s taff would like to explore with the
ap p licant with the Commission's approval inc lude:
1) a c hange in material,
2) a window that inc ludes histo ric p hoto s (as approved for the no rth-s id e), or
3) s torefront dis play.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, P lanning Directo r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
exhibits Backup Material
Page 34 of 80
NORR, LLC
An Ingenium International Company
150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1300
Detroit, MI 48226
U.S.A
T 313 324 3100
F 313 324 3111
norr.com
February 9, 2018
Planning Department
406 W. Eighth Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 930.3575
Attn: Georgetown Planning Department
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: CVS Georgetown TX
NWC University Ave & Austin Ave
HARC Submittal
The intent of this letter is to address the project scope and identify any deviations from the Design
Guidelines. The existing single story multi-tenant building is located at the intersection of Austin and
University Ave at the northwest corner. The building’s façade has remained largely as is it exists today by
maintaining the existing building materials, glazing locations, and canopies. There are only three alterations
and they are as follows;
1. The addition of sign banding location along Austin and University Avenues which would
complement the existing canopies and significantly minimize the amount of tenant signage. In
total the number of signs are reduced from 12 to 2.
2. The addition of a focal point for entry into the building for the tenant which will occupy the entire
space. A tower will be constructed in close proximity to Austin Ave and the parking lot for easy
access to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The tower will be finished in a complimentary stone
veneer with large amounts of glazing in order to strongly identify the entrance into the building
while allowing natural daylight to enter the building. An entrance (sliding door) facing Austin will
also be added.
3. The addition of a drive-thru window and awning. The drive thru has been strategically located to
allow access off of 11th Street and will support multiple cars lined up at this location in order to
better serve the community. A 6’-0” screen wall has been added at the property line to shield the
adjacent neighbor from any unwanted noise or lights from these vehicles.
The remainder of the building will maintain the color palette as it exists today and all the materials will also
remain in place. There are a couple of locations where some fenestration will need to be removed and a
wall will be constructed to match the adjacent material which are identified on the elevations.
Page 35 of 80
p:\retail\cvs\new stores\jcdt17-0222 - 06894 georgetown tx\200-design\georgetown tx_harc letter 02-09-2018.docx Page 2
The intent of the minor building modifications are to maintain the already constructed facade by minimizing
the changes to the rhythm and fabric of the existing retail building. We believe that these improvements
will maintain or add to the character of this intersection while maintaining conformance to the previous
approved guidelines.
Sincerely,
John Polsinelli NCARB, AIA
Page 36 of 80
755'
755'
755'
7 5 5 '
SITE PLAN
2 OF 2
DEVELOPER:
CONSULTANT:
ARCHITECT OF RECORD
SEAL:
SUITE G-50
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242
PH. (205) 408-3443
1200 CORPORATE DRIVE
NGINEERS, INC.ONSULTINGARLSON
Bartlett, TN 38133
Phone (901) 384-0404
ECC
7068 Ledgestone Commons
Fax (901) 384-0710
Suite 1300
Detroit, MI 48226
www.norr.com
150 W. Jefferson Ave.
ORANGE
DEVELOPMENT
GEORGETOWN, TX
NWC - W. UNIVERSITY AVE. & S. AUSTIN AVE.
STORE NUMBER:6894
PROJECT TYPE: NEW STORE
15,173 SFEXISTING BUILDING
CS PROJECT NUMBER:106713
DEAL TYPE: FEE FOR SERVICE
Page 37 of 80
20 4
FEET8 16 32
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"
EXISTING
5' - 10"
EXISTING
13' - 5"
EXISTING
4' - 9"
EXISTING
4' - 9"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
30
'
-
9
"
NE
W
28
'
-
1
1
"
EXISTING
EXISTING
12' - 6"
EXISTING
12' - 6"
EXISTING
13' - 5"
EXISTING
12' - 9"
EX1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
8'
-
8
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
8'
-
8
"
EXISTING DOWNSPOUTSEXISTING DOWNSPOUT
EX14EX14
EX5
NEW AWNINGS EXISTING CANOPIES
GRAPHIC DISPLAY WALL BEYOND
XP2
NEW DOOR
8' - 9"
4'
-
9
"
WINDOW 1 WINDOW 2
7'
-
8
"
NEW WINDOW
4' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"
NEW RECEIVING DOOR.
WINDOW INFILL TO MATCH
CORNER DETAILS
16
'
-
0
"
EXISTING
13' - 6"
NEW
13' - 6"
WINDOW INFILL TO MATCH
CORNER DETAILS
NEW DOOR
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
8'
-
8
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
8'
-
8
"
EXISTING
NEW DRIVE THRU CANOPY
EXISTING
CANOPY
XP1 XP1GRAPHIC DISPLAY
WALL BEYOND
GRAPHIC DISPLAY
WALL BEYONDXP2XP2
XP2
WINDOW 2WINDOW 1
EX1
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
(BEYOND)
NEW
28' - 11"
NEW CANOPY
EX1EX5
EX5
EXISTING
13' - 6"
EXISTING
13' - 9"
NEW
20' - 7"
EXISTING
73' - 1"
EXISTING
7' - 4"
EXISTING DOWNSPOUT
XP4EX14
NEW AWNINGS
GRAPHIC DISPLAY WALL BEYOND
NEW
AWNING
NEW
AWNING
XP3
XP4
XP3
4' - 9"
WINDOW 1 WINDOW 2
WINDOW 3
12' - 0"
LOCATION OF FUTURE
MURAL BY CITY. EXACT
SIZE TBD.
7' - 8"
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"CVS EGRESS DOOR NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE
XP1 EX9
NEW
28' - 11"
EXISTING
30' - 9"
EXISTING
NEW DRIVE THRU
WINDOW & CANOPY
EX1
NEW LADDER
EXISTING DOWNSPOUT
EXISTING DOWNSPOUT
EXISTING DOWNSPOUT
EX14 EX14EX14
6' - 0"
EX5
NEW AWNING
XP2
XP3 XP3
XP3
10' - 0"
EAST ELEVATION
TOTAL WINDOW AREA = 815 SQ FT.
MAX. SIGNAGE CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN
30% x 815 SQ. FT. OF TOTAL WINDOW AREA ON
ELEVATION = 245 SQ FT
SIGNAGE CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 50%
OF INDIVIDUAL WINDOW
WINDOW 1 = 116 SQ FT.
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 58 SQ FT.
ACTUAL SIGNAGE ON WINDOW = 3 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 2.6%
WINDOW 2 = 116 SQ FT.
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 58 SQ FT.
ACTUAL SIGNAGE ON WINDOW = 3 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 2.6%
TOTAL WINDOW SIGNAGE =
6 SQ FT. < 245 SQ FT.
SOUTH ELEVATION
TOTAL WINDOW AREA = 569 SQ FT.
MAX. SIGNAGE CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN
30% x 569 SQ FT. OF TOTAL WINDOW AREA ON
ELEVATION = 171 SQ FT
SIGNAGE CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 50%
OF INDIVIDUAL WINDOW
WINDOW 1 = 119 SQ FT.
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 59.5 SQ FT.
ACTUAL SIGNAGE ON WINDOW = 3 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 2.6%
WINDOW 2 = 117 SQ FT.
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 58.5 SQ FT.
ACTUAL SIGNAGE ON WINDOW = 3 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 2.6%
WINDOW 3 = 186 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 3 = 41 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 3 = 22%
TOTAL WINDOW SIGNAGE =
47 SQ FT. < 171 SQ FT.
NORTH ELEVATION
TOTAL WINDOW AREA = 325 SQ FT.
MAX. SIGNAGE CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN
30% x 325 SQ. FT. OF TOTAL WINDOW AREA ON
ELEVATION = 97.5 SQ FT
SIGNAGE CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 50%
OF INDIVIDUAL WINDOW
WINDOW 1 = 116 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 23 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 1 = 20%
WINDOW 3 = 116 SQ FT.
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 58 SQ FT.
ACTUAL SIGNAGE ON WINDOW = 3 SQ FT.
SIGNAGE ON WINDOW 2 = 2.6%
TOTAL WINDOW SIGNAGE =
26 SQ FT. < 97.5 SQ FT.
CV
S
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
,
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.
&
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
.
NOTE:
ALL EXISTING BUILDING MATERIALS ARE
EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
NOTE:
FOR ALL SIGNAGE SEE SIGN PACKAGE BY
SIGN VENDOR
EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE
Material:
Mark Material: Manufacturer Material: Description
EX1 NICHIHA STACKED STONE KURASTONE, COLOR: DESERT, FINISH:
TEXTURED, SIZE: 6"H X 25-5/8"L
EX5 RE: SPECIFICATIONS ALUMINUM WITH CLEAR ANODIZED COATING
EX9 RE: SPECIFICAITONS PLASTIC TO MATCH OSHA YELLOW
EX14 RTU SCREENING ENVISOR - CITYSCAPES : SHADOW GRAY - PAN STYLE
XP1 BENJAMIN MOORE PAINT, BM 1001 (4B) NORTH CREEK BROWN, FINISH: SATIN
XP2 PITTSBURGH PAINTS PAINT, EARL GRAY 522-5
XP3 PITTSBURGH PAINTS PAINT, PHOTO GRAY 411-4
XP4 PITTSBURGH PAINTS PAINT, BON BON 426-3
1/8" = 1'-0"D4
1 EAST ELEVATION (AUSTIN AVE.)
1/8" = 1'-0"D4
4 NORTH ELEVATION (11TH ST.)
1/8" = 1'-0"D4
2 SOUTH ELEVATION (UNIVERSITY AVE.)
1/8" = 1'-0"D4
3 WEST ELEVATION (ROCK ST.)
02.16.2018
Page 39 of 80
2
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
ENCLOSURE SECTION
EQ
3'-8"
8'
-
0
"
2
'
-
8
"
1
'
-
0
"
EQ
2"
#4 @ 12"O.C.
