Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.09.2018 CC-RMinutes of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 9, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 71h St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Mayor Ross said that the Council Chambers was over the allowed capacity of persons and would be in violation of the occupancy code for the facility. The City's Fire Department helped to escort the back two rows of people to the Chamber lobby and sidewalk outside. There are speakers in both places so that everyone could still participate in the meeting. People were permitted to reenter the Chamber, as others left, and the occupancy code was followed. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A. Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Sergeant Promotions City Council Regional Board Reports Mayor Ross said that he had attended the CAMPO meeting on Monday, January IWI, but said there was nothing specific to report. Announcements - Cupid's Chase Action from Executive Session Motion by Eby, second by Fought, to approve, on the terms discussed in executive session, 1) authorization to purchase real property and 2) authorization for the Mayor to execute necessary documents for Fire Station Number 7. Approved: 7-0 Since there was a very large crowd, Mayor Ross spoke to the attendees regarding the formal proceedings of the night's meeting and asked all to remain respectful and considerate throughout the meeting. Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and Special Meetings held on December 13, 2017 and December 14, 2017 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary C. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, supporting Williamson County in the Application for 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Southbound Interstate 35 Frontage Road from RM 2243 to the SE Inner Loop/SW Bypass Intersection and related intersection improvements -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator D. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authoring the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the RM 2243 Widening project from Norwood Drive to the SW Bypass as authorized by the voters in the 2015 Bond Program -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator E. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authorizing the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Williams Drive/Lakeway Drive Intersection improvements outlined in the 2017 Williams Drive Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator F. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authorizing the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Williams Drive/Wildwood Drive Intersection Improvements outlined in the 2017 Williams Drive Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator G. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authorizing the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Williams Drive/IH 35 Access Improvement Plan and Schematics as outlined in the 2017 Williams Drive Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator H. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authorizing the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Traffic Management Center Programming as outlined in the 2017 Williams Drive Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator I. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, authorizing the Application to the 2019-2022 CAMPO Project Call for the Williams Drive sidewalk and pedestrian improvements with the use of TDC Credits as outlined in the 2017 Williams Drive Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator J. Consideration and possible action to accept a 1.210 acre (52,720 square feet) wastewater easement out of the W. Addison Survey, Abstract 21, from James David Honeycutt, and to authorize the Mayor to sign all documents necessary to effect such acceptance --Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator K. Forwarded from the General Government & Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with FleetCor Technologies dba Fuelman for fuel card services and related products in amount not to exceed $830,000.00 -- Stan Hohman, Fleet Manager Motion by Hesser, second by Gonzalez, to approve the Statutory Consent Agenda in its entirety. Approved: 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda L. Consideration and possible action on an appeal from denial of application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a four-story mixed use building at 204 East 8"' Street -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the appeal for a denial of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed project at 204 E. 81h Street. She explained that this request differs from other typical requests, and that she will be going into depth to provide all of the necessary information. Nelson provided a Presentation Outline • Part 1 — Overview of UDC Guidance • Part 2 — Overview of proposed project as presented to HARC • Part 3 — Review of HARC action • Part 4 — Recap of Options for Action An Overview of the Request was provided. Appeal of a Certificate of Appropriates • Appeal Hearing • Burden of Proof in Appeals ■ Findings and Conclusions • Decision of Appeal Nelson described the Options for Action • Affirm HARCs decision o Concur with the decision and the denial stands • Modify the decision o Accept the proposal as submitted o Accept an alternative proposal Nelson explained the UDC Guidance for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Application Versions were described next. ME 4th pe"r venlony Conceptual liteview MARC OMelal Review 1 Wrslon 11/'9/1017 Haight 57'.1 3 fKade materials matorials 1 roof type I banding material ftirkMg 25 spaces provided 9 exostaig Massing, Staff Cornnants o"rall height, modulation, top floor not set back 2 Dna :antrd Ifafd00py R c v e a t e d IneIect+onk at 12114 h4wUn3 prasarKation at 12/14 Meenrg 3 4 1218/2017 12/14/2017 11/14/1017 43'*/- 3 created on street 43'4•/ - removed clubhouse, 43'+/. presented stepback reduced unit count reduce roof types, given in advance of cohesiveness in balcony 3 facade materiak 3 fa,ade materials 1 trait color 4 trim colors I. trim color 3 brick types 3 brick colors 3 brick colors 3 roof types 3 ref types 4 roof types 2 balcony railing types 2 balcony raing types 3 balcony railing types 34 Spaces provided 9 existing Prone Presented 3 created on street Reduce material Reduce color variations variation, and roof types, create Opportunity was not reduce roof types, given in advance of cohesiveness in balcony a tee", +ncks®e sue Mee" types and windows reduce Nelson noted that the applicant had submitted a Version 5 to staff that morning, which will also be provided for the Council's review. She explained that she would walk through each of all 5 versions. Nelson provided location maps and an image of development strategies in the Downtown Master Plan. She spoke on the historic overlay district and parking standards in the area. Nelson explained that the blue outline is area 2 with infill guidelines and noted that the historic overlay district, outlined in red, borders up to the area 2 outline. �o�rr��wr�r ..ter Mw... .... �. i .n.n � i --•_ ...... Q r .....r.......• y.•.r •rr .r 11 • •aN .i .a.