Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.14.2018 CC-RMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, August 14, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 East 7" 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 8" Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross, Ana 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. 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 - Eric Lashley, W.D. Kelley Leadership Award - Police Department Promotions City Council Regional Board Reports Mayor Ross said he had attended the CAMPO meeting the previous, but had nothing significant to report. Announcements - Lyft Pilot Program in Georgetown - Georgetown Utility Systems New Billing System - Drought - Water Regulations - Sunset Movie Series Action from Executive Session No motions were made from Executive Session. 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, July 24, 2018, the minutes of a Special Meeting held on July 17, 2018 and the minutes of a cancelled meeting originally scheduled for July 18, 2018 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary C. Consideration and possible action to appoint Tom Stidvent to the ADA Advisory Board to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross D. Consideration and possible action to appoint Rolando Huertas to the Georgetown Village PID Advisory Board as Alternate #2 to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross E. Consideration and possible action to appoint Tom Karr to the Georgetown Housing Authority Board to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross F. Consideration and possible action to appoint Susie Kelly Flatau to the Arts & Culture Advisory Board to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross G. Consideration and possible action to renew the existing School Resource Officer agreement between the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) and the City of Georgetown, Texas to include an amendment to Article ll, A. and Attachment A (annual cost of program) of the agreement and signature of current officials -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Police H. Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Georgetown and Capital Area Emergency Communications District for Public Safety Answering Point Maintenance, Equipment and Training in an amount not to exceed $3,000.00 -- Wayne Nero, Police Chief I. Consideration and possible action to approve a Master Services Agreement for landscape architectural professional services with Halff Associates, Inc. of Austin, Texas -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director J. Consideration and possible action to renew the contract with DecorlQ for the leasing, installation, and maintenance of the 2018 holiday lights, the installation and maintenance of the building cornice lights, and the installation and removal of the holiday wreaths and tree in the not to exceed amount of $87,400.00 -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent K. Consideration and possible action to approve the submission of a grant application for the Bloomberg Philanthropies 2017 Mayors Challenge -- Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Chris Foster, Resource Management and Integration Manager L. Consideration and possible action to approve the Network Node Installation Licensing Agreement for Utility Poles and Service Poles with Mobilitie, LLC -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities M. Consideration and possible action to approve the Licensing Agreement for Communications Attachments to Utility Facilities with MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities N. Consideration and possible action to approve the Licensing Agreement for Communications Attachments to Utility Facilities with ExteNet Systems, Inc. -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities O. Consideration and possible action to approve an award of a Blanket Agreement with Southern Tire Mart, LLC to provide tires, tubes, supplies and equipment through the BuyBoard Contract #553-18 in an amount not to exceed $85,000.00 -- Rosemary Ledesma, Purchasing Manage Motion by Hesser, second by Fought, to approve the Statutory Consent agenda in its entirety. Approved: 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda P. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for an appeal from denial of application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for: 1) Residential Demolition of a rear addition that is approximately 1,021 sf., 2) Residential Renovation, 3) Residential Addition and 4) Fence Exception for the property located at 511 S. Main Street bearing the legal description of 0.33 acres Georgetown, City of, Block 26, Lot 5-6 -- Sofia Nelson, CNU- A, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the request for an appeal from denial of application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 511 S. Main Street. She explained that the appeal of the denial was for the residential demolition of a rear addition, residential renovation, residential addition and a fence exception. She noted that the property is in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District. She noted that the denial was rendered by a 6-1 vote of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission at their June 28, 2018 meeting. Nelson explained that the Council may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the original order, requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose, the appellate body has the same authority as the original reviewing authority. Nelson describe the Presentation Outline. • Part 1 — Overview of the UDC requirements • Part 2 — Overview of the proposed project as presented to HARC • Part 3 — Review of the HARC action • Part 4 — Recap of options for action The Appeal Process of a Certificate of Appropriates — UDC Sec. 3.13.080 was shown. Nelson described each. Nelson provided the Options for Council Action. Options for Action ❖Affirm HARCs decision-- P �COfl:_,ur '. i'E' c t)n ;-;r� i't'r�E� cjer t),{ st�3rr; ❖Modify decision -- "T N?.p .;i'+3y P- -rep# arn clue-nakive pri.- �>> [�fl,ri�,ti�iwH ! r KAS UDC Requirements - Certificate of Appropriateness 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; til a1Hi,l ii �N ti 1117} 5. The general historic., cultural., and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; New bLJllCfi!!g-S or additions are de -signed to be compatible with ' SI-WOUnding, properties in the applicable historic overlay district; 7. The overall character of the appfic�ible historic overlay district is protected, and The Mastt�r S'q- Plan is 'it) ket,-ping with thc;,, Cld(,)PtQd tDowntown and Old Op—,"'gri Guldleknes and characte.r of the, -historic ovc-riay district. rict. Nelson spoke next on the Timeline of Application and provided a location map. Nelson spoke on the Historic Resources Survey and said the property had been deemed a high priority structure on the 1984, 2007 and 2016 historic resource surveys. She said the survey states that it is an excellent and rare example of its type or style and has significant associations and retains sufficient integrity. Nelson provided images of the property and described the Prairie Style architecture. Nelson spoke on the Alterations to the property and provided a proposed site layout. Nelson noted that the applicant proposed retaining the existing historic home and building an addition, attached to the rear of the home. She explained that the site would provide on-site parking, and a front and side courtyard. Nelson said the existing home has approximately 2,000 square feet and with the proposed addition would be approximately 4,700 square feet. A Conceptual Review was described by Nelson. !="E', - F , QNT FROV :4EC, STOCNO, 'EAM LIETAI RI�OF . 414wri1AZQFIE .' ' " SIL, ER . 11:4q Fl%l �l z4EEZi EL'­ r,�a 7c Nelson described the conceptual review comments from HARC. • Demolition: The impact of the demolition of the rear porch will have on the historic integrity of the building and the priority rating. Commission asked HARC to review impact of demolition and additions on rating. • Addition: The scale and massing of the proposed addition compared to the existing historic structure and the impact it has on the historic character of the site and surrounding properties. • Wall: Wall height at the property line, creating a solid barrier between the pedestrian space and the private property. The proposed wall location is blocking a portion of the house and will detract from the existing street facing facade. • NOTE: the HARC related modifications to the residential home (window and door replacement) were not noted by the applicant at or prior to the conceptual review Nelson explained that the Applicant is requesting to demo approximately 1,021 square feet of the existing addition and rear structure. She said that, after review, it is believed the porch was added sometime in the 1940's and then later filled in. Nelson said the concrete used for the foundation is different from what was used on the original home, the roofline is at a lower level and slope, and the windows and siding are both of a different material and style then what is on the home. Nelson said the applicant is requesting to demolish this enclosed rear porch to allow for the new addition to connect to the house. She explained that staff finds the request to remove this portion is appropriate. Nelson noted that staff had used Sanborn Maps to date the addition on the rear of the property. Using Sanborn Maps to Date the Addition(s) to Rear 1925 Sanborn Map: 2• to.