EW T&B
#5 @ 24" O.C. DOWELS
#5 @ 24" O.C. - CORES
GROUTED SOLID AT VERT.
REINF. & BELOW GRADE
(4'-0" LIFTS MAX.)
8" CMU TO MATCH
BUILDING
CENTER CONCRETE
CAPSTONE ON FINISHED
WALL & SET IN MORTAR
SETTING BED. FILL JOINTS
WITH SEALANT
HORIZ. JOINT REINF. 16"
O.C. EVERY OTHER
COURSE
8" BOND BEAM
RE: STRUCT
CONCRETE SLAB
RE: STRUCT, TYP
PAVING
RE: CIVIL
PRE-MOLDED JOINT FILLER & SEALANT
2
2 EA 6'-0"± GATES
2"X2'' GALV FRAME W/
METAL GATE W/ SELF
TAPPING SCREWS.
PROVIDE HINGES,
CENTRAL GATE STOPS &
LATCH W/ EYE FOR
PADLOCK
12
'
-
0
"
PROVIDE STL RECEIVER
SLEEVE SET IN CONC
@ CANE BOLT
(4) #5 W/ MATCHING
DOWELS GROUT REINF
CORE EA SIDE (TYP)
12'-0"x14'-0" CONC
APRON
12'-8" CLR
14
'
-
0
"
14'-0"
3"
1'-0"12'-0"
6" THK SEALED CONC
PAD - SEE SITE DWGS
FOR GRADE ELEVS
6"
6"
6" DIA BOLLARD
RE: 4/A10
6"
6"
4'-0" 4'-0"EQEQ
7"
1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE PLAN
CV
S
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
,
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.
&
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
.
02.09.2018
RTU SCREENING SITE LIGHTING DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE
GOOSENECK FIXTURE
Page 40 of 80
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT
CS Project #106713; NEC University Ave & Austin Ave Georgetown, TX
FREESTANDING SIGN
CVS FCO’s LTRS
B5
WALL PLAQUES & ALUM. PANELS
B6
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS DRIVE-THRU FCO’s LTRS
C1
3'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
1'-6"
SIDE A SIDE B
1.77 SQ. FT.
Colonial White,
Placement TBD
2'-0"
1'-6"
3 SQ. FEET
B1
Zone - Downtown overlay - design guidelines to follow & subject for review
Wall allowance -1 sign allowed - Flush mounted only & NTE 1 sq ft for every one ft of linear facade width
Freestanding sign - 1 sign only fpr 1 sq ft per linear foot og primary facade NTE a max of 48 sq ft per sign face & 5' OAH from grade to top of sign
Setback - 5' from ROW
In addition to sign permits applicants in the Downtown Overlay DIistrict must also receive a Certifacte of Compliance for all permittable signage
QTY of signage subject to change upon confirmation by the City
NOTE: Gooseneck lighting preferred per city code
5’-0” from R.O.W.
5’-0” from Property Line
5’
-
0
”
f
r
o
m
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
1.87 SQ. FEET
A1
12’ WHIPS
74.43 SQ. FEET
20
3
/
8
"
33
3
/
4
"
26’-5 9/16”
FACE: 14.76 SqFt.
drive-thru pharmacy
13
"
B
a
s
e
2"
2"
6
1
/
2
"
3’
-
4
”
[
4
0
”
C
V
S
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
]
3’
-
1
0
1
/
2
”
[
4
6
1
/
2
”
M
a
i
n
S
i
g
n
B
o
d
y
]
5’-3/4” [60 3/4” CVS Cabinet]
5’-6 3/4” [66 3/4” Main Sign Body]
12"
Front Elevation Side Elevation
Scale: 1/2” = 1’-0”
35
”
55 3/4”
Electric sweep
to be coordinated
with GC on site at
time of install
B3
B4
68 1/8"
6 SQ. FEET
10 SQ. FEET
Front Canopy Sign Layout
Side Canopy Sign Layout
12
"
5
1
/
4
"
6'-0"
68 1/8"
10'-0"
5
1
/
4
"
12
"
2
1
/
2
"
Page 41 of 80
CS Project #106713; NEC University Ave & Austin Ave Georgetown, TX
Scale: 1/16” = 1’-0”NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
33
3
/
4
"
33
3
/
4
"
26’-5 9/16”
26’-5 9/16”
Page 42 of 80
CS Project #106713; NEC University Ave & Austin Ave Georgetown, TX Page 43 of 80
CS Project #106713; NEC University Ave & Austin Ave Georgetown, TX
1
2
3M 3630-53 CARDINAL RED3
4
drive-thru pharmacy
13
"
B
a
s
e
2"
2"
6
1
/
2
"
3’
-
4
”
[
4
0
”
C
V
S
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
]
3’
-
1
0
1
/
2
”
[
4
6
1
/
2
”
M
a
i
n
S
i
g
n
B
o
d
y
]
5’-3/4” [60 3/4” CVS Cabinet]
5’-6 3/4” [66 3/4” Main Sign Body]
FACE: 14.76 SqFt.
A1 5’-0” Monument
12"
Front Elevation Side Elevation
Scale: 1/2” = 1’-0”
35
”
55 3/4”
Electric sweep
to be coordinated
with GC on site at
time of install
Page 44 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion on the 2016 His to ric Res ources Survey Rep ort and demolitio n p ro cess. Sofia
Nelson, Planning Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
Cox-McLain Enviro nmental Cons ulting, Inc . (C MEC ) was retained b y the City o f Georgetown in
Dec emb er 2015 to c o nduct a Histo ric Resourc es S urvey. T his work included (1) an update of the 1984
and 2007 surveys , and (2) a new survey of res ources cons tructed in 1974 or earlier. The new s urvey was
cond uc ted within an area roughly b o und ed b y Inters tate 35 to the wes t, State Highway 130 to the east, the
City limits to the s o uth, and F arm-to-Market R o ad 971 to the north. The new s urvey, whic h was completed
in 2016, d o cumented a to tal o f 1,676 resourc es .
Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization
Category Count Percent
High 191 11%
Med ium 588 35%
Low 897 54%
Total 1,676 100%
CMEC als o c ategorized the resources within the C ity’s two histo ric o verlays as c o ntrib uting or non-
contributing. All High and Medium priority properties within the overlays are c ons id ered c o ntrib uting
res o urc es . Lo w p rio rity his toric -age res o urc es , no n-his toric age resources, and vac ant lots are cons id ered
non-contributing res ources.
The rep o rt des c rib es the histo ric context o f the c ity, methods that were used to doc ument the resources,
res ults of the s urvey, inc luding an o verview of the s urveyed resources, the mos t c o mmo n architec tural
s tyles and forms , p res ervatio n p rio rities, and d emo litions since the previo us s urvey. Altho ugh the sc o p e o f
the survey was p rimarily limited to d o cumentatio n and categorizatio n o f res o urc es , the c o nsultants mad e
recommend atio ns in regards to future res earc h, doc umentatio n, and designation opportunities.
The full rep ort is attached . The Append ices with the d ata s ets are availab le o n the His toric Res o urc es
Survey web page: http s ://histo ric.georgetown.org/introductio n/histo ric-resourc e-s urvey/. Or d irectly at:
https://rec o rds .georgetown.o rg/weblink/b rows e.as px?d b id =0
A S urvey map s amp le will be s hown at the meeting.
Staff rec o mmend s the Commission make rec ommend ation to Co uncil to adopt the 2016 His toric
Resources Survey Report and data sets .
