HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 10.23.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 3:05 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 81h Street for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:07 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, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5,
Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:07 PM
A. Presentation and discussion on future Arts and Culture projects -- Eric Lashley, Library Service Director and
Sarah Blankenship, Arts and Culture Coordinator
Library Director, Eric Lashley, began the presentation and discussion of future Arts and Culture Projects in the City.
He explained the purpose of the presentation.
• Update on Arts and Culture Projects
• Art selected for the new City Center
• Bloomberg Art Challenge
■ Recommendation to update Fiscal and Budgetary Policy as it relates to Arts and Culture funding
Lashley noted that the Arts and Culture Board was established in 2005 and helps facilitate the Council's goal of
becoming a destination for unique experiences. He listed the current Arts & Culture Board Members and the Board
Liaisons.
Members:
Jane Estes, Carol Watson, Laura Sewell, Linda Wilde, Sharon Snuffer, Susie Flatau, and Timothy Fleming
Board Liaisons:
Eric Lashley, Sarah Blankenship and Lawren Weiss
Lashley thanked the many City departments needed to provide art and sculptures in the City, such as the Facilities
Department, Main Street Program, CVB, Parks Department, Planning Department, and Parks and Recreation
Department. He then introduced Sarah Blankenship, the City's Arts and Culture Coordinator, who continued the
presentation.
Blankenship provided a list of Grants provided by the Arts and Culture Board in 2017 and 2018. She provided
pictures and spoke on many of the projects, including the Congregation Havurah Shalom exhibit, SU Native, Annie
Purl Fiesta De Vecinos, and the Texas Bach Festival. Blankenship spoke on the "culture" portion of Arts and Culture.
Pro'r: (_ ._,' Grants
2017-2018 Grants
The following Grants were awarded:
Organizat-son Plants
ReCurst Funding
Congngatwn Havurah Shalom 1n partnership with thy
GPL
S2.S00 52.51AD
GISD Fine Arts at Carwr Elementary School in
Georgetown
5250 5250
GISDAnget Fountain Educational Endowment. Inc.
51.750 $1.750
Su Native
$2,500 $1.875
George town Festival of the Arts
$3,000 52.259
GISDAnnie Puri Elementary PTA
52.000 51.500
Georgvtown Cultural Citizen Memonal Assodattan
(GCCMA)
53.500
The Georgetown Palau Theatre, Inc.
56.000 , 51.000
Georg( -town Symphony Society, Inc.
55.000 $2.500
The Wittwmson Museum
$1,500,
Miliamson County Symphony Orchestra
$2, 500 , 5t .250
Georgetown Ballet
$4,000 51, ()W
GISD Georgetown PerformWj Art$ AUMMS
$10,000.
Texas Bach Festrvat, Inc.
$5,000,
$63.500 520.000
IJ
Blankenship provided advertisement for the Cultivation of Arts & Culture in Georgetown for a new round to take place
from October 2018 to March 2019.
Projects:
Grants
For
upcoming
events
10
Blankenship described the Boards process of selection to consider what is funded and showed the selections for the
October 2018 -March 2019 awards.
e c1 : Grants
October 2018 -March 2019
The Board voted to award the foliowu,Q:
I +!u+}lUi.j�tuhr. Iri,i n.r.e!-�..,I:'S1i.11l�� -J
► 100%funding for top 3 scores
11"S all received 5250
qtr VVdic li l',,nnrul•.n.l(e'Ip
ur•.(=, :1 til ib: 11i91-1 Qif:•1
re�lur•�t i-'.1 S: •. �: :.� ]FAI!L S.'•_v.:1
. •y n..,;. :i 'J: t ..:!
r rrlur•,t.--1 Y'%4 10
?iH111m,1..1 5110
tt1 R,>y•.K t; ir!ci l ,I A (,r.r rw;: t, n r. -,11P -1r ! S1 '•r S'
qH i1 W., 11,4".,La }ifHHl
Remainder Is for 114 score, ,un•,r: ;1 51V(V I'vard4 ;1
53639
Fri
Blankenship described multiple projects including a Poppy Power Photo booth to be at the Georgetown Art Center
during the Red Poppy Festival, a new Downtown Mural, and an Outdoor Sculpture Tour. She spoke on the sculpture
removal for new pieces coming and the installation of the project through the Parks and Recreation Department.
Blankenship showed pictures and described many of the upcoming sculptures, which will now be included in the
City's GIS mapping system. Blankenship also noted several interactive sculptures which people can touch, sit on,
engage with and enjoy.