+.errirue rr� Nelson provided a Review of the Project and provided renderings and a recap of an 11-9-17 Conceptual Review of Version 1. She explained that staff and the HARC Commission reviewed the Downtown and Old Town Design guidelines relevant to the project, namely the 21 guidelines of Chapter 13 — Infill in Area 2. Nelson noted that the Commission had voiced concern regarding setbacks in this Version. Next, Nelson showed the project as submitted to HARC for action of Version 2 on November 15, 2017 and posted for consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness on December 8'h. This version was for the construction of a four-story mixed use building, the first floor consisting of a 2,600 square foot commercial use and 30 parking spaces, and floors 2-4 supporting 26 residential units. Nelson also provided several renderings of Version 2, as submitted. She explained that the applicant had revised this design somewhat during the HARC meeting. Nelson noted that staff had met with the applicant on November 17th, November 271h and December 12th and the applicant had been responsive to staff recommendations. She said that since agenda preparation and posting, the applicant has made significant changes to the proposal including a 10% reduction in the number of units and a reduction in overall height, as well as changes to the materials and finishes. Nelson spoke next on Version 3 of the Project as submitted after the HARC agenda had been posted. She provided updated renderings. Nelson spoke on the public comment and noted that staff had received 2 written comments in support of the project and 25 in opposition. She said that, in accordance with the public notification requirements in the Unified Development Code, 1 sign was posted on the property, 15 days in advance of the public hearing. Nelson described the Section 3.13.030 Criteria for the project SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS j PrThe application is complete and the information contained within the application Complies is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Does not comply at B. Compliance with any design standards of this time the Unified Development Cade; (parking and height) C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended Complies from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS D. The integrity of an individual historic WA structure is preserved. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. F. The overal I character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies with recommendation Complies with recommendation JG�► I IVIM a. 13.v.7u %,M{ ICMA r1NU[NGti G. Signs that are out of keeping with the u' adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within N/A the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. The foilo be considered by the HARC Vhen determinIng whetherto approve a Certificate for ?esign Compliance: .The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic. cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or ©istrict. ;.The appropriateness of exterior architectural feature including parking and loading spaces, which can 1. Complies seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. .The general des ign.arran9ement. texture, materiaf, 2 Complies and calor of the building orstructure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or 3. Complies structures in the District, con trastor other relation o such factors to other landmarks built at or during thy: same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remainingexam pies of architecturat, historical, and cultural waiues. Nelson spoke next on Design Guidelines. She explained that building heights of larger projects should provide variety and a larger development should step down in height toward the street or smaller, surrounding structures. FINDINGS 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 0.2 Where a portion of a building must be set baim Complies I ine the edge of the property with landscaments. - Transformer & dumpster (SW and rners) are setback from property line and eened with plantings. .3 A new building shall reflect the traditional Int Complies dth as expressed by the following: - variation in the ane of the front fa;ade, variation in architectural ailing and materials to emphasize the buildin Jules (4). GUIDELINES 3.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.. Complies asade (or parapet) heights varied at the front. tS Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, Does Not tf er than a single structure. Comply 13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings. A typical buildng module should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the following: ✓ A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet ✓ A change In primary facade materiel for the extent of the building module ✓ A vertical architectural element or trim piece ✓ Variations in Facade treatment should be continued through the structure, inducing its roofilne and frontand rear facades. ✓ If a larger building Is divided into "modules; they should be expressed thre"Imensionallythroughout the entire building. a .4WIM GuloEUMM Complies FwmmGs 3.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.. Complies Rede (or parapet) heights varied at the front. 3.5 Large project WW should be developed with several buildings, Does Not dwr than a single structure. Comply Complies Lod Where a large building is needed, divide the building into ulas that reflect the traditional size of buildings. A typial building ule should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module Id be expressed with at least one of the following: ✓ A setback In wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet A change in primary facada material for the extent of the bullding module A vertical architectural element or trim piece Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofllneand front and rear facades. ✓ If a larger building is divided Into `modules," they should be expressed thre"Imensionallythroughout the entire building. 13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Complies 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale ConWiles are preferred. 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large Complies expanse of wall plane, 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood. Complies brick, and stone are encouraged. mnm� Complies 13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally. 12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to Complies :ourage pedestrian activity. 13 Orient the primary entrance of a building, Complies card the street. � I Marty lderrtffy tflo road edge and project arrtrances automobiles and pedestrians. S Minimize the number of entrances along a streot edge. Complies � B Placa parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or Compiles ghout the site. � 7 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions soon Amplies o block. Complies 18 Buildings shall conveya sense of Truman scale. a 113.19 Building heights of larger projocts should provido variety.. QOes Not larder devoiopmont should stop down In height towards the street Comply or smaller, surrounding structures. 13.14 Clearly Identify the road edge and project entrances for complies both automobiles and pedestrians. 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. CO W1" 13.16P lace parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or Complies disburse throughout the site. 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yerd dimensions soon complies In the blotk. Complies 23.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. 13.19 8uliding heights of larger projects should provide variety. -!C Does Not fargordavelopmant should step down in height towards tho street COMpiy or smaller, surrounding structures. Nelson noted that a new design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among commercial and residential buildings in the community, without copying them, is preferred. She explained that this will allow them to be seen as products of their own time yet compatible with their historic neighbors. Nelson spoke on the staff recommendations. She explained that staff recommended approval of the request with 2 considerations: • Consideration of reducing the variation in materials in order to represent those features that are most common in the Downtown Area and represent a unified development pattern. • Consideration to add a screening wall (green screen) along the eastern fagade in order of address the void between the 2nd floor and the top of the wall adjacent to the parking garage. Nelson provided renderings and descriptions of the applicant's Version 4, Post Staff Presentation. She noted that this was presented at the HARC meeting, but members did not have it prior to the meeting. Nelson said that this version incorporates the setback and the biggest changes to the project. Nelson next provided renderings of the applicant's Version 5 of the project which had been submitted to staff that morning. She described the 4th floor setback. A Review of HARC action (7-0) was provided. Nelson noted that the Commission and the applicant discussed Version 3 drawings and dimensions at length, including the concerns about stepping the building back as identified with the