Action Requested
No actio n is needed. This item is intended as training for new members, informatio nal fo r exis ting
memb ers , and to s tart a disc ussion on demo lition as it relates to the rec ently c o mp leted histo ric res o urc e
s urvey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 45 of 80
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HRS Report 08.01.2017 Backup Material
Page 46 of 80
2016 Historic Resources Survey
City of Georgetown, Texas
DRAFT Report
Submitted August 2017
Prepared by:
8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78737
Page 47 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and Prior Surveys ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 2016 Survey ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 3
2 HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Early Settlement and City Founding (1848–1900) ........................................................................ 4
2.2 Early Twentieth-Century Development (1900–1945) ................................................................... 7
2.3 Mid-Century Development (1945–1965) ...................................................................................... 7
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation ........................................................................................................ 9
3.1.2 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.3 Post-Field Processing .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................. 12
4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Overview of Surveyed Resources ................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Architectural Styles and Forms ................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Bungalow................................................................................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Minimal Traditional ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2.3 Ranch ....................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Preservation Priority ................................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Demolitions ................................................................................................................................. 17
5 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 NRHP Districts and Boundary Expansions ................................................................................... 18
5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts................................................................................................. 18
5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts ..................................................................................................... 19
5.2 High-Priority Properties and Contributing Resources in NRHP Districts .................................... 20
5.3 Local Landmarks and Resources Individually Eligible for the NRHP ........................................... 21
5.4 Future Survey .............................................................................................................................. 23
Page 48 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
iii
5.5 Further Research/ Opportunities ................................................................................................ 23
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources .................................................................................................. 15
Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization .............................................................................................. 17
Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources ............................................................................................. 17
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps
Appendix B: Inventory Table
Appendix C: Inventory Forms
Appendix D: Materials from Mobile Workshop
Page 49 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC) was retained by the City of Georgetown in
December 2015 to conduct a Historic Resources Survey. This work included (1) an update of the
1984 and 2007 surveys, and (2) a new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier. The
new survey was conducted within an area roughly bounded by Interstate 35 to the west, State
Highway 130 to the east, the City limits to the south, and Farm-to-Market Road 971 to the
north (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The new survey, which was completed in 2016,
documented a total of 1,676 resources.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR SURVEYS
The City of Georgetown has partnered with the Texas Historical Commission (THC) on the Main
Street and Certified Local Government (CLG) Programs. The City has also established two
historic zoning overlays: the Downtown Overlay District, created in 1975, and the Old Town
Overlay District, created in 2004. As a CLG member, the City undertakes regular historic
resources surveys to systematically identify and document historic-age buildings, structures,
objects, and districts. The survey inventory is used by the City’s Planning Department to make
informed decisions that support new growth and development while maintaining Georgetown’s
heritage and character.
The City of Georgetown’s first historic resources survey was conducted by Hardy Heck Moore,
Inc. (HHM) in 1984 and included 902 resources constructed prior to 1935. Most resources were
located within the city limits near downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods ; however, a
small number were located outside the city limits within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Each resource was photographed; documented using the THC’s Historic Resources Survey Form;
and assigned a priority of High, Medium, or Low.
In 2007, HHM was retained to conduct the City’s second historic resources survey (HHM 2010).
As part of this survey, all resources documented during the 1984 survey were re-documented,
and all non-residential resources built before 1961 within the then -city limits were
documented. Additionally, Hardy Heck Moore documented representative examples of
domestic resources in subdivisions platted between 1935 and 1965. This sampling approach
was selected because of the large number of residential resources constructed between 1935
and 1965 and because of time and budget constraints. If a subdivision platted after 1935
appeared to have potential eligibility as a historic district, the entire subdivision was
documented (e.g., the Nolen Addition). In the 2007 survey, all resources were documented at
the reconnaissance level except for properties categorized as High priority in 2007, which were
documented with a more detailed form approximating the THC’s Historic Resources Survey
Form. In addition to the 902 resources from the 1984 survey that were resurveyed, 665
resources were surveyed for the first time, for a total of 1,574 resources. Many of the resources
Page 50 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
2
documented in 1984 were found to have been demolished; in these cases, HHM documented
the replacement building or vacant lot.
All previously surveyed and newly surveyed resources were assigned a priority of High,
Medium, or Low, based on the resource’s age; architectural integrity; architectural style, form,
or construction method; or association with patterns in history.
1.2 2016 SURVEY
1.2.1 Survey
CMEC was retained to update the 1984 and 2007 surveys and to conduct a new survey of all
resources constructed in 1974 or earlier located within the survey boundary, an area
encompassing approximately 3,300 parcels (Figure 1 in Appendix A). A High, Medium, or Low
priority was assigned to each resource using the same definitions used in the 2007 survey (see
Section 3.2). The year 1974 was selected as the survey cut-off date, and resources built in 1974
or earlier are, for the purposes of this survey, considered “historic-age.” Per the National Park
Service, resources must be 50 years old or older to be eligible for listing on the NRHP; however,
properties of exceptional importance that are less than 50 years old may be eligible. Generally,
historic resources surveys include resources that are at least 40 to 50 years old. The year 1974
was selected as the cut-off date for the 2016 survey because high-resolution aerial images of
Georgetown are available from this year, and comparison of the historic aerial images with
current aerial images allowed CMEC to determine whether resources are historic-age.
For the 1984 and 2007 survey update, the level of documentation each resource received in the
2016 survey depended on its location within a City overlay, its previous level of documentation,
and whether its priority changed. These varying levels and circumstances of documentation
were established by the City in the request for proposals for the 2016 survey.
• If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984
or 2007 survey AND the priority did not change in 2016, then it was only re-
photographed (hereafter referred to as “Photo Only” properties).
• If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984
or 2007 survey AND the priority changed in 2016, then it was documented with a THC
form (hereafter referred to as “THC Changing Priority” properties). The exception to this
was when the priority changed on a utilitarian secondary building.
• If a resource was within either of the City’s overlays and was not previously documented
with a THC form, it was documented with a THC form in 2016 (hereafter referred to as
“THC Form” properties).
• Resources that had been demolished since they were last surveyed were noted and are
reported separately in Section 4.4. No inventory form was created for these resources.
Page 51 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
3
• For the new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier and that are located
outside the overlays, each historic-age resource within the survey area was documented
at the reconnaissance level (hereafter referred to as “Reconnaissance” properties).
Specifically, one or more photographs were provided of the street-facing façade; the
resource type, style, plan, construction date, and geographic location were recorded;
and a preservation priority was assigned. Ancillary buildings were recorded separately
only if they were notable in terms of size, style, or age. A more detailed description of
the 2016 survey methodology is provided in the Methodology section.
1.2.2 Public Involvement
The City of Georgetown hosted a kick-off meeting for the project in February 2016. Members of
the public were notified, as well as the City’s Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(HARC). CMEC historians presented the goals and proposed methodology for the survey and
invited public input. An email address was established for the project so that members of the
public could submit stories, photographs, and other information.
In April of 2016, the City of Georgetown hosted a mobile workshop to educa te members of the
public about the process of documenting historic resources. The workshop was organized and
staffed by historians from CMEC and was structured as a “classroom” learning session followed
by a field session. Attendees learned how to complete the THC’s survey form and received tips
on spotting alterations and taking digital photographs. After the classroom session, the group
worked together to document a small area in Georgetown. The workshop was intended to
provide the community with valuable skills as well as to promote historic preservation and a
deeper understanding of the importance of local surveys. Materials from the workshop are
included as Appendix D.
Following the review of the draft inventory forms by the City Planning Department, the forms
were posted to the City’s website for review in July 2017. The owners of every property
documented in the survey were mailed letters, which stated their property’s priority; provided
instructions for accessing the forms online; and included an inv itation to the public meeting on
July 13, 2017. On this date, the City hosted a series of meetings. CMEC historians were available
for half-hour appointments during the day to meet one-on-one with members of the public.
Those who made appointments brought in historic photographs and books, shared the history
of their properties, asked questions about the survey and the implications of designation, and
provided more precise information about construction dates and alterations. In the evening,
CMEC historians presented the findings of the survey to the public in Georgetown City Council
chambers. Members of the planning department staff and CMEC historians were available to
answer questions from attendees. The PowerPoint presentation was posted to the City’s
website and shared with local stakeholders. In the weeks following the presentation, members
of the public continued to contact the City and CMEC with additional questions and
information. The public input has been incorporated into this report and the attached forms.
Page 52 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
4
2 HISTORIC CONTEXT
2.1 EARLY SETTLEMENT AND CITY FOUNDING (1848–1900)
The area that is now Williamson County was originally the western part of Milam County, which
was an expansive region with a distant county seat. Wanting a more centralized governm ent, a
group of settlers successfully lobbied the Texas Legislature for a new county separate from
Milam County. Williamson County, named after Robert Williamson, an early political leader and
judge, was established March 13, 1848. At the time, the area had an Anglo population of
approximately 250 settlers who relied primarily on subsistence farming (Odintz 2016; Texas
Historical Commission c. 2000). Williamson County’s first officials were tasked with selecting a
location for the county seat within five miles of the county’s geographic center (Texas Historical
Commission c. 2000). The site was selected after George Glasscock offered to donate 173 acres
for the new city if it was named in his honor (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela
2013).
Georgetown, as it was called, was well-situated on high land at the confluence of the San
Gabriel River’s three branches, with fertile Blackland Prairie to the east that was ideal for
farming, and grasslands to the west that were suitable for ranching (Texas Histo rical
Commission c. 2000; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). It was platted as a 52-
block grid with a public square in the southeastern quadrant. Narrow lots surrounded the
square, creating a commercial center, beyond which lay residential lots (Texas Historical
Commission c. 2000). This design, named the Shelbyville Square, was replicated widely across
the state of Texas because of its simplicity and effectiveness in creating a central focus for the
community (Veselka 2000). On July 4, 1848, just four months after the county was established,
Georgetown’s first lots were sold (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
The population of the city in 1850 was estimated at 2 00 people, and growth was slow for the
next two decades (Texas Almanac c. 2000). Most early buildings were log construction and
temporary in nature, including the first courthouse, which was a one -room building erected in
1849 one block east of the town square (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Williams and
Landon 1976). Supported by the local agricultural and livestock industries, more permanent
commercial buildings constructed of locally sourced limestone began to replace log buildings.