Blankenship was pleased to relay that the Board had sold a sculpture this year — Thor's Hammer, which was sold to
the Saigebrook Development and will be displayed in the development. Blankenship noted that the Board gets 25%
of the sale to put back into funding for other projects.
Blankenship described the call for Artist Proposals for Art in the New City Buildings - the City Hall Rotunda, the
Municipal Court Lobby and the Municipal Court Transaction Window. She explained that there had been 95 entries.
Blankenship provided images and descriptions of the winning projects. The winners were acknowledged and the
intended art was described.
Municipal Court Transaction Window — Kevin Greer, Hutto, Texas
Municipal Court Lobby Wall — Jonathan Muzacz, Austin, Texas
City Hall Rotunda — Rosa Cruglez Sternmann, Seattle Washington
Blankenship showed examples of Public Art that could be considered for the new City Garage Project. She noted
that discussions are taking place on costs and architecture for the project. She also spoke on art to be displayed for
the 20th anniversary of Georgetown's Red Poppy Festival. Blankenship described an Interactive Kaleidoscope being
discussed.
Eric Lashley returned and provided images and descriptions of art being considered for the Bloomberg Grant
Challenge for Public Art. He spoke on the City Center and Municipal Court and Council Chambers space. Lashley
also mentioned possibilities for the Library and the Light and Water Works buildings. He explained that art and
sculptures could be used to create more of a campus atmosphere and children space. He explained that it is all
conceptual, at this time, and a consultant will be hired for further advice. Lashley mentioned the challenge of the
differences of the various buildings, which do not link together well architecturally. He explained that art can help with
this. He suggested that the smoke stack might be used as an art display of clean renewable energy. Lashley said
that Georgetown would stand a good chance of winning a grant from the Bloomberg Philanthropies and that Austin is
a finalist this year.
Lashley spoke about using a Percentage of Costs for Art in New Public Building Construction. He explained that
cities can implement their own public art program and can budget accordingly from whatever sources they choose.
Lashley said that Texas does not have a uniform percentage. He said Dallas uses a percentage from 0.75% to 1.5%,
and Houston is using 1.75% to 2%. He noted that Georgetown's financial policy permits this, but some language
would need to be cleaned up. Lashley suggested possibly using 1 % of the cost of a project for art. He said it would
be helpful to the Arts and Culture Advisory Board if they had a specific percentage approved by the City Council.
Lashley described the concept in detail and provided examples.
tot Art its Project_ examples
_CI II II rl'� I"C •il'_i _ _I I!1
. r:ii;f'!1Cil;lll f)'(l���r-f ::•� i�t:111•i11Ca' 2' :"11
for Art in Public Project Examples
Cy of CrilurnhI'l 6ltssotIr1, Paptllanon: 190,6,1: Q9016)
City of '4Vakc Forost NC Popul,Moil •10 112 (1016)
► ,{ .l =�' - - � - � l - _ .. _ ,til _ .:"�. �•' �,li.-.,... ,_a .- I '- -
.. :. =mom , t � ' - .- .. „ -•. ,_. -..• r,},- 1!-.1 _ in,m 4 • -. -, -�
City I I:t Loudutdok- FL PV1 lllallort 1 If{ 152 (M16
T,�mw! AZ Pol da!iou 1+{� 1`.?ti 12111 •I
1
, 1'-
T,�mw! AZ Pol da!iou 1+{� 1`.?ti 12111 •I
City ��I ra;ni�lu+��;ln�� Ptit�ul.tUvn 5;`t 1ll I:?V'hl
City of Rockvdl, MD Pnmd,mnn 66 (MO (?III(-.!
•. 1
SP.anle, WA, Population 704 352 (?016)
► -Dir ,.]..,._ _,. .. i'-- - .. i•_ a - . ;,�_. Si1 Jo .._ _
Owham PJC Population: 263 016 (2016)
Lashley spoke about art at the City's Firehouses and showed an image of a sculpture of a dog in front of a Firehouse
in Roanoke. He said the citizens of Roanoke love the sculpture and it has become a big part of the City.
Lashley asked the Council for their feedback.
Councilmember Gonzalez said he was pleased with the nice presentation and applauded the Arts and Culture Board
for the tremendous job they are doing and the variety of art. He asked about 1 % for art in municipal buildings and if
that meant one percentage of construction costs. Lashley confirmed.
Councilmember Fought asked if the suggestion is 1 % of each project. Fought said he would like to receive more
information and specific figures on what this would have been over the last 2 years. He asked Lashley to get back to
Council with real figures.