design guidelines. She said the applicant had provided an additional set of drawings (Version 4) which included a step back of the 4th floor from the plane of the building. Nelson said that staff was not provided a copy of Version 4 building renderings. She explained that following comments by the property owner and those of the public, the Commission took action to deny the request as submitted on December 4th. Nelson said the motion for denial was made with the following findings. Nelson reviewed Council's Options for this Proceeding: • Affirm HARCs decision o Concur with the decision and the denial stands • Modify the decision o Accept the proposal as submitted o Accept an alternative proposal Eric Visser, the representative for the developer and applicant for the project, provided a presentation for the appeal of the HARC action. Visser introduced Matt Synatschk, with Matkin Hoover Engineering, a governmental relations consulting firm for the project. Visser said he was glad to engage in the conversation today. He said there had been a lot of misinformation spread about the project. He noted that many people of the community care about downtown, as does he. Visser said instead of getting more activity downtown, this project is about getting better activity downtown. He explained that he and his partners were committed to making the downtown better. Visser said that HARC had made a wrong decision and he would be presenting the formal appeal. Visser provided images of the UDC Section 3.13.080 COA Appeals Process, the HARC Bylaws, the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2.36 and Chapter 2.50, the Member Eligibility Requirements in the HARC Bylaws and the HARC Motion for Denial. Visser said that HARC Member Bohls should have refrained from discussion on this project. He spoke on the requirement for a member to reside in the city limits or ETJ, and how this had been violated, by a member of HARC who resides outside of the ETJ. • 11 &MMIl.ir".d.rr.]. s.,,i. ar�.rry.r .40 Ag swim dlmfrr ohm VA dog" 041--Gaffimbft +..11r..lrri�ra 1.•..r... n•�i .illk.a•g1�L p.r.p..a.� A.. rna• .r .ra.. i.• +.MV /r./.lra.sti w..*..arr a.allA.� 3.A rr►r.!^ir.r u/.r r rr �. 4r+nr. .Mn.wr wo-mm%WON" ' M�.sire�e.Swr.Oe�i.rt!•�...rr�e�rr- +w4e al,ww� "�•.._ � • sraif.ri � � rr ia.i.i.�■ Mus�lrwy �/3 13i iL Li 1>p Vyou Yi It qiG]. M a4iaog19i Aama MMWM l M.AMMSdAd•l... MMMO aI.R.i1 IiaF . LC L Imi7 �'= i3 vow qpmhma 20M. r.", mai I — ice; �Fw i ■LT no$* r rrw a.wnill.m •arill'.ill.l.la iy ra ✓saws RIA. X410- w 3 a i%m{ ii P. ;v 4. tiw1 s}341rfa 0<x&M .Baal... P -r 4KIRI■qM •Pr -M K.ir A %41. IR :i R r':: f•f.Y I SY 44 XE-Ul 7'I..410 Ytf .I's: n . 1 .. -!LI. .•.�." • Lrka _'.e] .jn/i+If 7{R�N[MIF=A'. ■IyiL7YJ•. i1.0 6i7 CN!!Cl 6Y 1~3 11FWMWMVW of g6 Cop .__.... -� _.p..'aNb CIA G� ...■ire ,www ..,="..,r.ilr■rww.lrrrr Rwl..�r... adii clAbu 440"R Vow 77/ rlt L`rp '! 'til013IIInl IL W: "'s l•irla.I >< ree 11 Fdl{,, 1�.lL!{•[ 4.1 gi&44" 1 Am HiI■.fY1-n xiq.7r7 f:"M L7 RYlY<.a.M tial aaA.� •131 1yiA lr+a\.�w�4 �r� a �: arm j w•i � �/li. r fa M Ywnr.� n ■Ilrr �nyq it �uw.y .a �r Rrn .r a.� i ti —&rbaft rP�Al f. l•a>R..il rMW .l lar ivi bkwM. w♦1 M.w 'i[Y•IF-paA L■ alsp60 am44I41OLoku f lw 7L LlW' TI iN.x 24 LYOsbcay KMCIMO Q:V4`-vLiGKf nr p.riR 9.0.>ml`Ill.a i la sawAOKI=it(ti"a ,m ..AA11—" A.�ifa� wtlabiaaYAr ra.A.^. M if9nole Visser said that the HARC Commission had gotten hung up on parking and impervious cover, which is not HARC's role. He said that HARC acted outside of their role when discussing parking, utilities and the like. Visser said the only factor in the denial that falls under the authority of HARC is the fourth floor setback issue. He said the project never got a chance to explore all of the design options. Visser said that he does not believe that HARC is equipped to handle projects like this one and this is not fair to the applicant or the volunteers who serve on HARC. He noted problems with City entertainment venues and noted the difference between transient users and users with a pride of ownership. He explained that owners would support local businesses and build the community. He asked the Council to view this request from an ownership look instead of transient user. He noted that the residents of the project would not tolerate parking four blocks away as this would prohibit being able to sell these residences. He said it is in the applicant's best interest to supply adequate parking and the notion that they would not provide adequate parking is completely false. Visser said that by bringing full time residents to the downtown it would assure that density results downtown are spread evenly throughout the week and would not peak during weekends and holidays, as it would with transient uses. He said that the retail space provided on the first floor would be available for restaurants, when currently the downtown is out of space. Visser said that HARC has shown an unwillingness to limit its evaluation to the purposes to which it was empaneled and has shown that it is heavily susceptible to influences exerted by a small band of snearing protestors. Visser said that HARC has effectively reduced the economic value of the property to zero because of their demands. Visser noted that it is very unusual to receive a staff recommendation for approval, while also turned down by HARC. He said the community is at odds with its own master plan. Visser asked Council to prioritize. He explained that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor to those affected and their team is ready to address options and concerns. Matt Synatschk, the Development Manager for Matkin Hoover, provided more detail of the project. He presented a map of the property at 204 E. 8'h Street and described the Downtown Overlay District with Site Details for the property. Synatschk spoke on the surrounding land use. Downtown Overlay District Di.stnct Building Characteristics Area 1 — Primarily composed of 1 — 3 story historic structures, with tall ceiling heights. Most buildings are brick or stone extenor construction. Area 2 — Contains more diverse mix of building heights~ materials and dates of construction. Structures include the Williamson County Justice Complex, Georgetown Public Library, Tamiro Plaza, Main Street Baptist Church and First Presbyterian Church. Site Details: ■ Area 2 of the Downr -an C;vrrlc:v [;i;.tric: Mixed Use — Uownto+r NU_)I1 cru ,c, District • Buildinq Hciyht—G • No required bu'ilciinq ;•!back No rcquiredbuffr-_.:,ya.cir; c:clicc%n properly • 95� c Allowable IrnpE ,icu::_o�F r Project Timeline Meeting with City Staff — October S, 201 7- HARC Conceptual Review — November 9, 2017 Meeting with City Staff — November 17, 201 7 19 Meeting with City Staff — November 27, 2017 9 Meeting with City Staff — December 1 1, 20117 Meeting with City Staff — December 1 2, 2017 HARC Meeting — December 14, 2017 Meeting with City Staff — December 18, 2017 Meeting with City Staff — January 8, 201 7 HARC Conceptual Review :... ■■i �� .. ...... ...... Jill �V .._.,_ ■■■ ■m■ . A: Jill son .. •...WHIN 1717 son _ ■ii. ■■■ ■■l Synatschk spoke on the HARC Conceptual Review and provided a summary of comments: • Building needs more modular design to break it up and create a human scale. • Materials should reflect the existing materials in the District • The height exceeds the allowable height for the MU -DT Zoning district • The roof line should break up the height of the building • Parking (Not HARC Review) Synatschk next provided the Revised Project and Improved Project for Staff Review. Revised Project for Staff Review Summaryof Changes • Reduced the overall height of the building by eliminating 5°- floor ,owwor need • Reduced number of units • Reduced the amount of commercial spore to allow for more leers fl,,;:r p:. Klincj • Integrated multiple roof types to break up the roof:ine ntegiated additional material types to create module • C: eateci horiZontcil variation in the street facing facade:, Improved Project for Staff Review • The multiple roof types create too much variation • The increase in materials create an overwhelming visual effect Synatschk said that staff recommended approval to the Commission with consideration of reducing the variation in materials in order to represent those features that are most common in the Downtown area and represent a unified development pattern. Synatschk summarized the HARC Discussion and Review • The design has not been reviewed by the Chief Building Official • The project does not provide adequate ADA parking • The height exceeds the allowable height for the MU -DT zoning district • The project exceeds the impervious cover for the site Synatschk then provided renderings of the newest design and explained that it would play better with the look of an historic district. He also provided a floor plan of the first floor including the 35 private parking spots proposed and the retail space. He also described the proposed materials. Synatschk spoke on the Downtown Master Plan and Old Town guidelines used by both staff and the developer. He explained that the site was small —just over 1/3 of an acre. Synatschk noted that the property was outside of the courthouse view corridor. Nelson read the caption. Motion to Fought, second by Hesser, to approve the appeal from denial, specifically using Version 5 of the project. Councilmember Eby asked for clarification. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, clarified that this would mean that the Council would be overturning the HARC denial and be approving the Version 5 design. Persons signed up to speak on Item L included: Patricia Gailah Taylor, Irene Benetar, Richard Cutts, Liz Weaver, Anna Diver, Erin Allen, Larry Olson, J.C. Johnson, Jr., Alex Fuller, Sue Fuller, Ann Seaman, John Folrot, Dale Knobel, Lisa Shumate, Heather Fraser, Ross Hunter, Peter Dana, Linda McCalla, Taylor Kidd, Pam Mitchell, Rachel Cummins, Vicki Stubbington, Nick Ramos, William Harris, Michael McAndrew, Winnann Ewing, Larry Bundidge and Jay Warren. Comments and concerns voiced included: It is the will of the community to deny the project Opposition to 4 story building Excessive height Lack of parking 650 Georgetown residents object by petition Building does not suite location Disproportionate to the area Examined Council vision for Georgetown Vision statement — project does not fit Will look like the side of the freeway in anywhere America Too big for the site How many staff live in Old Town? Damage historical spot Project should be located away from the downtown square Disagree with the staff Will block views Will be happy to meet with developer Supports residential on this site, but not the height 44ft is max height for the City — questioned how it was calculated Actually 49 feet — 5 ft. over code maximum Would require an ordinance change Violations of state statute Not gone through proper zoning Doesn't meet the guidelines City is a gem and a jewel with a lot of heart as a community Developer has insulted the citizens Developer not trustworthy Too large for the area Design does not reflect the character of Georgetown Project belongs elsewhere Citizens do not want this Guidelines out of line with what the citizens want their city to look like Listen to the residents Size is too large Behind the structure is a one story house built in 1898 Hold onto the historic value in the area Chapter 8 guidelines on public streetscapes — compatible with historic resources Chapter 12 guidelines for construction of new building — maintain traditional size of the history of the area 300% taller than surrounding structures Heritage trees will be gone Will create traffic when residents are out driving The demands on the community will be great Consideration for the character of the city Same house for 8 generations Here before Williamson County was established Consider how you want Georgetown remembered Be thoughtful Legal, ethical and moral must all be considered — moral does not apply to this project HARC is a critical mechanism to insure alignment Disagree with staffs opinion HARC voted unanimously against the project Scope of impact is not just Old Town Pay attention to the 650 people who signed the petition No one thinks this is good for the site Out of place and will overwhelm everything around it 10 million dollars has been put into downtown through the Main Street Project Council is committed to preserving he most beautiful square in Texas Developments getting approved regardless of citizen input Asked Council to be considerate Feeling a certain way about their downtown is wonderful This building would transform the look This is a 7-0 vote and a petition of 650 signatures Not appropriate to overturn clear citizen input Not the views of Georgetown Square not a set of boxes covered with texture How can one design a building and not know how many units it will have? 25 to 30 units in 1/3 acre is a lot Community does not oppose a mixed use building Growth needs to be properly planned and the square needs to be preserved Council has not been given enough time to review the project Will create a loophole for future monstrosities to be developed Progress without a lot of thought Support the integrity of the downtown overlay Procedural crisis until can comply with state law Open meetings act violation — Version 5 not noticed properly Master Plan is a Savior - follow it Parking will be a big problem When it rains in Georgetown, water will come under near -by homes, because of the large size of the project Come to eat, shop in downtown Georgetown Centered on the character of the downtown Build in a way that respects the community Respect the work of HARC A project either meets the UDC or doesn't If do not like this, change the UDC Can't not allow it, if it meets the guidelines Project defies all logic Project does not comply with what the UDC says Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the legal laws of what has been covered and asked about the UDC criteria on height. Nelson said the UDC has a maximum of 40 feet, with 2 exemptions of 10% which can be used by staff. She explained that staff looks at special provisions of a particular property. Nelson said that HARC has the ability to make an exception for height of 10% also, separate from staffs exception. She explained how height is calculated in the UDC. Councilmember Jonrowe asked what staff would do if a developer comes in asking for 44 feet from the get go. Nelson said staff identifies the maximum height and asks for a reason for the additional height. She explained that, as a development team, staff then looks at the request cohesively and gives the applicant feedback if it is something they can support or not. Jonrowe asked if staff would consider reserving the 10% until the HARC suggestions. Nelson read that specific section of the UDC out load. She noted that there is approval criteria for an administrative exception for design or land use compatibility. Mayor Ross asked about citizens Olson and Hunter referring to state law on height. McNabb explained that the UDC contains the zoning ordinances. He said there is a provision in the UDC for HARC to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness and the ability to vary the height. He explained that Council now sits in the shoes of HARC and has the same authority. Councilmember Gonzalez asked how tall the building for this project would be. Nelson said 44 feet and that the building could not be built more than 44 feet. She explained that the applicant has not asked for a height variance. Mayor Ross asked if the applicant would like to speak to that. Matt Synatschk said the building height has some flexibility because the site slopes. Councilmember Gipson asked about Version 5 and the reference to it not being properly notified. City Attorney, McNabb, said the open meetings act is to alert the public as to what is to be discussed by Council or an advisory board, and there had been proper notification. Councilmember Nicholson wanted to clarify if an approval of the appeal would approve the project. Nelson said an approval would be an approval of the renderings for Version 5 that have been shown. She noted that the applicant would still need to work through the site development process from a building permit process, meeting all building and fire codes. She explained that these are other approvals that would still need to come. Councilmember Hesser asked about the number of units and parking places in Version 5. Nelson said there is a proposed 31 full parking and 4 motorcycle spaces on the property and 6, 1 bedroom units, 16-2 bedroom units, 2 parking spots for visitor space and 5 parking spots for commercial. She explained that there would be 48 parking spots required and the applicant would still need to work through solutions. Nelson noted that the UDC provides for shared parking agreements and other parking supplements. Hesser asked if this can be worked out tonight. Nelson said it would be resolved in the development plan process, and either the applicant meets the requirement or does not. Hesser asked about alternate parking. Nelson explained possible solutions. She said the applicant could speak on how they are proposing to fill the gap. Synatschk said counts shown are from earlier versions and the parking requirement would now be 35 spaces. Eric Visser noted that all residents will have parking and the applicant will be looking for alternative parking for the commercial. He explained that this is because they have now reduced the number of bedrooms or units in the project. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if Visser would have parking for all residents and then only be seeking alternative parking for the 5 commercial spots required. Synatschk confirmed and said there is now a total of 23 units - 12 one bedroom and 11 are 2 bedroom. Mayor Ross called a break until 9 PM. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about 13.19 regarding setbacks and if this is clearly defined? Nelson read the development guidelines on this. Jonrowe said it seems to be a minimum setback and larger development should step back in height when around smaller surrounding structures. Nelson said it reads that a larger development should step back from the street or smaller surrounding structures. Jonrowe asked why staff did not ask the developer to follow this. Nelson said staff works with the applicant to understand how they are adjusting for their project. She said that HARC also reviews the item during conceptual review. She explained that staff analyzed the request and noted that the wall was slightly different. She explained that in this circumstance, based on staffs review, using guidelines that are not requirements, because of the recessions designed in the building. Jonrowe said she would disagree with staffs assessment. Jonrowe asked about having separate buildings to increase the modularity. Jonrowe asked if separate smaller buildings had been considered. Nelson said the applicant did not desire smaller buildings. Jonrowe asked about 13.17. Nelson described the provision, which says the building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. Nelson said that from an adjacent standpoint there is nothing developed to the south and to the east is a courtyard space that could be further developed. Nelson confirmed that this speaks to the green space. She explained that zero lot lines is the provision used for mixed use buildings. Jonrowe asked about zero lot lines. She asked if when a request for zero lot lines is made, if it is then a first come first serve basis, since adjacent properties could now be limited in what they would be able to undertake. Nelson said for interior property lines, there is a fire code perspective and a building code. She said there are essentially 2 options: 1) setting the building in to create a setback within your lot and 2) to be able to provide for a wall without windows, doors or openings. Jonrowe asked about the impact to other owners that are immediately adjacent. Nelson said they too would have to meet building and fire code. Jonrowe said this does not answer her question. Nelson offered to have the Fire Chief or Building Official elaborate on the provisions, if more detail would be helpful. Jonrowe asked about 3.13.030, which pertains to the overall character of historic or overlay district. Jonrowe read from the Chapter. She said that herself, HARC and the citizens she has spoken to, all think the project sticks out like a sore thumb. She asked Nelson to explain the disconnection between staff and citizens and HARC. Jonrowe asked how staff could have assessed the project and determined that t it complies. Nelson asked Jonrowe to repeat the design code number so that she could pull it up and be able to explain. She began to read the language of the code. Jonrowe said this is UDC and it is required to be followed. City Manager, David Morgan, noted that Nelson should be allowed to answer the question. Councilmember Fought said a lot of this is subjective and it is not fair to ask a staff member why they differ. Jonrowe said it is staffs job to offer an accurate assessment. Fought said that would be asking for conjecture. He explained that, because of the subjectivity, if staff differs from HARC, it is not fair to ask why. Fought said Council needs to vote on the request. Jonrowe said if the language is vague, it might need to be changed. Jonrowe said there is a pattern of behavior that staff has a liberal interpretation that does not match most people's understanding. Nelson said staff felt the project would add a positive cultural and provide increased residential densities. She said that parking is accommodated within the site as recommended in Chapter 13 and the general design complied with materials, which was all provided to HARC. Jonrowe asked about the square footage of the lot and asked Nelson for comparisons. Nelson said she cannot provide these figures on the spot, but will be happy to provide them to the Council later. Jonrowe asked to speak to the developer. She asked about the inspiration for this building. Eric Visser asked Jonrowe if there is any question that he can answer that would cause her to change her mind, since she was the one leading the protest. He added that If the answer is no, there is no reason to answer. Visser said this is now an appellate body and he is asking for fair consideration, because the City Attorney has informed him that the standard is a vote of 5 out of 7 for his appeal to be granted. Jonrowe asked about the architect, Bob Thomas, and if he has experience with historic areas and projects. Visser said that Mr. Thomas was also involved with the Lofts on Rock project. Jonrowe said she noticed a lot of similarities in the two projects and mentioned the initial request for a party room on top for the tenants. Visser corrected the term tenant to resident. Jonrowe said these are two unique properties with unique needs. Visser said HARCs decision of 7-0 was because the wheels came off on the process and they did not have all of the information yet. Councilmember Gonzalez asked Nelson about the list of the requirements criteria and asked, based on Version 5 and the units described as the latest, which criteria would not comply with the UDC. Nelson said it would be the parking, but that the applicant has committed to meeting the requirements. She explained that a condition can be placed to require this. Nelson said the height request does meet code and the setback was not compliant in Versions prior to 4 but the setback has been provided in Version 5. Gonzalez said this has become an opinion of the interpretation of the UDC and the 650 citizen comments and concerns. Gonzalez asked if Version 5 provides all residential units with permanent parking, Nelson confirmed and said site development would be the next step, with building standards after that. Councilmember Hesser asked if there are restrictions to the applicant reapplying. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said the applicant could reapply in 180 days or 6 months. Hesser asked if that could be waived tonight, since a better understanding has been reached tonight. McNabb said there is not a provision for a waiver. He noted that it could be referred back to HARC for further input. He explained that if Council upheld HARCs decision the 180 days would need to be followed. Morgan asked if the Council could delay the vote and McNabb confirmed. Fought reviewed his original motion. He had made a motion, second by Hesser, to approve the appeal from denial of the application for a certificate of appropriateness four a four story mixed used building at 204 E. 8'h Street further clarified to be Version 5. Amended motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought, to add a provision for onsite parking that meets the residential component of the UDC requirements. Amended Motion Approved: 7-0 Councilmember Eby said she respectfully disagrees with staff. She said she does not believe that the project complies with the code. She explained that HARC was within its purview to deny this application. Eby said the City must presume HARC action to be valid and it is the burden of the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to overturn HARCs action. She said she does not believe there has been the proof of sufficient information provided to overturn HARCs decision. Eby thanked staff for their hard work on this project. Eby said she hopes the applicant has shown more respect to the staff than he has shown to the City Council, and if not, she apologizes on behalf of the Council. Eby told Mr. Visser that he was not appropriate to the governing body. Original motion: Failed: 1-6 (Eby, Nicholson, Hesser, Gipson, Jonrowe and Gonzalez opposed) M. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to rezone approximately 72 acres in the Low BC Survey, located at 250 Westinghouse Drive from Business Park (BP) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director (action required) Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on a rezoning request for property located at 250 Westinghouse Drive. She provided a location map, future land use map and a zoning map. Nelson provided a map of varying zones in the PUD Development Proposal and described each zone. She also provided a Table of Development Density. Nelson noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request Nelson read the caption. Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9.37 PM. No persons signed up to speak on the item. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9.37 PM. Motion by Nicholson, second by Gipson, to approve Item M. Jonrowe asked about height limitations in C3 and if it was 60 feet and would apply to multifamily as well. Nelson confirmed and said that the maximum height for zones C & D is 80 feet and is traditionally commercial. She explained that this is a PUD and that is why it would be allowed. Jonrowe asked what the developer would be doing in an effort to balance special provisions provided in a PUD. Nelson said the masonry standards and design standards would be higher than normal as well as other commitments in balancing the entitlements. Jonrowe asked about the height requirements for B. Nelson said it was 45 feet. She explained that buffer yards and setbacks would also be examined. Approved: 7-0 N. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning approximately 31.94 acres in the following subdivisions: Brownstone at the Summit Phase 1, Brownstone at Summit Phase 2 -4, Brownstone at Summit Phase 5-6, a portion of lot 4 block "A" lots 1,2,3,5,6 in the Rivery Park Subdivision 11 and Lot 2 Block "A" in the Rivery Park Subdivision, located at 1500 Rivery Blvd to amend the Summit at Rivery Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director (action required) Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on a rezoning request for property located at 1500 Rivery Blvd. She explained that the applicant is requesting two types of amendments and the first amendment relates to the areas depicted as Zone B - the land bounded by Rivery Boulevard, the extension of Wolf Ranch Parkway, Woodlawn Avenue, and Hersey Avenue. Nelson said the plan for this area is to develop an urban residential and retail mixed-use building between Wolf Ranch Parkway and Hershey Avenue, along with a structured parking garage. She explained that the current PUD does not allow for multi -family on the first floor (within the designated Zone B) or more than 75% of the total usable area of the buildings. Nelson noted that this amendment proposes to allow 30 units of residential on the first floor and a maximum of 90% of the building space for residential. Nelson said that the second amendment relates to requirements for signage. She said the monument signs long - proposed for this development have been designed and the total height of the proposed stone structure exceeds the 8 -foot limitation previously approved for the project. Nelson explained that as the development has matured, now is the time to provide cohesive architectural branding elements to the site. She said these monument features do contain signage but are designed to be site elements focused on the Summit brand and do not include tenant identification. Nelson said the one exception is a blade sign on two of the monuments for the Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center, which will need identification on Rivery Blvd when the Zone B building is erected and the view of the Hotel from Rivery Blvd is blocked. Nelson provided the overview of the presentation and a location map, future land use map and zoning map The project history was provided, as well as the PUD components. Nelson described the development zones in detail, as follows. Nelson explained that in 2013, as part of the 4threvision, the development zones were further refined. She gave the following descriptions of the zones. Zone A consists of approximately 8.190 acres of land described as Block H of Phase 5 of The Summit at Rivery Park Preliminary Plat, shown on Exhibit "B". Zone A consists of the southern one-third of the land comprising the Property and is the development zone closest in proximity to Interstate 35. Zone A is separated from the remainder of the land comprising the Property by the proposed new Woodlawn and Hershey Avenues. Zone A shall be designed and developed for multifamily residential development. A site plan for the multifamily residential development was submitted on 09/27/2013 (SP -2013-022). Zone 1131 consists of approximately 4.196 acres of land described as Block F of Phase 5 of The Summit at Rivery Park Preliminary Plat, shown on Exhibit "B". Zone B1 consists of the rear, central portion of the land comprising the Property and is separated from Zone A by the existing access road and easement to Rivery Park and is generally separated from Zone C by the proposed new Hintz Road. Zone B1 is separated from Zones B2 and B3 by the proposed new Woodlawn Avenue. Zone 131 shall be designed and developed for a hotel with at least 221 rooms, a conference center including a ballroom comprised of at least 16,000 square feet, and a multilevel aboveground public parking garage containing at least 336 parking spaces. A site plan for the Hotel/Conference Center/Parking Garage was submitted on 06/05/2013 (SP -2013-009). Zone B2 consists of approximately 2.433 acres of land and is generally depicted as Block E of Phase 5 of The Summit at Rivery Park Preliminary Plat, shown on Exhibit "B." Zone B2 is separated from Zone B1 by the proposed new Woodlawn Avenue and Zone B3 by the proposed extension of Wolf Ranch Parkway and is generally separated from Zone C by the proposed new Hintz Road. Zone B2 shall be designed and developed for mixed residential and commercial use and associated pArkin . Zone B3 consists of approximately 3.021 acres of land and is generally depicted as Block G of Phase 5 of The Summit at Rivery Park Preliminary Plat, shown on Exhibit "B." Zone B3 is generally separated from Zones B1 by the proposed new Woodlawn Avenue and Zone B2 by the proposed extension of Wolf Ranch Parkway and is segmented from Zone A by the proposed new Woodlawn and Hershey Avenues. Zone B3 shall be designed and developed for mixed residential and commercial use and associated surface parking. Zone C consists of approximately 11.0 acres of land and is generally depicted as Phases 1-4 of the Brownstone at the Summit, and Block A of Phase 5 and Phases 6-12 of The Summit at Rivery Park Preliminary Plat, shown on Exhibit "B". Zone C represents the northern remainder of land comprising the Property and is generally described as the land north of Hintz Road to the eastern edge of the Property. Zone C shall be designed and developed for Brownstone Single Family Residential Development. The following uses shall be the only allowed uses of the Property: (a) Zone A — Multi -family residential development; (b) Zone 131 — Hotels and Conference/Event Centers, if in conformance with all applicable provisions of this PUD and all written agreements between the City and the owner of the Property in the PUD pertaining to same; (c) Zones B2 and 63 —Limited Service Hotel and/or residential uses, if located on the second floor or above (prohibited on the ground floor). If residential 5 uses are located on the first floor, the units shall be constructed to commercial construction specifications to allow for potential future conversion to nonresidential use. (d) Zone C — Brownstone Residential Development, if in conformance with Section 6 of this PUD; (e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in addition to the uses set forth and permitted in (a) -(d) above, any Zone can include the following allowable uses— (1) Restaurant (no drive-thru); (2) Bar, tavern or pub; (3) General office (upper -story only); (3)(4) Medical facilities; (4)(5) General retail; (5)(6) Personal services; and (6)(7) Parking garages Nelson provided renderings of the proposed project and the proposed signage. She noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request. Nelson read the caption Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9.46 PM. No persons signed up to speak on the item. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9.46 PM. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought, to approve Item N. Approved: 7-0 O. Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to decline the Preserved Open Space offer in connection with Oaks at San Gabriel Subdivision -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director, spoke on the preserved open space offer in connection with the Oaks at San Gabriel subdivision. She said there is a 99 acres tract of preserved open space currently owned by the developer. She explained that, per the agreement, the developer must give the City the first right of refusal. If the City declines the offer, the owner proposed that the land be transferred to the Oaks at San Gabriel subdivision HOA. Garrett explained that any park improvements would not adequately serve the general public. She said the property is outside of the city limits and it is possible that it would never be annexed into the City. She said the open space is in the back of the property, without easy public access. Garrett said it would not be possible to connect trails to the City's trail system. Garrett explained that the City would not benefit from the space. Garrett read the caption. Motion by Nicholson, second by Hesser, to approve Item O Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the development's HOA would preserve the area, or if they could develop it. Garrett said there is a covenant in the agreement that requires it to remain as open space. Approved: 7-0 P. First Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Georgetown amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown by adding Chapter 12.02 Entitled "Network Nodes in the Public Right -Of -Way," relating to the deployment of network nodes and node support poles in the Right -Of -Way by network providers in accordance with Texas Local Government Code Chapter 284; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; providing a severability clause; providing for publication and setting an effective date -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utilities Director (action required) Utility Director, Glenn Dishong, spoke on network nodes in the public right of way. He said that he had provided a detailed workshop presentation on this subject at the last workshop meeting on December 12, 2017. Dishong said that the design manual and ordinance have been developed, according with the local government code. He noted that districts have been designated, allowing the City to require concealment of the devices. Dishong said application requirements, timelines and ongoing right of way lease rates have been established. He said the design manual provides location preference. He explained that the first priority is between poles on the existing communication lines, then utility service poles, then the utility poles themselves, then other municipal service poles such as street lights, and lastly self -standing node port poles. Dishong read the caption Motion by Jonrowe, second by Nicholson, to approve Item P. Jonrowe asked about the fees. Dishong said there will be a per node fee. Jonrowe asked where the revenue would go. Dishong said the right of way revenue would go to the general fund and electric pole revenue to the electric utility. Approved: 7-0 O. Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the FY2018 Annual Budget due to conditions that resulted in new program requirements in the current year, and excess fund balance at the end of FY2017 due to the timing of capital projects and other expenditures approved in the prior year; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager (action required) Budget Manager, Paul Diaz, spoke on an ordinance to amend the FY2018 Annual Budget. He said the specific details of the amendment had been presented in a prior workshop meeting and the first reading on December 12, 2017. Diaz read the caption. Motion by Eby, second by Nicholson, to approve Item Q. Approved: 7-0 R. First Reading of an Ordinance restricting vehicular traffic and closing the intersection of Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane in the Sun City Subdivision, in the City of Georgetown, Texas — Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6 Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, spoke on restricting vehicular traffic and closing the intersection of Majestic Oak Land and Apache Mountain Lane. Mayor Ross explained that the ordinance would be read in its entirety because it had not been notified in the local newspaper for a period of at least 72 hours prior to this meeting. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said if the City closes a street it is a private street. He explained that it would essentially be a gated street and that the city could gate a private street, but not in a residential area. McNabb explained that if this item were to be approved, it would be necessary to amend the UDC. Jonrowe read the entire ordinance, as required Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to approve item R Persons signed up to speak on Item R included: Peter Rauch, Mike Lynch, Karen Arnold, Amitt Bhasar, Minda George, Marshall Friedman, Cheryl Thompson, Aleta Key, Dee Dee Grierson, Kathy Powers, Rich Barbee, Irene Benetar, Curt Williams, Debbie Einem, Terri Eppinger, John Ryan, Jean Ann Rieder, Donna Betts, Terry Rieder, Lori Kedroski, Chuck Betts. Comments and concerns voiced included: Safety issues in Neighborhood 51 Restriction of truck traffic has done little to reduce commercial traffic Signs too small for drivers to notice Fine is only a deterrent if it is monitored Little to no monitoring Route cannot be removed from GPS unless closed If road closed to all but emergency it can be removed from GPA Irritation of drivers has led to increases in speed Property values and quality of life a problem Road closure would solve the problems Rocky Hollow and 245 is a much safer route Only adds 60 seconds to access to Williams Drive Multiple traffic counts continue to trend upward An up or down vote does not solve the problem, just moves from one side to another Takes 2 full days out of his year not open Read section 12.05.020 of the UDC regarding street connections 10,000 lots in Sun City 500 requires 7 exits and there are currently only 4 If this is closed, there will only be 3 Unsafe in emergencies Did not take Commissioner Covey up on solutions with sidewalks etc. Applaud Council on their dealings with growth Closing a road in a growth period does not make sense Challenge the ordinance language of "deemed unsafe" Should be predicated on accidents etc., which has not been a problem Told when wanted to buy in Woodland Park that the road would be connected This information was on record and some did not do their due diligence to see it If you deem the road unsafe, then move Needs to be based on empirical data Not safe in own neighborhood Must protect our senior citizens Safety concerns of greater importance than through traffic Developer built the streets, not your taxes Cutting through at double the road capacity Must have consideration for neighbors in neighborhood 51 Pulte saved millions of dollars by making Pedernales a cul-de-sac 1666 traffic count on East Apache Mountain Lane Randalls will increase the traffic Being deceived