-, b,riICing atn a-stor-, per -h r=c:ca- por-cl: or prC U,t r,s rear v:3nF iFt» 1940 Sanborn Map: rc c7i�rrg tJ b!iil^',rF.f.ocip,rnt Design Guidelines for Demolition 7.13 Only as'a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition. ✓ Demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be avoided, Demolition of a building that contributes to the historic or architectural significance of a locally or nationally designated district should not occur, unless: Public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure; The building has lost its architectural and historical value/significance and its removal will improve the viability of the neighborhood; A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will improve the appearance of the neighborhood; or The denial of the demolition will result in a substantial hardship on the applicant as determined by the process outlined in the City's Unified Development Code. When adapting a residence to a commercial use, respect the residential character of the building by preserving the overall forth of the building, the front porch and front yard character. Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to any deconstruction or demolition. The owner shall be responsible for providing the record, which shall include, but is not limited to, photographs, architectural drawings, and deed records, if available. This record shall be deposited with the Planning and Development Department. N/A Design Guidelines for Demolition 7.13 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolftion. ✓ A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience. ✓ If a demolition is approved, work with HARC to identify salvageable materials and potential buyers or recipients of salvaged materials. The removal of all salvageable building materials before demolition is encouraged, through a proper demolition by deconstruction method as determined by HARC at the public hearing, and may be required depending on the significance of the building. ✓ Preserve historic garages and other secondary buildings where feasible. N/A ✓ Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, etc.) 50 years or older may be appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structure members). N/A ✓ Relocating buildings within the Overlay Districts may be appropriate if compatible with the district's architectural character through style, period, height, scale, materials, setting, and placement on the lot. N/A ✓ Relocation of a building out of the Overlay Districts should be avoided unless demolition is the only alternative. N/A See also Unified Development Code Section 3.13 for demolition or relocation criteria, standards, and procedures. UDC Criteria for Approval for Demolition of a Contributing Historic Structure 2. a. toss of Significance. -The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and • The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and • The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentionolor negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect, and - Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or Staff found the demolition request to be compliant with the guidelines because the portion requested to demolish is not part of the original sections. Nelson also noted that the requested demolition would not impact the priority rating. Nelson said that the Demolition Subcommittee has recommended approval with the condition that a letter of salvageable materials be identified and who will be taking the materials. Nelson asked the Council if they had any question on the demolition. Mayor Ross reminded persons in the audience who wanted to speak on this item to sign up. He explained that, generally, one needs to sign up prior to the beginning of the item. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about the porch addition and if it, itself, could have historic significance. Jonrowe said she sees this as a limited scope and asked about the process. She explained that questions on demolition were combined with other elements. Jonrowe said without a policy, prior to the design phase, applicants are investing a lot of time and resources. She said she would encourage that the 2 phases were separated. Jonrowe asked if an applicant can go back to HARC after a denial. Nelson said they would have to wait a period of 1 year, unless the request was substantially changed. Jonrowe said she did not notice language regarding additions in the design guidelines. She explained that there is language for secondary structures and original structures. Nelson said there are guidelines that will be shown later in the presentation. Jonrowe mentioned an inconsistency for demolitions and additions which could have historic value on their own. Nelson read the guidelines from the UDC criteria. Nelson described the applicant's Request #2 for a 4,681 square feet addition. She provided images and spoke on materials to be used. She explained that the addition would be covered. Chapter 7. Design Guidelines for Adaptive Re -Use, Additions and Alterations were shown by Nelson. She noted that the new addition has architectural details that visually differentiate it from the historic home, but that there are too few details between the two to create architectural cohesion between the structures. She explained that staff had provided the features used to create cohesion between the two structures. CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE -USE, ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS • 7.6 Design a new addition such that the orio i{gal character can be clearly seen, In this way; a viewer can uncic_rstand the history of changes that have occurred to the buildivig — An addition should he made distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the origina can be interpreted. — Creating a jag in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. — The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should match at of the original building, in appearance, detail, and material. rl<x►�s CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES .'. C'r'%1'io�Sltl:�I'1 l.Dr,,.! c fr,,nrin yhP_ fri_3ni lil,in; 3iilpjc — Setting an addition back from any primary, character -defining €made will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. — Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. 7.9 AN ADDITION SHALL BE COMPATIBLE IN SCALE, MATERIALS, AND CHARACTER WITH THE MAIN BUILDING. — An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary facade. — Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor, Addition: massing ri -,i. 1 .; . r�YI�Y� 7. 10 THE ROOF FORM OF A NEW ADDITION SHALL BE IN CHARACTER WITH THAT OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING. • Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for Commercial buildings in the dov.,ntown area. • Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and n-iaterials, • If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition Should be similar. The roofs of �rdditions should not interfere tivith the oriy,intrl roof form -by chin€'sng its basic shape or view of the original roof, send should h<avc: a roof form compatiblFo with the original building. 7.1 AVOID ALTERATIONS THAT WOULD DAMAGE HISTORIC FEATURES. • Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building. • Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. N/A 7.2 PROPERTIES DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS A HIGH OR MEDIUM PRIORITY HISTORIC STRUCTURE SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND THEIR HISTORIC CHARACTER RETAINED. • Due to special circumstances, a structure's historic priority may change overtime (because a reduced number of similar style structures in stable condition still exist within the district or city, or if unknown historic information becomes available that adds significance). t:l�1)1', 7.8 DO NOT OBSCURE, DAMAGE, DESTROY, OR REMOVE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. • When preserving original details and materials, follow the guidelines presented earlier in this chapter. 1� 0;1.o T�'� m 4. Nelson spoke about Notifications and Public Comment. • 24 Notices mailed 0 2 Signs • Comments: 3 in support and 2 opposed ■ 6 spoke at the HARC meeting The UDC Criteria for the Wall approval was discussed. Nelson said the Commission and the applicant discussed the motion for denial and provided the findings for the decision. Nelson described the applicant's design modifications since the HARC denial. She recapped Council's 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 provided the UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria and staffs recommendations. Stcnoti 113, V Cft nimu Esti*DtvGs L Tht appls:.ruan L: ",mri to an,3 tax uuo=unan contAuwd tib• thLn dw Corti} 1te: applt[afton L: Lonrct .xsyi suttuamt enough to aLlov,• a■ityttnte rcti^.r:L arJ tuwa a'TM 1. Coinpltamce Ltzth An%- design sfwuLurds Ct dw Code Parba r compIlea parnallr 3 Cou4,hmx+e xith the Seamon oe the Intenor z $Luuimb to the Treafxaent of HLs mu to the moat extent JV.8kZCANr. 4 ConTLu ee --ilh the adOl.+W Dov+'mto n and Ok# Town Drug CKudeluxs, Pasfa.rllr as t3'Lal' be ' i3iCLi4.� trove =* to now. sFvi k to the aF-F1w4bk- HLaonC :o[1 plwL s (N-erlar D%--tnct. 5 TIY generdl lu .tmu, aditu4i. sad-arcfutR'tuml nsrtrgrav of the l•lliic'IYn& Dur, not MUCKUV aC Slte L Vd COUTIV o New buddingr ■u to tx c snlm"Ir uith :tuTeLa ,fuig Dara not . m the -iErLwabler hLstoalc mvdav dutnet. [o ll 7 The mvraU a3taractei of the Applic.ibie lushnu o►ei l ri• c3 -A t L pnok-,W. PwrttdIly JXUa complies S Tarr %E&,,b r Sign PLLn► L: at kerj nng L.fth the ulol-IM Dcn%-n10%6 & uki Ck.3 Tolvn Dr- Gundeluw,- and 4w.%.