Councilmember Nicholson asked about construction of Fire Station V. She noted that the construction was
estimated to cost $7 million, which would mean art at a cost of $70,000. Nicholson said she likes the idea and also
likes the idea of not utilizing H.O.T. funds. City Manager, David Morgan, said the board and staff want to encourage
art on private property as well.
Mayor Ross asked about H.O.T. tax funds to fund art. Lashley explained that the state allows cities to utilize 9% of
H.O.T. funds and the City has been fortunate in these funds the last 2 years. He went on to explain, that if Council
were to approve 1%, this would not mean that that much will be used. Lashley noted that during construction, it
would be helpful to know if a special design of a wall intended to hold the weight of and art piece would be needed.
He explained that if these things are known well ahead, the architect can do much more, such as mosaics and
sculptures. Lashley suggested that mosaics could be tied to the history of Georgetown. He spoked on a printing pad
that had been installed at Robert's Printing Company recently to hold a sculpture.
Councilmember Pitts asked what percent had been set for art at the New City Hall. Lashley said less than $10,000.
Pitts asked for more clarification regarding the 1% and construction costs, etc. Lashley explained that this
presentation was just for a heads up conversation for the Council and more would be provided to them in the near
future.
Mayor Ross suggested using H.O.T. tax funds and a percentage for Arts and Culture. He noted the evolvement to
Economic Development.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked about a possible cap amount. He suggested approving 1% with a cap amount.
Mayor Ross said it could be set up that staff must come back to Council with these figures even if the figure is under
$50,000. City Manager, David Morgan, agreed and said this would be a guideline in the fiscal budgetary policy and
would help plan for future projects.
Councilmember Jonrowe said she is very open to funding arts and culture and believes it benefits the health and well-
being of citizens. She said there is a need to be more aggressive and asked what Council can do to help facilitate
arts in other areas. Lashley said staff is working as a high functioning team, believing in the importance of arts and
culture. Lashley said he would love to see more arts and culture in private development, but the City cannot control
that. Jonrowe asked about arts in the parks system and how the funding breaks down. Lashley said the Arts and
Culture Board would fund a project, and that the parks employees do the work or sublet the work. He said Public
Works has also helped with installation. Lashley said it is important to locate sculptures in safe areas for safety. He
noted in the Downtown area that it is important that a sculpture is not in the line of sight, which could cause traffic
accident issues. He said there are also ADA issues. Lashley said the pad is sometimes paid for by the artist and
sometimes by the City and it is usually a collaborative effort. He said an artist receives a one-time stipend for the
sculpture. Lashley noted that there is a competition for the art and a "best in show" art piece would receive a higher
stipend. He said the City gets the sculptures for one year and hopes to sell them for the City's 25% that gets put
back into the program. He noted that the stipend is always a low amount for the quality of work. Lashley said staff is
happy to have touchable and interactive sculptures. Jonrowe asked about art on bridges. Lashley said
conversations are taking place regarding this.
Councilmember Hesser said he agrees with the suggested funding and asked if art will be changed out from time to
time. Lashley said art is changed out in the downtown cultural district and security issues are followed.
Mayor Ross recapped Council direction
B. Presentation and discussion of the Solid Waste Master Plan Project -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director
and Teresa Chapman, Environmental Services Coordinator
Octavio Garza, Public Works Director, spoke on the Solid Waste Master Plan and introduced Teresa Chapman, the
City's Environmental Services Coordinator, who provided the presentation. Garza noted that representatives from
Texas Disposal Systems and Burns McDonnell were in attendance.
Chapman provided background of discussions regarding the Solid Master Plan. She noted sectors that had already
been discussed and had received Council direction and noted the sectors to be discussed during this presentation.
Chapman said staff will be coming to Council in November with a summarization of all discussions and direction.
Chapman described the CSWMP Implementation Plan.
1. Establish baseline in identified sectors by participation and material types during years 1-3, including
conducting waste characterization audits.
2. Develop and adopt KPIs for each sector to measure participation in diversion activities from the baseline
including reduction, reuse, recycling and composting.
3. Establish specific diversion goals in each sector.
4. Measure progress toward diversion goals.
5. Review and update every five years.
Chapman spoke on Key Industry Trends.
She described the Council Approved Guiding Principles of the Solid Waste Master Plan.
1. Develop innovative MSW management methods for residential and commercial sectors consistent with the
waste management hierarchy.