The first such building was a new courthouse, erected in 1857 on the square (Texas Historica l
Commission c. 2000). Though solidly vernacular in design and construction, with its central
location in the square and sturdy walls, the building was nonetheless a symbol of the county’s
stability and potential (Scarbrough 1973). The city’s only early ex pansion occurred in 1854 with
the Glasscock Addition, a residential area located south and east of the original 52 -block grid
(Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Twenty-nine resources dating to the nineteenth century
are extant in this neighborhood.
Page 53 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
5
It its early years, Georgetown’s economy was heavily based in agriculture, with farmers
primarily growing wheat and corn on small farms on the fertile land to the south and east of the
city. Commercial activity centered on the courthouse square, and business es were largely
service-based and reliant on the activity from the courthouse. There were few industrial or
manufacturing businesses at the time (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
The Civil War and Reconstruction years stifled Georgetown’s growth and development, but the
1870s were a turning point for the city (HHM 2010). This change is largely attributed to two
events. The first was the establishment of Southwestern University in 1873, one of the first
institutes of higher education in the region. The university, along with county affairs, proved to
be one of Georgetown’s most stable economic drivers. The second major event from this
period was the arrival of the railroad in Georgetown (HHM 2010).
Williamson County’s first railroad opened in 1876 in the southern part of the county; residents
of Georgetown watched as the communities along the line (e.g. Taylor) boomed while those
communities that were bypassed vanished (Scarbrough 1973). In response, Georgetown’s
leaders quickly organized to establish and finance the construction of the Georgetown Railroad,
which would connect the city to the International and Great Northern Railroad in Round Rock.
Completed in 1878, the route, which is no longer extant in its original location, terminated just
southwest of the business district. The arrival of the railroad improved living conditions and
transformed the economy and appearance of the city (Scarbrough 1973).
With improved access to transportation, Williamson County’s farmers were able to buy farm
machinery and ship crops to larger markets. They began growing cotton, which was a more
lucrative product than corn and wheat. Soon, cotton gins and processing plants sprang up
throughout the county, including Georgetown, and Williamson County was the top cotton
producer in Texas by the 1890s (Scarbrough 1973; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela
2013).
As the county’s cotton industry was developing, so too was its cattle industry (Scarbrough
1973). Many cattle trails crossed Williamson County and fed into la rger trails like the Chisholm
Trail, Western Trail, Dodge City Trail, and Shawnee Trail (Scarbrough 1973). Several routes
passed through Georgetown, including one that ran directly down Brushy Street (now Austin
Avenue). Herds of cattle passed the courthouse and commercial district, with cattlemen
frequently stopping to purchase supplies (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
Moving north, herds crossed the San Gabriel River just west of the current Austin Avenue
bridges (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
As a result of the strong economic growth, the population of Georgetown increased rapidly in
the 1870s, from an estimated 320 people in 1870 to 1,354 in 1880. This pace continued into the
twentieth century, and by 1900, the population was 2,790 (Texas Almanac c. 2000). A flurry of
development activity accompanied this growth.
Page 54 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
6
A new, architect-designed, Italianate-style courthouse was erected in 1878, replacing the
vernacular building from 1857. Hitching posts and sidewalks were installed around the square
in 1881, and these improvements, coupled with the new courthouse’s size, height,
ornamentation, and siting, transformed the appearance of the square (Scarbrough 1973).
Commercial building owners soon began updating and replacing their properties as well. A
review of the city’s early Sanborn maps shows that most of the commercial district’s buildings
were still one-story and wood frame in 1885, though a small number of two -story stone
buildings had been erected by this time (Sanbo rn Map & Publishing Co. 1885). When the next
Sanborn map was published nine years later, the square would have been markedly different in
appearance, as nearly all the frame buildings had been replaced with two-story stone buildings
(Sanborn-Perris Map Co. 1894). Because a greater variety of goods were available via the
railroad, these new buildings were accentuated with materials and embellishments popular
during the time; the buildings were given high-style Italianate and Queen Anne designs
intended to lure customers inside (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Francaviglia 1996). In
addition to the specialty stores and service industries that lined Georgetown’s square, notable
commercial developments of the late-nineteenth century included new planing mills; a brick
and lime kiln; several factories, including an ice factory; and limestone quarries (Georgetown
Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
Residential building activity also increased, and between 1870 and 1910, 13 new residential
additions tripled the size of Georgetown (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The river
provided a barrier to the north and west, so the city grew south and east, and the town square,
which was originally sited in the southeastern quadrant of the city, had become more
centralized (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Many of Georgetown’s most recognizable
and significant commercial and residential buildings date to the period of growth from the
1870s to 1900. Charles S. Belford, a local contractor and lumberman, got his start during this
period, and he quickly gained a reputation for constructing quality buildings in a variety of
popular styles. He would become one of the city’s most prolific early builders, and many of his
buildings are extant today, including a concentration in the Belford National Register Historic
District. C. S. Griffith operated a competing lumber company in town, established in 1894; the
rivalry between the two firms has been credited with elevating the level of craftsmanship of
Georgetown homes (Moore and Hardy 1984). Griffith is believed to have constructed homes at
1002 Ash Street, 1009 Elm Street, and 1216 Main Street (Moore and Hardy 1984). As
Georgetown grew into the twentieth century, a consequence of its building activity was that
many farms that were once on the outskirts of town became enveloped by development and
were often destroyed (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
In all, 151 surveyed resources were constructed prior to 1900 and represent Georgetown’s
earliest patterns of development. The oldest documented resource is the c. 1860 Johnson
Farmstead, a stone I-house on Westinghouse Road, outside of the historic core of the city. The
majority of the pre-1900 resources were constructed in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century.
Page 55 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
7
2.2 EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1900–1945)
Georgetown’s economy stalled at the turn of the century, in part because other communities in
eastern Williamson County along the main railroad routes had established a firm hold on the
cotton industry (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). As Georgetown’s cotton economy
diminished, the population declined slightly between 1910 and 1920 (Texas Almanac c. 2000).
Agriculture was, nonetheless, still an important industry, and it, along with retail businesses,
education, and county government, continued to sustain Georgetown’s economy. Several
notable buildings were constructed in the early 1900s, including Southwestern University’s
Administration Building and Mood Hall and several local school buildings, including a 1923 high
school by Austin-based architects the Page Brothers (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
Most prominent, however, was the erection of the county’s final courthouse, a domed, Beaux
Arts style building completed in 1911 by the Page Brothers. The building replaced the 1878
courthouse and was situated in the center of the courthouse square within a parklike setting.
As the population grew and the city expanded, there was an increased need and demand for
improved infrastructure (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). The first major
improvement occurred in 1892 when iron bridges were erected over the North and South Forks
of the San Gabriel River (Scarbrough 1973). Prior to the construction of these bridges, people
crossed the water by climbing down the banks and walking across log bridges or logs spanning
the width of the river (Scarbrough 1973). City and county roads continued to be rather primitive
and unpaved into the 1930s, when road improvements were financed by the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) program (Scarbrough 2008). After this point, Brushy Street (later
renamed Austin Avenue), which was located along the Meridian Highway/U .S. 81, saw an
increase in automobile-oriented development, including filling stations, restaurants, and motor
courts (HHM 2010; Moore et al. 2016). This street became a primary route through downtown.
By 1940, the population of Georgetown was 3,682 and the county’s population was 41,698.
Most people continued to reside in the eastern portion of the county in the communities along
the railroad (Texas Almanac c. 2000; Odintz 2016). Georgetown and its neighbor, Round Rock,
were small, rural hamlets in comparison (Scarbrough 2008). There are approximately 775
resources documented in the survey dating from 1900 to 1945.
2.3 MID-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1945–1965)
Georgetown’s economy picked back up again in the years following World War II, though at a
steadier pace than in earlier decades (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The county was still
heavily agricultural; however, cotton farming was declining as a result of over -production, soil
depletion, and a boll weevil infestation (Odintz 2016). Agricultural interests diversified as
farmers began growing sorghum and wheat and raising poultry. Traditional livestock rearing
was still common (Odintz 2016). The city’s economy was further supported by Southwestern
University, which embarked on a significant expansion effort in the post -war years, in part to
meet demand from returning soldiers utilizing the GI Bill (HHM 2010). The city also grew in size
Page 56 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
8
in the post-war years, as 14 new subdivisions were added, featuring modern planning principles
with wide streets, uniform setbacks, separation of residential and non-residential uses, and
consistent architectural design. Single-family residences were typically built in the Ranch style
and advertised as having the latest in modern conveniences and design (HHM 2010). Some
neighborhoods were more modest with small lot sizes and Minimal Ranch houses, and others ,
such as Country Club Estates, the Nolen Addition, and East Lynn Additions, were built with
spacious lots and homes.
Despite the post-war development activity, Georgetown was still a small community of 5,218
people in 1960, and the surrounding area continued to be heavily agricultural (Scarbrough
2008; Texas Almanac c. 2000). Two major infrastructure projects would change this, resulting in
a period of explosive growth and development that continues into present day. The first was
the opening of I-35 just west of Georgetown’s business district in 1965. This meant that, for the
first time, downtown Georgetown was no longer situated on a preeminent north -south artery.