-Wt oe dw but m- oover a v dist nct N, A t� Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the demolition of a portion of the rear of the structure, with the recommendation that a list of salvageable materials be composed. Staff recommends approval of the canopy removal and the other requests and recommends the following conditions: 1) maintenance of the existing front door (UDC Criteria #3,#5) 2) maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing (UDC Criteria #3,#5) wooden windows 3) reduce the height of the addition to ensure it is not visible over the top of the historic resource (UDC Criteria #6) 4) use a low -slope, flat, or hipped roof for the proposed addition (UDC Criteria #6) 5) set back the addition on the 6th Street elevation so the south elevation of the proposed addition does not match or exceed the horizontal plane of the existing structure (UDC Criteria #3,#5, #6) The architect on the project, Mr. Gary Wong, Principal of Wong Architects, spoke. He said he appreciates dialogue with HARC and did not realize the controversy wrapped up in the project. Wong said everyone seemed positive because the addition was not historic and was damaging the structure. He explained that, where the addition is connected to the historic structure, there is water damage and erosion. Wong said he is also surprised because a plan approved by Council, which was larger in size, than this proposal, had a 10 to 12 foot fence approved. Wong spoke on the windows and energy efficiency. He explained how windows also help with noise control. He said the same goes for the doors. He spoke on a code egress issue to swing the door outward as in a commercial property rather than residential. Wong said the fence would also help noise control. Wong spoke on standards for rehabilitation from the Secretary of the Interior and said the written standards are highly interpretive. He explained how the project meets the criteria for materials and buildings can be compatible yet differentiated. Wong said each property is recognized as a structure of its time and use. Wong spoke at length on design guidelines. Nelson read the caption. Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 PM. Persons signed up to speak on item P included: Liz Weaver, Larry Olsen, John Foliet, Ann Seaman, Richard Cutts, Dwight Richter, Pam Mitchell, Glenn Holzer, Ross Hunter, J.C. Johnson, Winnann Ewing, Peter Dana, Lawrence Romero, Sean McClurkin, Larry Brundige, and Susan Brundidge. Comments and Concerns voiced included: Meeting was odd Motion to demolish did not pass Director said would not proceed Deal with demolition before going on 2nd vote was still not approved. Director called the City Attorney Vote the their time did not pass Meeting was over after 3rd time Review of the structure could not proceed There is not a denial to overturn Project has had conceptual feedback but never a true vote Cannot overturn a project that does not have a denial Return project to HARC Most egregious designs ever seen Applicant has not made strong enough case for changing windows and door Good effort to change the size Roof and materials are fine Do not replace original windows Only 10% energy efficient improvements Must keep key designs of the prairie design Within 200 feet Favor of the project Expose people to Georgetown Has a short term rental on 6"' and church People come back because Main Structure is not changing High Priority status stays Showed images of various projects and structures Lives in old town — residential area Historic value must be protected Lives less than a block away AT a turning point Leaders and we trust you Historic neighborhood Do not destroy or demolish Ability to view structure to see how life was at the time of the structure Cannot destroy the sense of place and time Proposed building twice as big as the home it will block Creating false history HARC process was flawless Partially complies means does not comply Demolition messed up the process and left with a design that does not work It is not HARC that people hate, it is the laws that they hate Support Harc COA included demolition and other together Created great confusion Can't discuss infill without first discussing demolition HARC had concerns in the preliminary review Concerns repeated again Staff recommended against the building Harc and city staff have been consistent Applicant has ignored. Trying to circumvent UDC and staff Uphold Hare decision Venue will draw too many people Safety issues Hare serves a good service Must guarantee that old town will stay old town Project too large Preserve the architectural integrity Staff found this not compliant Not compatible with its surroundings was also found not compliant Hostile Wall HARC was working with applicant Did not bring anything that you could rationally vote HARC stand between the precious jewel of downtown and inappropriate structures Demolition should not have been combines with the other issues Staff recommended denial for non-compliance High priority structure — Rare Prairie Style Secretary of Interior— mass and scale shown Showed image of woman by fence Wall not 4 to 5 feet and 50% transparent Building was the Texas Hotel in 1936 Believes the addition was built tin 1955 Addition proposed looks like a cotton warehouse Fence used as excuse because of Tamiro II Mayor Ross closed the Public hearing at 8:05 PM and called a recess until 8:15 PM. The meeting was resumed at 8:15 PM. Councilmember Gonzalez asked what changes were made between conceptual and HARC action. Nelson showed and described the roof line, carport keeping key style to a Prairie home, height at wall and transparency from 9ft with 7 feet of brick and 2 feet of transparency. Gonzalez asked the applicant if he was willing to keep the historic windows and doors. Wong said yes and that was part of their alternate project. Developer, Troy Hellman, said the request went through the SUP process and the window and door replacement was for noise abatement. He said the developers are open to compliance. Councilmember Jonrowe said SUPS look at conceptual designs. She asked if staff was aware that this structure was once the Guthrie Funeral Home. Nelson said no. Jonrowe asked if a 4 ft. fence was moved back. Nelson described the fence design and construct. Jonrowe spoke on the many points of the criteria that were not in compliance or just partially compliant. She asked about the normal setback for this property. Nelson said it would be 10 feet, with a landscaping buffer in the rear. Councilmember Pitts asked Nelson about design guidelines and the difference between residential and commercial. Nelson said the property has a residential form that is followed. Pitts asked about demolition and said he had attended the HARC meeting. Pitts said it had been determined that the addition was causing damage to the historic structure. Nelson said the building inspector on the demolition team would agree. Pitts asked about the side street view of the building and if the windows had been replaced over time. Nelson said some windows have screens and some do not, with the differential on the addition. Pitts asked about the windows by the chimney. He asked about fire code for an event center with a door that swings in instead of out. Mayor Ross asked if HARC had issued a denial for this. Nelson confirmed. Ross asked how high the back fence is. Nelson said 6 feet. Councilmember Fought said this was a good presentation and his questions have been answered. Councilmember Hesser asked about the plan and if the project could continue if the addition was not demolished. Hellman said there is a one story structure sticking out. He said the addition is in very poor shape. Hesser asked about windows. Hellman said the windows would be duplicated to look the same but would be double pain for noise and energy efficiency. Hellman said he would follow Council direction. Nicholson asked about the various Versions of the project and if Council had the ability to look at Version 3 or Version 4 and their ability to approve, deny or modify. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said Council can approve a modification. Hellman said Version 4 is the response to all of the comments and suggestions. Nicholson asked why the property is considered residential in character, when it has always been commercial in its use. Nelson said there are historic requirements for infill construction. Nelson pulled up Version 4 and described the difference in the back structure, which had been lowered in height. She said the property had been commercial for 82 years and residential for 16 years. Hellman said it is confusing and makes it hard to comply. He explained that the guidelines conflict, making It difficult. He quoted language from Chapter 13 showing the wall to be compliant. Councilmember Eby asked Nelson why one goes by the residential character of the structure, and not the use. Nelson said demolition should not occur unless the building has lost its historic significance. Nelson said because the addition was not part of original structure, it could be considered. Eby asked if the addition itself could have historic significance. Nelson said HARC did not want to lose a priority structure, because of demolition. Eby asked about the impact of the proposed addition. Nelson said the Secretary of the Interior guidelines were prominent. Gonzalez asked about the design for the fence and the significance of the frosted view. He asked if there could be a friendlier liking. Architect Wong said it was designed this way because there are restrooms behind that area. Wong said the fence has now been designed as an open wood structure with an architectural feature to break up the wall. Jonrowe asked about uses and if the applicant has considered another use. Hellman said the use has already been approved by Council with a 6-1 vote. Jonrowe asked about neighbors' privacy and if they would be willing to remove the balcony. Hellmann said this can be mitigated with landscaping. Jonrowe asked if they were willing to better this. Hellmann said very willing. Jonrowe said that is why HARC is useful. Councilmember Pitts read Section 3.13 Hellman said the non-compliant issues were mainly windows and doors and they are willing to change this. Hellman said they had been trying to be conscious of noise abatement. Mayor Ross asked about criteria for item 5 and 6 compliance. Nelson explained design guidelines regarding the partially complies decision. Ross asked Nelson about Version 4. Nelson said HARC had not seen Version 4. She said the applicant is proposing Version 4 with the lower height and the rest would remain the same. Nelson said the staff report now accepts it as partially compliant, so Policy 7.10 was upgraded from non-compliant to partially compliant. Councilmember Hesser said there are many factors and he is comfortable with what he hears. Nelson described staff interpretation compared to Council interpretation. She explained that the staff analysis valuated this with residential requirements. Nicholson said the windows, doors and heights have been addressed. She asked the applicant to speak to the windows and doors. Hellman noted the applicant's willingness to comply with Council direction. He spoke on the flat roof and said it looked terrible and did not fit together in compatibly. Gonzalez asked Hellman about the height and his willingness to keep doors and windows, because they were now speaking on the gabled roof and setback and if this is possible. Hellman said it puts a cramp on the structure. He explained that they have tried every which way to make it as small as possible. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby, to uphold the HARC decision for denial. Jonrowe asked about the burden of proof not met by appellant. She listed her concerns with the project and the scale of the addition. Motion failed: 2-5 (Nicholson, Hesser, Fought, Pitts and Gonzalez opposed) Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser, to approve the applicant's Version 4, with the amendments of maintaining the windows and doors of the original structure. Ross asked about the front fence in Version 4. Nelson went back to the slide with the fence rendering. Nelson said it does not comply with the code. Ross asked if the lower fence complies. Nelson said it does. Jonrowe amended the motion to include maintaining the windows and front door, as well as the staff recommendation on the 6th Street elevation be set back to that the proposed elevation of the addition does not match or exceed the horizontal plane of the existing structure and that all fencing complies current UDC standards and the elimination of the balcony on 6'h Street. Second by Eby Jonrowe said these changes had been discussed and the applicant indicated he was willing to comply. Motion failed: 2-5 (Nicholson, Hesser, Fought, Pitts and Gonzalez opposed) Eby said this has been a frustrating process and she wishes that Council was able to review exactly what HARC had reviewed. She said this should have started with the burden of proof on the applicant. Eby said she does not believe sufficient evidence has been provided and the Council will be looking at many violations. She explained that the non-compliant criteria are the ones that are of most importance. Eby asked her colleagues to think hard. She said HARC did their job. She explained that the body was appointed to review the guidelines. Mayor Ross asked if the process allowed the applicant to go back to HARC and provide their changes. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said the applicant made the choice to appeal, but could have chosen to go back to HARC with modifications. He said if Council upholds the denial, the applicant can still go back to HARC with a new project or having the issues addressed. McNabb said, otherwise, the applicant must wait 180 days to bring it back. Amended motion by Jonrowe, second by Nicholson, to increase the fence height to 8 feet on the east side of the property to protect the privacy of the other homes. Approved: 7-0 Original Motion: Approved: 5-2 (Eby and Jonrowe opposed) Councilmember Jonrowe said there is an item later on agenda to determine the authority to issue COAs and she thinks the decision should be a demonstration to the public if they are able to trust Council to not politicize those decisions and whether they can make decisions that honor and respect all of the guidelines from founding documents. Q. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance rezoning approximately 43.77 acres out of the Francis A. Hudson Survey, Abstract No. 295, generally located south of La Conterra Blvd, west of FM 1460, and north of Westinghouse Road, from Agriculture (AG) to Residential Single -Family (RS) and Scenic -Natural Gateway Overlay zoning district, to be known as the Keyes Tract -- Andreina Davila -Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager (action required) Current Planning Manager, Andreina Davila, spoke on a rezoning request for property to be known as the Keyes Tract. She said the request was to rezone approximately 44.4 acres to Residential Single Family and Scenic Natural Gateway zoning districts. Davila provided a location map, a future land use map, an existing zoning map, and an aerial view of the property. She described the property and surrounding properties. Davila described Residential Single family zoning and provided District Development Standards Scenic Natural Gateway Overlay was described next. Davila spoke on staff findings and noted that all criteria had complied. She said the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request. Davila read the caption. Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9:16 PM. No persons had signed up to speak on Item Q. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9:16 PM. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Pitts, to approve Item Q. Approved: 7-0 R. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance approving and adopting the final 2019 Service Plan, 2018 Assessment Roll, establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the Georgetown Village Public Improvement District No. 1 (GVPID), closing the hearing and levying assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the GVPID during 2019, fixing charges and liens against the property in the GVPID and against the owners thereof, and providing for the collection of the assessments -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director (action required) Public Works Director, Octavio Garza, spoke on methods used for assessing special assessments in the Georgetown Public Improvement District (GVPID). Garza read the caption Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9:21 PM. No persons signed up to speak on the item. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9:21 PM. Motion by Pitts, second by Fought, to approve Item R. Approved: 7-0 S. Public Hearing to consider the amendment of land use assumptions, the amendment of the capital improvements plan, and the amendment of water and wastewater impact fees -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Utility Director, Glenn Dishong, spoke on amendments to water and wastewater impact fees. He noted that this involved this item and the following item. Dishong explained that the City is required to update impact fees every 3 years and an Impact Fee Advisory Committee had been established for this review. Dishong spoke on the process for the Enactment of the New Fees, provided a Chart showing the New Impact Fees and provided a map of the fee application area. Enactment of New Fees • Public Hearing - Fees to be enacted — Area where fees apply - Map • City and ETJ (by ordinance) • Western District (by agreement) — Fees effective Oct 1, 2018 • Ordinance Changes — Clarifies timing of assessment/payment — Synchs with MUD policy — Updates Fees New Impact Fees (Cmintrttee reconutietidatim —per LUE) Fee Type Current Recommendation Max Calculation Impact Fee - Water $7,039 $6,921 $7,023 Impact Fee - $ 2,997 S3,115 $ 3,115 Wastewater Impact Fee - South $ 4,452 S 4,348 $ 4,348 Fork Wastewater Fee Application Area �r.ti •��� l s Ver rn 4•w Dishong read the caption. Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9:22 PM. No persons had signed up to speak on Item S. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9:22 PM. No motion was made as this was a public hearing only T First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 13.32 of the Code Of Ordinances relating to water and wastewater impact fees to update the land use assumptions, update the capital improvements plan, and amend the impact fees in the City of Georgetown Service Area -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director (action required) Glenn Dishong, Utility Director, spoke on water and wastewater impact fees to update land use assumptions and update capital improvements plan. He explained that this was the action item related to the previous item and read the caption. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought, to approve Item T. Approved: 7-0 Mayor Ross called for a 5 minute break and resumed the meeting at 9:28 PM. U. First Public Hearing on the proposed 2018 Property Tax Rate used for the FY2019 Annual Budget -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director (action required) Finance Director, Leigh Wallace, spoke on the proposed 2018 property tax rate and noted that this was the first Public hearing on the matter. Wallace provided the Budget Process to Date. F-- FY2019AAnwil Budget Process To Date • Council Goals established fall 2017 — Strategies developed — Budget impact evaluated for implementation • Council budget workshops completed — Spring 2018: Utility Rates, Fire Station 7 Staffing; Fiscal Policies, Transportation CIP, Parks Capital Improvements, Facilities CIP, Utilities CIP, Council Goals, Debt and Tax Rate models — July 17 draft budget — Aug 7 proposed budget and set max tax rate Wallace provided detail of the Tax Rate for FY2019 Budget. F■IOL5Amus •uftyr Tax Rate for FY2019 Budget • Property Tax Valuations: — Total assessed valuation is certified at 57.83 billion, which is an overall increase of 7% increase over last year • New value represents $249M, up 26.76%. • TIRZ value increased by $85.2M, or 57% • Tax Ceiling exemption values increased 8.7% to $2.61 billion • Existing property increased 3.71% over last year • The average taxable home value is $279,521. This is an increase of $13,602 (5.1%) over the past year FY2019Mn%W Sud Tax Rate for FY2019 Budget • The proposed tax rate is $0.4200 per $100 valuation, the same rate as FY2018. • The effective tax rate is $0.407273, which represents the rate that would be needed to produce the exact same revenue as the previous year. fr 7lMnuN Tax Rate for FY2019 Budget • The rollback