Apache Mountain Lane is being punished for Pulte, Del Web and Georgetown poor planning Insure safety of all home owners 800 cars per day should be the limit Manipulation of the law is not acceptable Traffic count is 2 times the allowance Right or wrong without political thought Information from packet provided to council — read timeline 6 times more traffic when open than when closed Traffic increase of 500% in just over a year Documented proof that counts have been manipulated Staff agreements have been lost and not followed Real estate agent performed an analysis that proves the homes have lesser values than other neighborhoods If there is a traffic issue it should get resolved but you cannot close the road Are you going to close Williams Drive because of too much traffic? Must have mutual respect for fellow citizens Drivers have disregard for the safety of others Engineers did not intend these roads to be used as main thorough fares Reached out to author of ordinance without any response Ordinance as written says the intersection is unsafe — not factual Three dead-end streets according to ordinance People should have done their due diligence Councilmember Hesser said he would like to hear from staff and would like to know the plan to address the situation. General Manager of Utilities, Jim Briggs, spoke. He said the plan is still the same as previously discussed at various times. He noted the recent ordinance approval to limit truck traffic through the intersection. Briggs said that the direction from Council had been to limit the traffic. He noted that commercial traffic and lawn care services access was eliminated with the recent ordinance. Briggs said the plan is to mitigate the traffic. He said that he does not disagree with the traffic counts and the speed study. He said that 85% of the traffic is driving at or below 30 mph. Briggs said recent discussion had been to wait until Randalls opened to take counts so that an accurate number of the increases could be attained and then determine what needs to be done. Councilmember Hesser said commercial traffic has dropped. Hesser said he agrees that a traffic count should be taken after Randalls opens and then a solution will be proposed. Hesser said there had been a planning error and the solution belongs with staff. Briggs said it has been a challenging situation. He spoke of structurally putting limitations, where people would want to choose a different route. He said the original emergency connection was on Pedernales and this was put in because the development needed more connectivity. Hesser asked how many trucks have been ticketed since the through truck traffic ordinance was passed. Police Chief, Wayne Nero, said that targeted enforcement has been put in place. He said it is a complicated issue when GPS is instructing traffic to go that way. Nero said many, many people are frustrated. He explained that the issue has 2 different camps and you cannot make everyone happy. Amended motion by Hesser, second by Fought, to bring this back to Council at the first meeting in July. Councilmember Nicholson asked Briggs if there would be a significant difference by waiting. Briggs said there will be a significant difference in traffic counts when Randall's opens. He explained that this is the perception but the City does not have criteria yet. He said there would be more known if they waited until July. Councilmember Nicholson asked about GPS. Briggs said, if the road is closed, it would not be used by GPS navigation, but would still show up on maps. Gonzalez said the question is if a road, any road, had too much traffic, would the City close the road. Gonzalez asked how many closed roads would there be with this philosophy. He noted that traffic will use the road. Gonzalez said he does not want to put off the item to keep counting. He said either close the road or not. Gipson spoke on right and wrong. He said he is not a politician. He said now that Briggs has said that Randall's will increase the traffic counts even more, why wait? He said there is no need for further delay. Gipson said there has been uncertainty to do what we say we are going to do. He said make a plan and stick with it. Gipson asked McNabb about the ordinance changes necessary. McNabb explained that the City ordinance does not allow the closure of roads. He said cost would need to be looked at, as well. McNabb said the Police Chief and Fire Chief will need to be involved regarding emergency access, also. He said many time you solve one problem and create two. Hesser said he picked July for normalcy, but would not be opposed to an earlier date. Mayor Ross said today will always be the lowest numbers, because they will continue to increase. He instructed Council to make a policy decision. Councilmember Eby said one should choose safety over convenience. She said she is concerned with an up or down vote of permanently closing the road and there are consequences that need be considered. She said she is not comfortable with kicking the issue down the road, but has appreciation for Councilmember Hesser trying to find solutions. Eby suggested a possible temporary closure again, until staff could examine better solutions. Mayor Ross said it could be brought back sooner than July. He said the traffic is substantial and will continue to increase. Vote for the amended motion to wait until July: Failed: 2-5 (Eby, Nicholson, Gipson, Jonrowe, Gonzalez opposed) Jonrowe read Section 4 of the proposed ordinance regarding closure to all but emergency vehicles and spoke on solutions within 180 days. Ross said 180 days is a long time. City Manager, Morgan, said the competitive bidding process will take 6 months and he would estimate the cost to be over $50,000.00. Councilmember Fought said to be careful of precedence being set by calling this one of the busiest streets. He explained that Whispering Wind has 3 times the traffic of Apache Mountain and also mentioned Texas Drive. Fought set a timer to demonstrate the duration of every 30 seconds. Gonzalez asked Briggs how many roads in residential communities have traffic counts of more than 1,000 trips. Briggs said he does not know right now but does have related information that he can share later. Fought said he wished this road had never been opened and the City must make sure this doesn't happen again. He said these things need to be thought out. Jonrowe thanked everyone and said she was impressed with the people's preparation. She spoke on this request being first and foremost about public safety. She said her record on this issue has been consistent. She asked Councilmembers to take final action regarding the connection created between Sun City and Woodland Park. She said there has been a disservice done from at least 2013, and read a list of missed opportunities for solutions to the issue. Jonrowe said that Council needs to right a historic wrong. She suggested making a decision based on right vs. wrong. Eby said she is confused regarding the discussion of the time frame in the ordinance. She asked if the item was approved, if that would provide the time frame needed for policy discussion. Mayor Ross confirmed. Original motion: Approved: 4-3 (Hesser, Fought, Gonzalez opposed) Mayor Ross thanked the audience for their courtesy and respect shown. Project Updates S. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic development projects; city facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements, city lease agreements, sanitation services, and possible direction to city staff -- David Morgan, City Manager Mayor Ross asked the City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to share. Morgan said that he did not have any updates at this time. Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. T. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. U. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.072 Deliberations about Real Property - Fire Station 7 Site Consideration Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551:087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Fish - Project 011ie - Project Pilates Adjournment Motion by Fought, second by Hesser, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 11.30 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on I '�� l � ( Date 'DIt: Ross, Mayor Attest: City tary