Development activity quickly shifted toward the interchanges of the new highway and away
from Austin Avenue and U.S. 81. This was intensified in the following years, when plans were
made to construct a dam over the San Gabriel River to prevent flooding and secure a water
supply for the cities of Georgetown and Round Rock (Scarbrough 2008). The dam, completed in
1979, created Lake Georgetown, a reservoir west of I-35. The surrounding ranch land was
quickly tapped by investors for the development of new subdivisions, who marketed the idyllic
setting with easy access to I-35 and Austin, which, without today’s traffic, was just a short 25-
minute commute. In the years leading up to the dam’s completion, approximately 4,000 acres
just west of I-35 changed hands from ranchers to developers (Scarbrough 2008). Georgetown
and Round Rock, which is also along I-35 to the south, were suddenly popular bedroom
communities. For the first time in its history, the population of Williamson County was shifting
west.
Georgetown’s historic commercial district and Austin Avenue’s automobile-oriented businesses
suffered from the new competition to the west and the improved access to all Austin had to
offer. Storefronts were often shuttered but, remarkably, very few buildings were destroyed
(HHM 2010). The exception to this occurred in the “Ridge,” a predominantly low-income,
minority neighborhood located in the area roughly bounded by 19th Street to the south, the
historic business district to the east, and the San Gabriel River’s South Branch to the west and
north (The Williamson County Sun 1967a). Here, the city initiated a federally fun ded, 152-acre
urban renewal effort, coined the “South San Gabriel Urban Renewal Project,” intended to clear
and rehabilitate sub-standard housing, redevelop the area for residential purposes, improve
streets and utilities, and develop parks and recreation areas (The Williamson County Sun
1967b). The result was widespread demolition and relocation of the Ridge community starting
in the late 1960s (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Though a number of new buildings
were erected and streets and infrastructu re improved, many projects never came to fruition, as
evidenced by the number of block-sized parking lots that fill the space today. A related project
documented in the 2007 and 2016 surveys is the Stonehaven Apartments development,
Page 57 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
9
operated by the Georgetown Housing Authority. This housing development was built with the
goal of housing residents who were displaced by urban renewal (Williamson County Sun 1970).
Residential, commercial, and industrial growth continued at a rapid pace after 1960 and into
the 1970s and 1980s (Scarbrough 2010). Starting in 1982, Georgetown embarked on another
transformative urban planning and economic development initiative. This time, through
participation in the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program, the goal was
to preserve and revitalize the city’s historic downtown, which sat shuttered and dilapidated,
but largely intact (McKnight 2002). The city’s financial institutions offered low-interest loans to
rehabilitate the district’s Victorian buildings, and within two years more than half the
commercial district had undergone restoration projects. Infrastructure improvements followed,
and soon businesses began filling the storefronts (McKnight 2002). In 2005 and 2006, the
courthouse underwent a significant restoration, bringing it back in appearance to its original
design (Texas Historical Commission c. 2006). Today, Georgetown’s square is once again a lively
commercial center with a distinct sense of history.
Georgetown’s population grew from 5,218 people in 1960, prior to the construction of I-35 and
the dam, to 9,468 by 1980, and explosive growth continued into the twenty-first century as the
Austin metro region expanded to the north (Texas Almanac c. 2000). With a population of
63,716 in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Georgetown was the fastest growing
city in the country with a population of 50,000 or more (United States Census Bureau 2016).
There are approximately 604 resources dating from the 1945 to 1965 time period documented
in the survey. These properties are primarily residential resources, most commonly executed in
the Ranch and Minimal Traditional style/form.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The following section describes the methodology used for field survey and property
evaluations. Field survey methods included preparations before conducting survey work, on-
the-ground fieldwork activities, and post-field processing.
3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation
3.1.1.1 Previous Survey Data Review and Analysis
CMEC was provided with a copy of the 1984 and 2007 surveys. For the 1984 survey, CMEC
scanned in copies of the paper survey forms as well as the photograph negatives. The scanned
PDF forms were optimized using text-recognition software to make the documents searchable.
From the 2007 survey, CMEC was provided with a copy of the survey report (including inventory
forms), a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet summarizing the results of the survey, and GIS data
points. CMEC mapped the location of the surveyed resources from 2007 and joined each
Page 58 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
10
surveyed property to parcel-based Williamson County Appraisal District data. The location of
resources surveyed in 2007 was corrected when necessary.
3.1.1.2 Aerial Imagery Review
Next, CMEC obtained a high-resolution aerial image from 1974, the cut-off year for the survey.
By comparing the 1974 image to current aerial photograph y as well as examining select
properties using Google StreetView, CMEC attempted to determine whether the same
building(s) present today were present in 1974, indicating a historic -age resource. For
properties where tree cover obscured development, or there were other uncertainties, the
resource was flagged for review in the field.
3.1.1.3 Categorization and Field Map Creation
A CMEC identification number (ID) was assigned to every previously surveyed parcel and all
parcels within the survey area. CMEC historians completed an analysis for every parcel in the
survey boundary to determine:
• Whether the resource had been surveyed before;
• Whether the resource was historic age (some properties proved to have been
erroneously categorized as historic age in a previous survey);
• The level of documentation from previous surveys (THC form or not); and
• Whether the resource was located in either of the local overlay districts.
Based on this information, each property was assigned to one of three levels of documentation
1) a new photograph, 2) a Reconnaissance-level documentation form, or 3) a THC-level
documentation form. The field maps were keyed appropriately based on the needed
documentation type for each property. Resources outside of the 2016 survey boundary that
had been recorded in previous surveys were documented in 2016 with photograph updates
only, unless the property was changing priority (in which case the resource was documented
with a THC form).
3.1.1.4 Tablet Form Design
Before conducting fieldwork, CMEC and teaming partner SWCA created a custom tablet-based
data collection form that included fields from the THC form. This form was loaded on to tablets
for field data collection.
3.1.2 Field Survey
A team of professionals from CMEC and SWCA, led by Principal Investigators Emily Reed and
Heather Goodson, conducted the field survey. Fieldwork for the resources within the survey
area was conducted in the spring and summer of 2016, and fieldwork for the resources outside
the survey area was conducted in November 2016 and January 2017.
Page 59 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
11
At least one photograph of each resource’s street-facing façade was taken, except when limited
by right-of-entry or obscuring vegetation. When visible from the right-of-way, outbuildings
(garages, shed, etc.) were also photographed. Photographs taken with the tablets were
automatically linked to the resource’s record.
The amount of data collected in the field for each resource varied depending on whether it was
a THC Form, Reconnaissance, or Photo Only property. For THC Form properties, structural and
material information was recorded, as well as property type, use, style, plan, and any visible
alterations to the exterior. For Reconnaissance properties, type, style, and plan were
documented. For Photo Only resources, no additional data was collected in the field; if a review
of the photographs indicated that recent alterations might warrant a change in priority, and
therefore THC Form documentation, the resource was revisited.
Secondary buildings were documented in the 2016 survey with a separate inventory form if
they were previously documented in a separate record on the 1984 or 2007 surveys . For all
newly surveyed parcels, secondary buildings were documented separately only if they were
more substantial buildings, such as a carriage house, barn, or a stylized detached garage, for
example. A commonplace detached garage or shed would be photographed when visible from
the right-of-way, and the photo was included in the record of the primary building. When a
parcel included more than one resource and each resource was documented with an individual
inventory form, an alphabetical character was appended to the CMEC ID. For example, the main
house and freestanding carriage house on parcel number 55555 would be designated as
55555A, and 55555B, respectively.
Parcels flagged for further review based on the aerial imagery analysis were evaluated in the
field. Parcels that appeared to be vacant lots or to contain post-1974 development were noted
as such and were not photo-documented. Notes were also made regarding information
obtained from neighbors and members of the public encountered during the survey, including
construction dates for buildings and neighborhood history.
3.1.3 Post-Field Processing
After fieldwork was complete, a qualified architectural historian reviewed the collected data for
each record for accuracy and completeness, and one or more photographs was selected for
each resource. Historical information was added to records where relevant. For resources being
recorded with a THC Form, a brief architectural description was written during the post -field
processing period.
To determine the existence of alterations, historians primarily relied on professional judgment,
as well as Google Street View, Google Earth imagery, and comparison to previous survey photos
and descriptions. For year built dates, Sanborn maps, online building improvement data from
the Williamson Central Appraisal District, and notes from previous surveys were used to
supplement professional judgment.
Page 60 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
12
In consideration of integrity and historical associations, each resource was assigned a 2016
survey priority of High, Medium, or Low (based on the definitions outlined in Section 3.2). For
resources that did not clearly fall into one category, h istorians discussed the priority with each
other and, where needed, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer. For resources that were
previously surveyed, the 2007 and 1984 survey IDs and priorities were inserted into the 2016
survey form for reference. The source of this data was an Excel spreadsheet from the 2007
survey, which was provided to CMEC by the City of Georgetown .
To provide a more complete record for Photo Only properties, which were only to be
documented with a photograph and a preservation priority in 2016, CMEC inserted 2007 survey
data into the 2016 record, including the plan, style, and year built. The 2007 year built data was
reviewed for accuracy and updated where applicable.