rate is $0.428038. • The estimated tax increase for the average homeowner (on a $279,521 taxable value) would be $57.13 annually or a 5.1% increase. • This tax rate includes necessary funding for proposed operations and payment of debt. Wallace spoke on Operating Budget Highlights. -moi II lIK(l I t)%%NML Operating Budget Highlights • Continued growth in call volume — Hire 3 positions in October to prepare for Station 7 • Opening of two stations — One company moves from FS5 to FS6 — Hire 11 FTE in June for FS7 • Operational January 2020 • FF/EMT hiring option to train up to paramedic Operating Budget Highlights • Development — Annexation services — Landscape Planner position — Fire Life Safety inspection position Police Division — Investigative supplies, contract increases — One School Resource Officer - 50% funded by GISD — One Animal Control Officer I 1WH1.110N%NM Operating Budget Highlights Parks and Recreation — Parks maintenance position — San Gabriel River maintenance contract — Landscape maintenance contract • Public Works — Funding for transit budget; offset by Georgetown Health Foundation grant — Neighborhood Traffic Management The General Fund Analysis was next. Wallace said that the year to year comparison on expenditures saw a 2.3% increase in overall expenditures, before the EMS merge. She explained that this was less than census population growth of 5.4% and the CPI of 2.5%. Wallace spoke on the CIP for Roads, Parks and Sidewalks and Facilities. CIP - Roads • Southeast Inner Loop — $1.2M • Leander Road - $21VI — Norwood to SW Bypass ■ NB Frontage Road - $150K; Austin Ave, south of Lakeway • Southwestern Blvd design - $1.55M — expansion to 4 lanes C1rr or %CC..Y4[TdN11 FY 11P 1 p A S' �t FYI019 AnAud per CIP — Parks and Sidewalks • VFW parking lot expansion $200K • Neighborhood Park Devp $250K • Sidewalks — Rock Street (6th -9th) - $2SOK — Shell Road (Sequoia to Rosedale) - $180K W-- F"010Amuid a�-*- CIP -Facilities/Other • Parking expansions — Downtown Garage — lot across from library — Blue Hole parking • Fire Station 7; Fire station study for future remodel Wallace detailed the spring 2019 Preliminary Debt Issue. i42019Annurf Budget HMO Spring 2019 Preliminary Debt Issue General Obligation Bonds 2015 Transportation Bond — Southwestern Blvd 1,550,000 — Southeast Inner Loop 1,200,000 — Northbound Frontage Road 150,000 — Leander Road 2,000,000 Total GO $4,900,000 jmii1411,ka it Spring 2019 Preliminary Debt Issue Certificates of Obligation — SCBA Replacement 290,000 — 800 MHz Radio replacement 500,000 — Sidewalks 430,000 — Parks 425,000 — Public safety vehicles 1,609,000 �lll[,1oK(,l lo%% jjjw Spring 2019 Preliminary Debt Issue Certificates of Obligation Continued — Blue Hole Parking 100,000 — Downtown Parking 350,000 — Downtown Parking Garage 2,500,000 — Fire Station Remodel 30,000 — Fire Station 7 6,250,000 Total CO $12,484,000 Wallace spoke on the Budget Schedule and then provided information on Public Outreach. Budget Schedule • August 7 — City Manager's Proposed Budget and Set Maximum Tax Rate (special called mtg) • August 14 —1St Public Hearing on Tax Rate • August 21— Public Hearing on Budget and 2nd Public Hearing on Tax Rate (special called mtg) • August 28 —1St Reading of Budget Ordinance • September 11— 2nd Reading of Budget Ordinance t .. .. _ ('IUKU.I hA',A� Public Outreach • Current - budget and presentation posted at finance.georgetown.org, library and facebook • Future- - Budget Video--- summary of proposed budget • Public Hearings on Budget and Tax Rate 8/14 and 8/21 • Adopted Budget in Brief published on website • Adopted Budget (full book) published on website/library • BudgetVideoon Adopted Budgeton website/social media Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9:40 PM. No persons had signed up to speak on Item U. He announced that the public hearing on the property tax would now be closed. Ross said the second public hearing will be held at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at the City Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th Street in Georgetown, Texas. Ross said the City Council will vote to adopt the tax rate on First Reading at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at the City Council Chambers at 101 E. 7'h Street in Georgetown, Texas and on Second Reading at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at the City Council Chambers at 101 E. 7'h Street, Georgetown, Texas. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9:41 PM. No Council action was required as this item was a Public Hearing only. V Consideration and possible action regarding the approval of the recommendations of the Strategic Partnerships for Community Services (SPCS) Advisory Board for the allocation of grants for FY 2018- 19 -- Jaquita Wilson, SPCS Advisory Board Chair and Shirley J. Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Manager The Chair of the Strategic Partnership for Community Services Advisory Board, Jaquita Wilson, spoke on the grant recommendations from the board. Wilson introduced members of the Advisory Board who were present at the meeting. Wilson described the lengthy and detailed application process and how the Board reviewed and analyzed applications. She noted that, this year, all applications had been complete. Wilson summarized the criteria and guidelines for requests and noted that this information was also included in the agenda packet. Councilmember Gonzalez thanked the Strategic Partnership for Community Services Advisory Board and Shirley Ross, Executive Assistant to the City Manager, who is the liaison to the Board. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked the advisory board. She said she was very grateful to have the Advisory Board reviewing applications and trusting the subject matter to the experts is more efficient. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser, to approve Item V Approved: 7-0 W. Consideration and possible action on Entitlement Status with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community Development Block Grants -- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Susan Watkins, the City's Housing Coordinator, spoke on Entitlement Status with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community Development Block Grants. She said the purpose of the item was to determine if the City wants to maintain their current status and relationship with Williamson County or pursue entitlement status. Watkins noted that this was follow-up to the July 24th workshop. At Council's request, Watkins described and recapped the Funding Requests and Amounts Received from 2014 through 2018. Watkins spoke on the Entitlement Allocation from HUD. ■ Estimated to be $274,000 0 20% for Administration allowed ($54,800) 0 15% for Public Services ($41,100) 0 65% remaining for activities ($178,100) Additional responsibilities and Required CDBG Plans and Documents were discussed. • Five Year Consolidated Plan • Assessment of Fair Housing • Annual Action Plan • Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report Watkins detailed the Total Funds Received in City Limits and showed cost of an In -House CDBG Program. Watkins described the available options. She explained that, with Option 1, the City would continue to be eligible for funds through October 1, 2022. Watkins noted that in 2020-21, the City may review Entitlement Status and could start the Consolidated Plan to prepare for receiving direct funding for FY22/23. She said that with Option 2, with current staff assignments, a consultant would need to be employed to complete the Consolidated Plan and the Analysis of Impediments. Watkins noted that, additionally, staff assignments for future administration would have to be reviewed for FY19/20 in order for the City to apply to the State CDBG program to receive funding for non -entitlement areas. She explained that staffing and compliance includes Environmental assessments for all entities and there would be additional workload tasks for other departments, as well, such as Finance. Watkins explained that staff's recommendation would be Option 1, staying as a participant in the Williamson County CDBG program. She described Council Action possibilities. • Motion to maintain Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County Motion to terminate Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County Watkins read the caption. Motion by Pitts, second by Fought, to maintain the Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County. Approved: 7-0 X. Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the University of Texas at Austin for development of a Bicycle Master Plan -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Ed Polasek, the City's Transportation Planning Coordinator spoke on an ILA with the University of Texas for the development of a Bicycle Master Plan. Polasek described the plan. He explained that UT would utilize Georgetown's public outreach exercises and Georgetown will benefit from the professional expertise. Motion by Eby, second by Nicholson, to approve Item X. Approved: 7-0 Y. Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute a Transit Service Agreement with Southwestern University for GoGEO transit services -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Transportation Planning Coordinator, Ed Polasek, spoke on a Transit Service Agreement with Southwestern University for GoGeo transit services. Polasek described the program. He explained that 60% of students do not have autos and the University has supplied a van for their transportation. Polasek said the University is pleased to offer a voucher program on the GoGeo bus service. He explained that this will be a useful pilot program and Georgetown will be able to receive expert analysis. Polasek read the caption. Motion by Fought, second by Eby, to approve Item Y. Approved: 7-0 Z. Consideration and possible action on a Resolution granting a petition for the voluntary annexation of an approximate 22.896 acre tract of land situated in the William Addison League Survey, Abstract No. 21, and a portion of Farm to Market Road 2243 (FM 2243), a right-of-way of varying width of record for CR 110 (Rockride Road) described to Williamson County, designation of initial zoning of Public Facilities (PF), and directing publication of notice for proposed annexation, for the property generally located along R 110 and CR 111, to be known as Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Elementary School No. 11 — Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Long Range Planning Manager, Nat Waggoner, spoke on voluntary annexation for property to be known as GISD Elementary School No. 11. Waggoner provided a location map, future land use map and the annexation process. Waggoner read the caption. Motion by Fought, second by Nicholson, to approve Item Z. Approved: 7-0 AA. Consideration and possible action on a Resolution granting a petition for the voluntary annexation of an approximate 1.42 -acre tract in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, designation of initial zoning of Public Facilities (PF), and directing publication of notice for proposed annexation, for the property generally located north of E University Ave and west of Inner Loop, to be known as Fire Station No. 7 -- Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Long Range Planning Manager, Nat Waggoner, spoke on voluntary annexation for property to be known as Fire Station No. 7. Waggoner provided a location map, future land use map, and the annexation process. Waggoner read the caption. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Nicholson, to approve Item AA Approved: 7-0 AB. Second Reading of an Ordinance for the Voluntary Annexation of an approximately 18.331 -acre tract of land located in the Ruidosa Irrigation Company Survey, located at 118 Mourning Dove, Georgetown, Texas, to be known as the Mourning Dove Subdivision -- Nathanial Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planning Manager (action required) Long Range Planning Manager, Nat Waggoner, spoke on voluntary annexation for property to be known as the Mourning Dove Subdivision. He explained that this was a second reading and there had been no changes since the first reading of the item. Waggoner read the caption. Motion by Eby, second by Hesser, to approve Item AB. Approved: 7-0 AC. Second Reading of an Ordinance ordering a Special Election to be held on November 6, 2018 for the purpose of seeking voter response to the proposition of "The Reauthorization of the Local Sales and Use Tax in the City of Georgetown, Texas, at the Rate of One -Fourth of One Percent to Continue Providing Revenue for Maintenance and Repair of Municipal Streets", providing for the City to contract with the Williamson County Elections Administrator to conduct said Election, making other provisions relating to the Election and providing an effective date -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary and Ed Polasek, Transportation Planning Coordinator (action required) Transportation Planning Coordinator, Ed Polasek, spoke on the November Special Election to reauthorize the local sales and use tax, providing the revenue needed for maintenance and repair of municipal streets. Polasek noted that this will mark the fifth election of the renewal and read the caption. Motion by Eby, second by Nicholson, to approve Item AC Approved: 7-0 AD. Consideration and possible direction to the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to make the following changes to the City Code of Ordinances: Strike Sec. 2.50.040.C. and add "To recommend to the City Council certificates of appropriateness; and" to Sec. 2.48.020 and to make any additional changes to the City Code of Ordinances and the Unified Development Code to provide that future applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") are to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission (?&Z") rather than the Historical Architectural Review Commission ("HARC"): and that any action taken by P&Z would be a recommendation to City Council rather than an approval or denial as with the current HARC process -- Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5 Mayor Ross said it is policy that if a Councilmember puts something on the agenda, the item is always placed last on the agenda. Councilmember Pitts introduced the item and explained his intention for approvals of Certificates of Appropriateness. Pitts said the City's downtown is the heart of the City. He explained that it is one of the things that sets Georgetown apart from other cities in the area and in the country. Pitts said he would never support any change that he believed would threaten the character of downtown Georgetown. He noted that the change to the Code of Ordinances that he was proposing is a process change and neither HARC nor historic preservation is going away. Pitts said, contrary to the rhetoric that has been spread, the downtown is not being changed. He explained that the only two items that would be changed with his proposal are the body who takes action on Certificates of Appropriateness and the type of action they take. Pitts said he believes it is very important for the City of Georgetown to provide great customer service and be easy to do business with. He explained that being easy to do business with is not saying yes to everything, but providing clear, consistent, and timely communication. He said it is important to have understandable and practical processes that provide predictability. Pitts said it is important to use objectivity to make decisions and the job of the City Council is to set the policies to allow staff to achieve these things. Pitts said his proposal is a very simple change to the Code of Ordinances that will help achieve intent previously voiced. Pitts said he believes that moving the Certificate of Appropriateness applications to the Planning and Zoning Commission will help with a faster turnaround on applications. He explained that it will also move these applications to a more appropriate body, and by changing the action to a recommendation versus an approval or denial, the final decision will be at the will of Council. Pitts explained that HARC meets once a month, while, for new construction, the applicant is encouraged to have a conceptual review meeting. The applicant then must wait a month for the Certificate of Appropriateness action. Pitts noted that if there is a denial, and the applicant wants to appeal, they would have to wait another week or two for a Council meeting. He explained that this process is not timely and, based on previous cases, has not been predictable or objective. Pitts said making the move to P&Z, an applicant could go to P&Z and be at Council the next week. He said, additionally, if P&Z recommends a denial of the application there would be no need for appeal because Council takes the final action. Pitts explained that a process that previously took over two months would now take two weeks. Pitts said P&Z is a body that has purview over the entire City. He explained that they review and make objective recommendations on development and planning with the whole City in mind. Pitts said HARC only has purview over Historic Overlays and Historical Structures and their decision making does not have the whole City in mind and many times is not objective. Pitts noted that moving Certificates of Appropriateness to P&Z will better ensure objectivity and also make sure the whole City is being considered in decision making. Pitts said he understands that there are subjective decisions that have to be made from time to time, but said, there is a difference in subjective and using the completely wrong decision making criteria. He said when HARC commissioners start talking about heritage trees when deliberating a COA for new construction, it is subjective and not objective because heritage trees are not within HARCs purview. Pitts said he also believes that P&Z is a more diverse body and read the eligibility requirements in the bylaws of P&Z: "The Commission shall be broadly representative as a whole, and whenever possible, members shall be drawn from different residential areas, different racial and ethnic groups, different occupations and professions and different interest groups." Pitts added that this change will ensure that the vision of Council is upheld. He said Council will have the final say and no other committee or commission within the City, outside of ZBA, has the authority to approve or deny requests. He explained that the advisory boards make recommendations and then Council takes the final action. Pitts said this change will move the Certificates of Appropriateness in line with all other actions the City takes. He said the current process requires five votes to overturn a HARC decision, while every other board or commission requires a simple majority vote, as it should. Pitts said he believes that elected officials should have the final say in what happens in the City and not an appointed body. Pitts said, if this item were to pass, and the ordinance that follows were to pass, HARC would have the following duties: 1. To make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic Overlay Districts and historic landmarks; 2. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; 3. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant, on new construction or the restoration, alteration or maintenance of any historic resource or other building within the districts; and 4. To perform any other functions requested by the City Council. Pitts said HARC would still have purpose in the City. He said he understands that COAs were HARCs largest duty, but they would now be an advisory board for the City Council to help with historic preservation. Pitts said he believes that with the suggested change, the Downtown will continue to be the great place, as it is today, and the City of Georgetown will be easier to do business with. Pitts asked his fellow Councilmembers for their support in making the recommendation to the City Attorney's office to draft the ordinance to make this change possible. Pitts read the caption. Motion by Pitts, second by Hesser to approve Item AD Persons signed up to speak on Item AD included: Gretchen Johnston, Lary Olson, William Harris, Jake French, Lois Canfield, Wendy Dew, Ross Hunter, Doris Curl, J. Bryant Boyd, Amanda Parr, Sherwin Kahn, Ann Seaman, Richard Cutts, Dwight Richter, Nancy Knight, Linda McCalla, Carolyn Britt, Jay Warren, Terry Scanlon, Pam Mitchel, Winnann Ewing, Brad Burns, Peter Dana, Leonard Van Gendt, Shawn F. Hood, Lawrence Romero, Paula Trietsch-Chaney, Michael Walton, Rob Hipp and John Foliet. Comments and Concerns Voiced included: Travesty of democracy Appalled at this suggestion No one is anti -business, but one body cannot 14 years ago started a Georgetown business Has to go through HARC for decisions Now grateful for the HARC board It is a process to paint a simple window Harc cares greatly about the community Important to leave those decisions to others than elected officials President of Preservation Georgetown Must preserve Georgetown heritage Supports HARC as it stand today P&Z and HARC have very independent responsibilities Harc is responsible for a small percentage of Georgetown properties Personally shocked and appalled when the downtown has taken 3 decades to create Destination location Historic charm is important Years ago store fronts were boarded up Committed number of citizens working very hard to maintain our beautiful downtown Thanked Sofia Nelson and Nat Waggoner in support of the HARC commissioners Decision to donate time to HARC was the Hat Creek proposal Hat Creek stepped back and chose a better site 70% of clients relocating to Georgetown Everyone love the charm that has been protected Certainly have had problems Applicants trying to land a 747 at the Georgetown airport would be a comparison Simply moving the rules from one body to another will not lessen the rules Make it a recommendation from HARC as proposed for P&Z Spoke on deed restriction regulations Harc is the HOA for Old Town Read the qualifications for HARC commissioners Hear since 1979 Idea of restrictions were not here prior to the Main Street program The square now attractive and profit Because of HARC Town has benefited and businesses have thrived Old Town depends on Harc for protection Renovating plans went through HARC Issues with planning staff not HARC Took 7 months to work with staff Staff made a great presentation at HARC and plans were approved. No wisdom in putting HARC issues on a P&Z agenda Harc is an architectural review committee Make sure quality improvements Proposal should go to UDC advisory commission Proposal not logical Harc is trained, P&Z and Council are not Harc appeals have only been 2 in the last 3 years Citizens across Georgetown support HARC Lines are blurred when relationships are mixed Official elected must monitor No adjustment to the independence of HARC Always tension in growing communities Must nurture and ensure the difficult balance Harc has subject matter expertise Most beautiful town square in Texas Didn't just happen 37 year legacy of preservation Respected the historic integrity of the buildings Creation of HARC was a natural offshoot Has served us well Disappointed in council vote tonight on the HARC application Community has placed importance on preservation Harc board showed demonstrated diligence in renovation Consistency is integral Only a handful of times council has had to overturn a HARC decision Common sense Voted for a plan the council did not have in front of them Scary Look at Austin neighborhoods Must protect important resource old town Applicant should have gone back to HARC Harc restrictions are what preserves the community Thanks those that work hard to preserve the historic charm Can't take away HARCs responsibility Not having HARC will hurt business Council already has enough burden Without HARC, brick walls will go up and take away friendly and warm Harc stand between developers and banks Heart and soul of Georgetown is old town Shout out to Mathew brawn — stayed toil midnight Has brought hundreds of projects to HARC, without one denied Hundreds of meetings when HARC was developed and historic preservation Can't take the teeth out of HARC Harc created by citizens with a blend of experiences Harc is the protector of old town Must be able to market Georgetown as an historic city and one that cares about preservation Could send the matter to the UDC committee to hash out Could unpack this Open up to more discussion Does not understand why anyone would not want to follow HARC regulations No faith in council's process Looks like a fire sale No proper protocol with council Selling community down the drain Hard to put a price on beauty Harc protects the historic integrity of the square and Georgetown Round rock destroyed historic integrity and now trying to get it back Untrained P&Z would not work Right now one vote by HARC — proposed to go to P&Z and Council — not streamlining Must go through UDC, as a normal process Mother spent hours and hours talking about ways to protect Georgetown preservation Harc was formalized Have always trusted council until now Harc is necessary Georgetown is Georgetown because of the hard work from the expertise from HARC Mayor Ross recessed the meeting, to begin again in 10 minutes Mayor Ross resumed the meeting at 11:25 PM. Extensive Council discussion followed. Councilmember Eby said she had not heard a rational reason for doing this. She said she had been a Commissioner in Training on HARC, a HARC Commissioner and the Chair of HARC, as well as serving on the Demolition Committee. She said she has seen both the good and bad sides and it is not perfect. Eby suggested proposing changes to the design guidelines through the UDC. She said Council has been asked to support something for an unspoken reason and she believes that approval would be disturbing and would lessen the Council's standards. Eby said the process could be improved and asked the Council to discuss the process. Eby said P&Z would not be the correct body to make COA decisions and it is not the role of the Council either. She said it is not practical to have residential homeowners have to go to P&Z and then Council. Councilmember Nicholson asked Pitts if HARC could review and make recommendations, since they are the more appropriate body for these decisions. She complimented Shawn Hood's comments and thanked all of the HARC members for their dedication and time. Nicholson said these types of reviews are very detailed and should not be a Council responsibility. Councilmember Hesser said he intends to support this proposal because of his visits to HARC meetings. He said there is a lot to HARC that needs to be kept, but there is misinformation and misunderstanding. Hesser said he truly believes in the objectives and vision of HARC, but there are problems that are very difficult to fix. Hesser said a vibrant downtown is all about the people. He said there are 1700 homes on the historic register. He said those people attending the meeting were rightfully passionate for HARC, but there are also lots of people that might not agree. He said he has heard from people because he has objected to HARC in the past. Hesser explained that people have a big investment and then they are not able to do what they want to do with their own home. Hesser said there are things that need to get fixed. Fought said he supports the proposal, as well, but understands both arguments. Fought said there are good reasons to preserve historic properties, but he opposes telling property owners they must do something. He noted that the City needs more resources regarding this and the placement of authority is an interesting proposal. Fought said the time might not be right for a decision, and he wants to see what the City Attorney comes back with in a draft ordinance. Fought said there may be some alternate ways to do things, and he would still want HARC to have the authority to recommend. Fought said this proposal will fill in the blanks. Mayor Ross said HARC is the only board that Council needs 5 votes to overrule and this needs further exploration. He explained that there would be 3 meetings on this and 3 opportunities to tweak what is wrong. Councilmember Pitts said he wanted to run for City Council to make it easier to do business in Georgetown. He said, as a banker, he has heard from many people who say it is very hard to do business with Georgetown and he wants to change that perception. He said there are many subject matter experts on HARC. He explained that this is not about people. Pitts said all of the Commissioners will outlive their terms. He spoke on the bylaws for membership. Pitts said, because he had served on P&Z, he knows the background of the members of P&Z, which also has a mix of great expertise. Councilmember Jonrowe asked Councilmember Pitts when he first conceived the idea for his proposal. Pitts said he has studied policy and code and wants to improve the process. Jonrowe asked Pitts why this would be his first agenda item. Pitts said it is because of problems that have been reported. Jonrowe asked Pitts how many P&Z and HARC members he had discussed his idea with. Councilmember Pitts said Councilmember Jonrowe already had the answers to all of her questions and he would not play the game. Jonrowe asked Pitts if he had looked at the current composition of HARC. She asked if he knew the resumes of members and how many live in the area to which the guidelines apply. She asked Pitts if he looked at the current composition of P&Z and if he know the resumes of its members and how many live or own businesses in the Old Town/Downtown area. Jonrowe asked Pitts, if his proposal is approved, what the responsibilities HARC would be left with and if they would still be left with pre -applications, signage and demolitions. Pitts said their responsibilities are clear in the documents he provided. Jonrowe said that HARC would hold pre -application meetings and give applicants feedback on potential