HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.09.2017Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission Special Meeting
of the City of Georgetown
August 9, 2017 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 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.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code
(UDC).
Per UDC Sec tion 2.03.010.C.1, the Commis s io n has ad d itional duties to ac t and as s is t the City Co unc il in
formulating des ign guid elines and o ther s upplemental materials relevant to his toric preservation or d es ign
review. T he Commission may hear public c o mment during this meeting.
Welc o me and Meeting Proc ed ures fo r this S p ecial Meeting:
Staff P res entation
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff
Comments fro m Citizens *
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration and possible actio n to reco mmend ad o p tion of the 2016 His toric Res o urc es S urvey Rep o rt
and Data. S o fia Nels o n, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Page 1 of 37
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 __________________, 2017, 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 37
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to rec o mmend adoptio n o f the 2016 His to ric Res ources Survey Rep ort
and Data. Sofia Nels on, Planning Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
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 .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
...
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 3 of 37
Description Type
HRS Report 08.01.2017 Backup Material
Page 4 of 37
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 5 of 37
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 6 of 37
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 7 of 37
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 8 of 37
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 9 of 37
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 10 of 37
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 11 of 37
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 12 of 37
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 13 of 37
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 14 of 37
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 15 of 37
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 16 of 37
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 17 of 37
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 18 of 37
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 19 of 37
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 20 of 37
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 21 of 37
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 22 of 37
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 23 of 37
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 24 of 37
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 25 of 37
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 26 of 37
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 27 of 37
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 28 of 37
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 29 of 37
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 30 of 37
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 31 of 37
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 32 of 37
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 33 of 37
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX A: MAPS
Page 34 of 37
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX B: INVENTORY TABLE
Page 35 of 37
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY FORMS
Page 36 of 37
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX D: MATERIALS FROM MOBILE WORKSHOP
Page 37 of 37