Draft survey records were prepared for review by Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Officer,
and, later, for public review. Owners of surveyed resources were notified of the survey via mail
and invited to discuss the findings in a series of meetings on July 13, 2017. During these
meetings, members of the public had the opportunity to provide additional information about
surveyed properties. Records were updated to reflect any new information, and the
information was confirmed via research where possible.
3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The 1984 and 2007 survey assigned High, Medium, and Low priorities to each property. No
documentation was identified defining these categories for the 1984 survey. The definitions of
these categories included in the 2007 survey (and repeated in the scope for the 2016 survey)
are provided below.
LOW
Properties categorized as LOW are neither individually eligible for listing in the
NRHP nor potentially contributing resources within a historic district. Resources
of historic age were considered LOW priority if they could not be associated with
a significant architectural style, building form, construction method, or trend in
local history. Also, resources of historic age that had been severely altered to the
extent that their architectural and historic associations were no longer
understandable, or that new alterations overwhelmed the visual interpretation of
the original or historic appearance, were assigned a LOW priority.
MEDIUM
Resources assigned a MEDIUM preservation priority do not possess sufficient
architectural or historical significance to be individually eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, they would likely be a
contributing resource if located within a historic district that is eligible for the
NRHP. MEDIUM priority properties are valuable resources that add to the area's
overall character and contribute moderately to an understanding of local history or
broader historical patterns. Some MEDIUM priority resources are typical
Page 61 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
13
examples of common building forms or architectural styles from the late-
nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, such as the folk Victorian- style
L-plan house or the Craftsman bungalow. The category of MEDIUM priority may
also encompass significant properties that have experienced deterioration or have
undergone moderate alterations that detract from their integrity.
HIGH
HIGH priority properties are either eligible for listing in the NRHP or designation
as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), or have previously been listed
in the NRHP or are designated as an RTHL. These resources are good examples
of architecture, engineering, or crafted design. They retain a high degree of their
original contextual and architectural integrity and, if altered, changes are in
keeping with original design, scale, and workmanship. These properties contribute
significantly to local history or broader historical patterns and are considered to be
the most significant resources within the city. Some properties in the HIGH
category are notable because they represent noteworthy examples of a common
local building form, architectural style, or plan type that exhibits particularly
exceptional craftsmanship or design qualities. Others are among the city's oldest
properties and may be missing certain architectural element and/or have been
subject to a moderate amount of changes; nonetheless, because of their age, they
are still significant within a local context. A number of properties with HIGH
ratings remain as excellent examples of relatively rare vernacular/folk
architectural forms that represent Georgetown's early development.
In accordance with the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Georgetown for the current
project and the agreed-upon scope, CMEC also utilized the same priority definitions for the
2016 survey. CMEC historians considered both significance and integrity when assigning the
preservation category. A priority justification statement was also provided for every resource
on the inventory form (for example “lacks integrity,” or “lacks integrity and significance”).
For properties that had been previously surveyed, CMEC considered whether the previous
preservation priority should be changed. Changes in priority in 2016 were primarily attributed
to alterations made since the time of the 2007 survey that had diminished the integrity of the
structure. Some properties were also upgraded in priority based on a reconsideration of
significance allowed by almost a decade of perspective since the prior survey. For example,
several Ranch style resources were upgraded from Low priority in 2007 to Medium priority in
2016 if the resources retained integrity and contributed to the character of the neighborhood.
CMEC also noted that the practice of the 2007 surveyors seemed to have been to assign the
same preservation priority to all resources on a parcel when more than one resource was
present. This resulted in garage buildings being assigned a High priority if the garage was on the
same parcel as a High priority residence. In collaboration with the City of Georgetown Historic
Preservation Officer, CMEC historians proposed providing individualized preservation priorities
Page 62 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
14
for each resource on a property. As a result, several previously surveyed ancillary buildings
changed priority based on the individualized approach.
CMEC also categorized the resources within the City’s two historic overlays as contributing or
non-contributing. All High and Medium priority properties within the overlays are considered
contributing resources. Low priority historic-age resources, non-historic age resources, and
vacant lots are considered non-contributing resources.
4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
The following section discusses the results of the survey, including an overview of the surveyed
resources, the most common architectural styles and forms, preservation priorities, and
demolitions since the previous survey. An inventory table of all surveyed resources is included
in Appendix B, and individual inventory forms for resources are provided in Appendix C.
4.1 OVERVIEW OF SURVEYED RESOURCES
In total, 1,676 resources were documented during the 2016 survey and assigned a preservation
priority. This includes 1,660 buildings, 13 structures, 2 objects, and 1 site. Most buildings are
single-family homes or commercial buildings. Other building types include educational,
municipal, religious, agricultural, and municipal. Documented structures include bridges, dams,
a water tower, etc.; objects include a statue and a memorial; and the site is an archeological
ruin.
Within the survey area, 1,762 parcels were not documented because they do not have historic-
age resources or are vacant lots. Additionally, 144 resources that were documented in 2007 as
not historic age were not documented in the 2016 survey. CMEC historians surmised that these
resources were documented in 2007 because a resource had been documented in that location
during the 1984 survey but was no longer extant in 2007. These resources were coded as
“NH07” properties in the 2016 survey and were not photographed or assigned a prio rity
because they are not historic age. Forty-five resources that were documented during the 2007
survey with a historic-age year-built date were determined by CMEC historians to be not
historic-age (built in 1975 or later). These resources, which are coded “Photo Only (E07),” were
documented as Photo Only properties at the request of the City, but were not assigned a
preservation priority because they are not historic age.
Fifteen historic-age resources were not recorded because they are not visible from the right-of-
way or are too obscured by foliage to evaluate; 9 of these had been documented previously.
Additionally, 6 previously surveyed cemeteries were re-photographed in 2016 but not assigned
priorities because no historic-age buildings or structures are present.
Page 63 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
15
Finally, as further described in Section 4.4, 66 previously documented resources have been
demolished since they were last surveyed. An additional 14 resources documented during the
previous surveys either did not have accurate geographic data and could not be located, or the
resources were believed to have been demolished, but demolition could not be confirmed from
aerial photographs. These resources are listed as “Possible demolitions” in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources
Category Count
Priority Assigned 1,676
Buildings 1,660
Structures 13
Objects 2
Site 1
Priority Not Assigned 2,052
Not historic-age / vacant parcels 1,762
Previously surveyed, acknowledged in 2007 as not historic-age 144
Previously surveyed, but determined in 2016 to be not historic-age 45
Not visible from right-of-way 15
Cemeteries 6
Demolitions 66
Possible demolitions 14
4.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND FORMS
This section pertains to residential buildings, as the vast majority of the recorded resources
were single-family homes. Each historic-age property in the district was categorized based on
form and style, using the categories provided on the THC form. The THC Historic Resources
Survey Manual was utilized, as well as the following sources: Common Houses in America’s
Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley (Jakle et al. 1989) and A Field Guide
to American Houses (McAlester 2015). The most common forms and types observed in the
district are described below.
4.2.1 Bungalow
The term “bungalow” has been used to
describe small, single or one-and-a-half
story dwellings with moderately irregular
floorplans, overhanging eaves, and
prominent porches. Bungalows may have
front-gabled, side-gabled, cross-gabled,
or hipped roofs and almost always have
either full or partial width porches. The
Craftsman style is often applied to this
form; characteristic features of this style
include decorative beams or braces A front-gabled Craftsman Bungalow on Ash Street
Page 64 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
16
under gables, exposed rafter tails, battered columns and piers for porch supports, and gr ouped
windows.
The bungalow was the dominant form for houses built in the US between the turn of the
twentieth century and the 1920s. This form was popularized in Southern California and may
have originated in India in the nineteenth century. The bungalow appeared in Georgetown after
World War I and remained a popular style into the 1950s. In all, 76 bungalow-plan buildings
were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.2.2 Minimal Traditional
The “Minimal Traditional” house form
was developed beginning in the mid-
1930s as a response to changes in the
housing market due to the Great
Depression. The Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) was established
in 1934 and provided low-interest
mortgages. In order to protect their
investment, the FHA provided
guidelines for effective house designs.
The efficient designs also meant that
these houses could be constructed
rapidly to meet demand from returning World War II veterans. Minimal Traditional houses are
characterized by their compact form and minimal architectural detailing. Identifying features
include a low or moderately pitched roof, one-story height, and eaves with little or no
overhang. In all, 100 Minimal Traditional residences were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.2.3 Ranch
Following World War II, the
Ranch form became popular
nationwide. The Ranch form
was developed in Southern
California in the mid-1930s
and was one of the small
house types built under FHA
financing guidelines in the
1940s (McAlester 2015). As
the FHA guidelines became
more flexible after World War
II, the Ranch gained increasing popularity. It is characterized by a horizontal one -story shape
and low-pitched roof, with the front entry typically located off -center. A garage is often
attached to the main façade. Many different types and sizes of wind ows are found on Ranch
Ranch house on E. 6th Street
Minimal Traditional house on Hutto Rd
Page 65 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
17
houses, including windows manufactured in standard sizes using production methods
developed during the war. Entries are almost always recessed, either into the front façade or
under a porch. Porch supports, if present, are often simple wood posts or wrought iron. Early
smaller examples of the Ranch form may be referred to as Minimal Ranch and generally lack a
broad overhanging roof and other elaborations (Jakle 1989; McAlester 2015). In all, 441 Ranch
style buildings were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.3 PRESERVATION PRIORITY
The City of Georgetown requested that the documented resources be categorized as High,
Medium, or Low priority, as defined in Section 3.2. Table 2 below summarizes the
recommended categorization of historic-age resources.