design, get dialogue going, but then P&Z, being privy to none of these exchanges, and not being the subject matter experts, would be expected to render consistent and fair determinations of appropriateness. Jonrowe asked Pitts if he had considered whether P&Z would have the time to thoroughly discuss and advice on all of the COA issues. She said P&Z meets twice a month and asked Pitts if he envisioned them meeting more than the Council. She asked if Council would be able to put the same time into the COA process that HARC does. She asked if Pitts had considered the increased workloads and costs that would be borne by homeowners, small business owners, city staff, P&Z and Council and what benefits he saw that would outweigh these costs. Councilmember Gonzalez said he believes he is probably more involved with history and preservation than most He said without HARC there would still be the UDC. He said he does not think changing from HARC to P&Z would make a difference because it is still the same guidelines but there could be a difference in interpretation. He explained that individual opinions have affected decisions at HARC and he has seen it happen many times. Gonzalez said he thinks HARC gets it right most of the time, but there could be some things wrong with the process. He noted that it is easier for other boards to make a decision. He said HARC can be improved, but there is no need to change the authority to a different board. Gonzalez said he is the one who asked for HARC "members in training" because of the complexity of the issues. He said it is worth looking to see if there is a better process. He reminded the Council that they are responsible to the whole city and what is best for the whole city. Councilmember Eby said she feels like she has fallen into a catch 22 because nothing is making sense. She said she would welcome a workshop on the issues with HARC and the process in order to talk about ways to improve the process. She asked for real discussion about real issues. Councilmember Nicholson said she would support a workshop, as well. She said where the authority sits should be examined and what the real issues are should be examined. Nicholson said she agrees that the Council is responsible for the whole community as well, and still sees value in HARC. Councilmember Hesser said he has been looking for such a workshop for a long, long time and a vote needs to be taken this night. Councilmember Fought said he has been frustrated with the evening's conversation. He suggested that if the developer, architect, applicant, and HARC members were put in a room together and told to come to a plan in 30 minutes, they probably could have done it and there would be no need for this. Jonrowe said only 2 of 57 decisions for Certificates of Appropriateness have been denied by HARC in the last 3 years, or just 3.5% of applications appealed to the Council. She noted that one appeal was for the Eats on Eighth project, which Council upheld and the other is for Wish Well on this agenda. Jonrowe said she does not believe this is about improving the process and it is actually about something else. She said she believes it is about something that has not been acknowledged. Councilmember Gonzalez asked Jonrowe to clarify what she meant. Jonrowe said, overall, as the District 6 representative, she believes HARC is currently functioning better than it ever has. She said the Commissioners and staff have been focused on the scope of their discussions and compliance with the design guidelines. Jonrowe said she has heard nothing but glowing reviews of the work being done by the Historic Resource Officer. Jonrowe said a number of homeowners and business owners and conscientious developers have weighed in, many, many of whom have successfully been through the HARC process, saying the process is working. She said HARC is doing its job and doing it well, to the benefit of all citizens. Jonrowe went on to say that HARC and the design guidelines were created after much public discussion and involvement, specifically to be the protectors of the City's precious historic resources and the citizens who have served have done an admirable job. Jonrowe asked what this was all about. She said she does not believe it's about the other homeowners or small business owners who have successfully gone through HARCs processes. She said most of these people see how the HARC processes protect their investment. She said it is important to hold everyone to the same standards and not let certain interests game the system. She said applicants, with this proposal, could be subjected to an even longer and more expensive process. Jonrowe suggested that people ask themselves about the Ethics ordinance discussed in the day's earlier workshop meeting. She noted that the event that precipitated the ethics "crisis" was the recusal of a majority of P&Z members during a vote. Jonrowe suggested that this was not a deficiency of the local Ethics Ordinance, but rather a lost opportunity to ask if P&Z had been weighted too heavily in favor of members with ties to the development industry. Jonrowe said each person should decide if they think that the current state of affairs is a matter of intention or inattention, but she thinks it is a problem that should be addressed immediately. She said she believes the P&Z is not the body to be handling these decisions for a host of reasons. Jonrowe said that moving the COA process to the P&Z would deny Council the benefit of HARCs expert opinions, risk politicizing a process that has, for the most part, functioned very well, create confusion and increase costs for all applicants. She said this would eliminate the 2/3 super majority safeguard and hand one of the most important historic preservation functions to an appointed body that has no subject matter experts. Jonrowe said this would undermine community confidence in the commitment to preservation and jeopardize the Old Town investments made by those who have followed the rules. Jonrowe said the cons far outweigh any pros. She said if this item passes, it will fly in the face of all logic and cause many pillars of this community to roll over in their graves. Jonrowe asked who and what this is for. She said it is not for her and not for the people in the room. Jonrowe said for those who don't appreciate HARC and seek to prevent a process that was built by citizens and is supported almost unanimously by those impacted, don't build in Old Town. Councilmember Gonzalez said HARC functions the way it was intended but he will now support Councilmember Pitt's proposal because someone on Council has accused someone else on Council of mysterious behavior, just because a vote did not go their way. He said just because a vote does not go your way, does not mean there is something negative or illegal about it. Gonzalez said he will not allow someone to accuse and insinuate things without proof. He said he now believes the Council needs to dig deeper and find the real problems. Mayor Ross said it would be helpful to have the workshop because there are things that need to be flushed out. He told Pitts that it is his call since it is his item. Pitts said he would like to have a vote and still direct staff to have a workshop and continue working on this. He said Council could withdraw the proposed ordinance if directed by action later. Nicholson asked Pitts if he would consider changing the motion to not say anything about P&Z, stating approval for recommendations by HARC. Pitts said he would consider that. Amended Motion by Nicholson, second by Gonzalez, to not switch authority to P&Z, but to change the authority of HARC to a recommendation to Council. Approved: 5-2 (Eby and Jonrowe opposed) Amended Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought, to direct staff to set up a workshop on or before any final decisions are made to changes to HARC. Approved: 5-2 (Eby and Jonrowe opposed) Councilmember Eby asked for clarification if approval had been made for a workshop or for a workshop and the City Attorney drafted ordinance. Mayor Ross said action had been taken for both a workshop and a draft ordinance. City Manager, David Morgan, confirmed. He said he would likely be able to schedule the workshop in October. Original Motion by Pitts, second by Hesser to direct the City Attorney to draft the proposed ordinance.. Approved: 5-2 (Eby and Jonrowe opposed) Project Updates AE. 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 City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to discuss. Morgan said he did not at this time, but would be happy to answer any questions. 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, prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the meeting being called to order may speak. On a subject not posted on the agenda; An individual may address the Council at a regular City Council meeting by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the individual's name and a brief description of the subject to be addressed. Only those persons who have submitted a timely request will be allowed to speak. The City Secretary can be reached at (512) 930-3651. AF. Bonnie Schaefer would like to speak to the Council about preserving a place for youth involved in agriculture Mrs. Schaeffer spoke on the areana and show barn and its many benefits to youth in the community. She spoke on possible other uses for the arena. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vemon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. AG. 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 - Escalera Ranch Owners' Association, Inc. v Planning and Zoning Commission Members 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. 551:086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Quarterly Utility Financial Update Adjournment Motion by Fought, second by Nicholson, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 12.20 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on I� Date 6 . ' e(" Dale Ross, Mayor �J , lf� o �4L Attest: City 5e tary