Over 200 resources documented during the 2016 survey had a priority change since the last
time they were surveyed. As noted in Section 3.2, in most instances a resource was
downgraded because of recent alterations to the exterior. In other cases, the resource was
upgraded in priority because of a better understanding of the history or significance of a
building, or because a building had been restored since the last survey.
4.4 DEMOLITIONS
The 2007 survey identified 163 resources that had been demolished between 1984 and 2007.
The 2016 survey identified 66 resources that had been demolished between 2007 and 2016.
Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources
2007 Preservation Priority Count Percent
High 2 3%
Medium 29 44%
Low 32 48%
Not Assigned 3 5%
Total 66 100%
Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization
Category Count Percent
High 191 11%
Medium 588 35%
Low 897 54%
Total 1,676 100%
Page 66 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
18
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the scope of this survey was primarily limited to documentation and categorization of
resources, future research, documentation, and designation opportunities abound.
5.1 NRHP DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS
5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts
Consider a boundary expansion of the currently NRHP-listed University Avenue—Elm Street
Historic District.
The City of Georgetown has four National Register Historic Districts: Williamson County
Courthouse Historic District, University Avenue—Elm Street Historic District, Belford Historic
District, and Olive Street Historic District. With the exception of Olive Street, which was listed in
2013, all of the districts were listed in the 1970s and 1980s. In the decades since their listing,
the properties within the districts have been modified, and the settings around the districts
have changed. Additional properties have also become historic-age, potentially justifying an
expanded period of significance and/or boundary.
CMEC historians reviewed the current NRHP boundaries, as well as the properties in the vicinity
of these districts that are currently outside of the NHRP boundaries. CMEC also reviewed the
recommendations in the survey report for the 2007 survey by HHM. In the areas surrounding
the Williamson County Courthouse, Belford, and Olive Street Districts, CMEC did not observe
significant concentrations of intact, historic-age resources to justify an expansion of these
districts.
The University Avenue—Elm Street District, however, appears to have potential for a boundary
increase, as was also noted following the 2007 survey. At the time it was listed (1979), the
district was centered around five high-style residences built between 1889 and 1900 with
Queen Anne, Eastlake, and Georgian Revival styles. The district includes properties on Myrtle
Street that are currently considered non-contributing. The Booty-McAden House was destroyed
by fire in 2006 and was reconstructed in 2009. Although this resource may no longer be
considered contributing to the district, the other contributing resources retain integrity. A
review of the surrounding area indicated that there are several High and Medium priority
properties in the blocks to the southeast that date to the early twentieth century. The Medium
priority properties on Myrtle Street within the current district that are currently categorized as
non-contributing to the NRHP district should also be re-evaluated for potential contributing
status. The area of the potential boundary increase is depicted o n Figure 2, although additional
research would be required to confirm the boundary and contributing/non-contributing
resources. The area of proposed expansion is smaller than that recommended following the
2007 survey, based on professional evaluation of the integrity and cohesiveness of the
surrounding architectural fabric.
Page 67 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
19
5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts
Consider listing the Blue Hole Recreation Area in the NRHP
The study area was also evaluated for the potential for additional NRHP eligible districts,
including those areas recommended for further study by the 2007 survey. Although CMEC
historians did not find that any of those areas (Forest Street or Nolen Addition) were potentially
eligible for the NRHP (primarily due to alterations and infill development), the Blue Hole
recreation area is recommended as eligible for the NRHP.
Two swimming areas have been created by the two dams in the San Gabriel River at Blue Hole
Park (Resources 123615B and 123615C). Resource 123615B is known as the “Imhoff Dam,”
which is approximately five feet tall and constructed of concrete. The smaller, downstream dam
(Resource 123615C) is known as the “Kiddie Dam” and is also constructed of concrete. Local
history credits Louis P. Imhoff with the construction of Resource 123615B in the 1930s. The
Kiddie Dam is believed to have been constructed contemporaneously with or slightly later than
the Imhoff Dam. Research did not identify further details about the specific association of the
dam with Mr. Imhoff, but the connection is noted in oral history interviews on record with the
Williamson County Historical Commission: “Old Mr. Imhoff, who had a machine shop a block
from that, was the instigator of damming up the Gabriel” (Hoffman 2017). The Imhoff Dam is
noted as having been constructed in 1932 in Donna Scarbrough Josey’s book Georgetown: Then
and Now (2014). A 1933 article in the Georgetown Megaphone (a newspaper published by
Southwestern University students) corroborates this date; the article describes the Imhoff Dam
as having been constructed during the previous summer (Georgetown Megaphone 1933).
No alterations to the dams were observed or identified in research. Information from City of
Georgetown staff indicated that the south bank of the San Gabriel River in the Blue Hole Park
area near the Austin Avenue bridge was modified following a flood in 2007. The flood resulted
in the deposit of a large volume of gravel along the banks of the river. The City graded the area
and added Portland cement to stabilize the bank on the south side of the river. A pedestrian
low-water crossing was constructed shortly thereafter, c. 2008. Although the appearan ce of the
riverfront has been modified by improvements in the past decade, research did not indicate
that either of the dams have been altered, and the swimming hole area still conveys the same
sense of place as it has since the 1930s.
Documentation from the City of Georgetown’s Parks Department regarding the date of the
official dedication of the land as Blue Hole Park was not immediately available, but the results
of newspaper searches indicate that it likely became a city park in the late 1970s. A 1975 article
noted that a park in the Blue Hole area was being considered under the auspices of the
Georgetown Urban Renewal Agency (The Williamson County Sun 1975). A 1977 article noted
the efforts of a group of teenagers to clean up the area “in order to crea te a city park” (The
Williamson County Sun 1977). Independent of its official status as a designated city park, the
“Blue Hole” has been a swimming hole and gathering place for Georgetown residents for over
one hundred years, even pre-dating the 1930s dams that more explicitly defined the area. The
Page 68 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
20
Blue Hole is referred to by name in newspaper articles dating to as early as 1896, when it was
noted as the place of several baptisms (The Williamson County Sun 1896). Additional clippings
from 1898 and 1906 also noted baptisms in the Blue Hole (The Williamson County Sun 1898,
1906). An article in the Georgetown Megaphone from 1915 described the spot as a place where
“the stream becomes both wide and deep and forms what is known as the ‘Blue Hole,’ where
the waters seem as clear and sparkling as any artesian pool.” The 1915 article mentions the
gathering of scores of men engaging in rope swinging and diving. Oral history subjects recalled
that swimming across the river in the location of the Blue Hole was viewed as a rite of passage.
“A boy was accepted when he could swim across Blue Hole and swim back without stopping”
(Hoffman 2017). The identity of the city of Georgetown is closely linked with the San Gabriel
River, and it enjoys widespread renown for the Blue Ho le swimming and recreation area. The
recreational area surrounding the “Blue Hole” is therefore recommended as eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Recreation for its role as a popular recreation area in
Georgetown for over 100 years.
The proposed boundary for this property is shown in Figure 3. The City has indicated that they
do not have right-of-way/parkland delineation documents, and the Williamson County
Appraisal District parcel that encompasses the Blue Hole area is extremely large. Therefore,
CMEC historians have recommended the following NRHP boundary. On the west, the boundary
includes the treeline that comprises the western extent of the viewshed from users of the Blue
Hole area. To the north and south, the boundary includes the banks of the river and a buffer of
trees that serve to screen the swimming and recreational area from other land uses. On the
south side of the river, the boundary includes the current primary public access point to the
recreation area via Rock Street. On the east, the proposed boundary is the centerline of the
bridge carrying Austin Avenue over the south fork of the river. The bridge is a defining feature
of the viewshed from the Blue Hole looking east. The bridge also appears to serve as the
boundary between Blue Hole Park and Veterans of Foreign Wars Park; as noted above, the City
has not identified boundary lines for the parks in this area.
5.2 HIGH-PRIORITY PROPERTIES AND CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES IN NRHP DISTRICTS
The review standards currently in place for the overlays should also apply to high-priority
properties and contributing properties within existing and future NRHP districts.
Currently, Georgetown City Code calls for review of alterations and demolitions within the two
local historic overlay districts. Outside of the overlays, only demolitions are subject to review. In
the 2016 survey, 27 High-priority properties were documented in the area outside of the
overlays. There also appears to be at least one instance of a contributing property to an NRHP
district that is outside the overlays (1708 Olive Street). Future NRHP districts may be outside of
the local overlays entirely. Rather than expanding the boundaries of the overlays, CMEC
recommends that proposed alterations to High-priority properties and contributing properties
Page 69 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
21
within existing and future NRHP districts also be subject to review, regardless of their location
within an overlay.
The recommendation regarding contributing resources in NRHP districts could be accomplished
by revising the definition of “contributing” structures in the code. This proposed revision would
also formalize the recommendation that only High- and Medium-priority properties within the
overlays be considered contributing resources. Additionally, the code should be revised to use
more general language, such as “historic resources” rather than “historic buildings,” to be
inclusive of all types of historic resources, and “the currently adopted survey” rather that citing
specific surveys, thus obviating the need for code edits each time the survey is updated. A
potential code revision is suggested below.
5.3 LOCAL LANDMARKS AND RESOURCES INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP
Establish the City’s first local landmarks and create program/process for future designations ,
and pursue NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated.
Although the City of Georgetown’s code provides a definition of local landmarks, none have
been designated as such to date. The definition of a landmark according to City code is as
follows:
“The City Council shall make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for
designating a building, structure or site within the City limits a local Historic Landmark
is met:
A. Character, interest, or value of the building, structure or site because of its
unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City,
County, State or Nation;
B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the building, structure or site;
Page 70 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
22
C. Identification of the building, structure o r site with a person or persons who
contributed notably to the culture and development of the City, County, State,
Nation, or society;
D. Distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship that
make it an established or familia r visual feature, or the related distinctiveness of a
craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not
limited to:
1. Architectural style of the building or structure;
2. Architectural period of the building or structure;
3. Textures and colors of materials used in the building or structure;
4. Shape of the building or structure;
5. Roofline of the building or structure;
6. Porch and entrance treatments of the building or structure;
7. Height and mass of the building or structure; or
8. Relative proportions of the building or structure (width to height, width to
depth); and
E. Archaeological value in the sense that the building, structure or site can be
expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of
history or pr ehistory.”
CMEC historians believe that all properties identified as High priority in the 2016 survey would
meet the landmark criteria. CMEC recommends contacting the owners of each High priority
property to determine whether the owner is interested in landmark designation. The City
Council could then nominate a group of properties at once to become the first designated local
landmarks. The City of Galveston has recently completed a grouped landmarking process, for
properties designed by Nicholas Clayton, which could serve as a model for this process.
In order to facilitate future designation of additional local landmarks, the City should establish a
procedure and/or application process, including the potential for initiation of the designation
process by citizens. The City should publish clear instructions regarding the materials required
to process an application for a Landmark (statement of significance, photographs, maps, etc.)
and provide support from the Historic Preservation Office. To incentivize Lan dmark designation,
the city should consider tax abatements, grants, and access to materials conservation
resources.
In addition to listing High priority resources as local landmarks, CMEC recommends pursuing
individual NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated. For
example, the Stonehaven Apartments (Survey IDs 126009, 123478, 123483, and 126083), which
were designed to provide affordable and attractive housing to those displaced by Georgetown’s
urban renewal efforts in the 1960s, were upgraded from a Low to a High priority since the last
survey. Resources like Stonehaven are now regularly recognized for their association with post-
war historical trends. By listing Stonehaven and other High priority resources that do not
currently have NRHP designation, the City can ensure that the documentation of Georgetown’s
history at the national level is robust and continues to evolve.
Page 71 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
23
5.4 FUTURE SURVEY
Plan for survey updates every 10 years; add areas of the city/ETJ that have not been previously
surveyed.
The City of Georgetown has demonstrated a commitment to historic preservation during the
past several decades. The City should plan to continue to update the historic resources survey
at least every ten years in order to ensure t hat the survey provides an accurate record of the
city’s resources and serves as a useful tool for City planners.
A large portion of the City and its ETJ have never been surveyed. There are mid-century
neighborhoods west of I-35 along Williams Dive that have not been documented in full but
have potential for significance. The 1984 survey evaluated a small number of agricultural
properties in the ETJ. CMEC historians observed many more historic-age agricultural properties
outside of the survey boundary that have never been evaluated. These agricultural areas are
under threat of encroaching development and should be documented before they are lost.
5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH/ OPPORTUNITIES
Finally, CMEC recommends the creation of a repository for local architectural history. This could
take the form of a web-based “wiki” application with a map, where participants can add stories,
dates, and photographs to records linked to parcels in the city. Alternately, this information
could be stored at the Williamson Museum, or at the public library.
Page 72 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
24
REFERENCES
Francaviglia, Richard V.
1996 Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town America.
University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Georgetown Heritage Society and S. Elizabeth Valenzuela
2013 Olive Street Historic District National Register Nomination. Electronic document,
https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/13000615/13000615.pdf, accessed February 8,
2017.
Georgetown Megaphone
1915 Swimming for Students. 7 May. Georgetown, Texas.
1933 Professor Added. 24 February. Georgetown, Texas.
Hardy Heck & Moore (HHM)
1984 Historic Resource Survey of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas.
2010 Final Report: Historic Resources Survey, City of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas.
Hoffman, Billie
2017 Interview by Theresa Wineinger, Williamson County Historical Commission,
Electronic document, http://www.williamson-county-historical-
commission.org/San_Gabriel_river_Blue_Hole_williamson_county.htm
Jakle, John A., Robert W. Bastian, and Douglas K. Meyer
1989 Common Houses in America’s Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi
Valley. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Josey, Donna Scarbrough
2014 Georgetown: Then and Now. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
McKnight, Kim
2002 Texas Main Street Program: 20 Years of Achievement. Electronic document,
http://www.mainstreet.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/01/texas-main-street-
program.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/, accessed February 7, 2017.
Moore, David, Martha Freedman, and Tara Dudley
2016 The Meridian Highway in Texas. Prepared for the Texas Historical Commission.
Austin, Texas.
Page 73 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
25
Moore, David and Daniel Hardy
1984 The Historic Resources of Georgetown, Texas (Partial Inventory of Architectural
and Historic Properties) National Register nomination.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64000843.pdf
Odintz, Mark
2016 Williamson County. Handbook of Texas Online. Electronic document,
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcw11 , accessed February 7, 2017.
Sanborn Map & Publishing Co.
1885 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1889 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1905 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1910 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1916 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1925 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1925 Sanborn Map, Corrected 1940: Georgetown, TX. New York
Sanborn-Perris Map Co.
1894 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1900 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
Scarbrough, Clara Stearns
1973 Land of Good Water: A Williamson County, Texas, History. Williamson County Sun
Publication, Georgetown, Texas.
2010 Handbook of Texas Online, "Georgetown, TX (Williamson County)." Electronic
document, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hfg03 , accessed
January 31, 2017.
Scarbrough, Linda
2008 Road, River, and Ol’ Boy Politics: A Texas County’s Path from Farm to Supersuburb.
Texas State Historical Association, Austin, Texas.
Texas Almanac
c. 2000 Texas Almanac: City Population History from 1850–2000. Electronic document,
https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/CityPopHist%20web.pdf, accessed
February 7, 2017.
Page 74 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
26
Texas Historical Commission
c. 2000 Untitled report describing the history of Georgetown. Electronic document,
http://www.georgetown-texas.org/THC_Georgetown_Texas.pdf, accessed February 7,
2017.
c. 2006 Williamson County Courthouse – Georgetown. Electronic document,
http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-historic-courthouse-
preservation/restored-courthouses/williamson, accessed February 7, 2017.
United States Census Bureau
2016 “Five of the Nation’s Eleven Fastest-Growing Cities are in Texas.” Press Release.
Electronic document, http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-81.html,
accessed February 7, 2017.
Veselka, Robert E.
2000 The Courthouse Square in Texas. The University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
Williams, J. R., and Marie D. Landon
1976 Williamson County Courthouse Historic District National Register Nomination.
Electronic document, https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/77001480/77001480.pdf,
accessed February 8, 2017.
The Williamson County Sun [Georgetown, Texas]
1896 “Short announcement about baptisms.” 10 December. Georgetown, Texas.
1898 “Announcements.” 17 February. Georgetown, Texas.
1906 “Short announcement about baptism.” 16 August. Georgetown, Texas.
1967a “Urban Renewal – Its Prospects & Possibilities in Georgetown.’ 12 January.
Georgetown, Texas.
1967b “$2.19 Million Grant for Renewal Project OKed.’ 2 February. Georgetown, Texas.
1970 “$516,913.00 Loan to Build 30 More Stonehaven Units.”
1975 “Supporters tour proposed park.” July 20. Georgetown, Texas.
1977 “1977 Review.” December 29. Georgetown, Texas.
Page 75 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX A: MAPS
Page 76 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX B: INVENTORY TABLE
Page 77 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY FORMS
Page 78 of 80
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX D: MATERIALS FROM MOBILE WORKSHOP
Page 79 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 22, 2018
SUBJECT:
Intro d uc tion of res o urc es and materials to the Historic and Arc hitectural Review Commission. Res o urc es
inc lude: Unified Development Co de, Downto wn and Old To wn Overlay Des ign Guidelines , His toric
Resources Survey, and the Downto wn Mas ter Plan. Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, His toric & Downtown
Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Unified Develo p ment Co d e:
https://library.munic o d e.c o m/tx/georgetown/c o d es /unified_develo p ment_co d e?nodeId=GEUNDECO
Downto wn and Old To wn Overlay Design Guid elines :
https://his toric .georgetown.o rg/d o wntown-des ign-guid elines/
Histo ric Reso urc es S urvey:
https://his toric .georgetown.o rg/intro d uc tion/his to ric-resource-survey/
Downto wn Mas ter Plan:
https://2030.geo rgeto wn.org/downto wn-mas ter-p lan/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
Page 80 of 80