2. Services must be convenient for customers and price -competitive.
3. Enhance aesthetics and services for Downtown Square customers and City parks.
4. Evaluate alternatives to landfill disposal; landfills are a finite resource in the region.
Chapman provided a CSWMP Summary by Sector.
T A1:,.t L- 4.(.;NIeto 15
991-.;iT YF SU."A RY
HJI� Ay
I',AvNNG;Tb[-erANC) Af.—L&TnAYToFrG:Acvlpl% it
1 0 P.A\NING ARLA CNARACTLAIS'.:CS - S I
40 FAOL,tIfS ANO NF PA) FAIX, 1FIAE A 1
.3 Si N:iUFAML Y 09UC-9NTtAL
I
! V MSL IAF AM! Y AkSUt\f16L � 1
70 COMMFACIA: AND I%:TI'UT-CNAL 7.1
10
Cp NNTC WN �OMw+t rr:+Al
Y I
J O
PJ01 i. SPAdFS A\DSPVCIAL FYF\TL
lap
MOA,C CAL OPtRA 110%1 AND COL C lS -
ICI
110
WOL✓Kio0i 0 MA7AA001A, WALTG AND GfKi Al OVA' TIF
I'•1
12 0
CITY WID[ STRA't6[S I . . .. .1_1._---____.- ---
12 1 I
Strategy Implementation and City-wide Strategies were detailed.
• Ongoing MSW contract evaluations
• Waste characterization audits and baseline establishment
• Standardized MSW Collection containers and signage
• MSW infrastructure planning
Chapman described the Current System and the Strategy Implementation for Single Family Residential, Multifamily
Residential, Commercial and Institutional, Public Spaces and Special Events, Municipal Operations and Policies, and
Household Hazardous Waste collection programs.
She said a problem lies with residents using commercial services instead of residential services and said the City can
do better. Councilmember Nicholson said she hears that recycling is not available at multifamily developments.
Chapman showed the strategies for multifamily recycling and said residents will be shown how to use the service with
a recycled container. She noted the need for more education and technical support.
Mayor Ross asked about commercial recycling. He said at his office people take recyclables home to put into the
right container because there is no recycling container at the office. Chapman said she and TDS will come out and
help decide cost and location for a recycling unit.
Councilmember Gonzalez suggested considering incentives for correct use.
Councilmember Pitts spoke on correct usage at the bank that he works at. He explained that, as a national bank,
managed nationally rather than locally, they would not be likely to reach out locally for information or assistance.
CURRENT I
SYSTEM Single-family Residential
Effective single -stream recycling program
• Above average annual material capture per household
GECRGETOWN 443 lbs NA-, 1DNAi_- 337 lbs HIGHEST PERFORMAG
above 500 lbs
• 70% weekly household participation rate
• Potential for increased participation and material capture
Opportunity to increase yard trimmings (organics)
diversion
GEO.RGET-INN 2. 3% of MSW H GH PyRFORMIN 10-20% of
generation MSW generation
i; : , � . I, <, k% \ 3
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION Single-family Residential
• Increase single -stream recycling participation rates
Targeted education and outreach initiatives
• Evaluate changes to yard trimmings program to
increase material quantities
O Opportunity for significant increased MSW diversion
a Evaluate customer needs
a Potential for increased collection frequency
9
CURRENT
SYSTEM Multifamily Residential
Limited understanding of MSW stream composition
and quantities
• Currently treated/tracked as commercial customers
Low recycling participation by property owners
• Fewer than one-third
Motivation for recycling participation
• PRCPERT- obvNFRS focused on keeping costs low so may be
less likely to provide recycling services
• RFSIDEENTS convenient access and sufficient capacity
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION Multifamily Residential
• Increase single -stream recycling participation and
material generation rates:
Work with property owners:
• rechnlcal support
• Assistance In resident education and communication
Consider policies to encourage or ordinances to
compel property owners to provide recycling service
• Provide multifamily residents with equal levels of
service as single-family residents (recycling, bulky
items)
CURRENT
SYSTEM � Commercial &Institutional
City provides typical core services for similarly -sized
cities in Texas: landfill trash and recycling
Low recycling participation and material quantities
• 6.4% of material is recycled About half has potential to be
recycled
• High percentage of customers do not have recycling
collection. partially due to recent service initiation (2017)
Some entities have strong interest in recycling and
sustainability
• Actively pursuing on their own
• Looking to the City as a leader to provide support
and guidance
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION Commercial &Institutional
Increase recycling participation and material
generation rates:
Provide technical support (site assessment), recognition
programs, education, best practices guides
Consider policies to encourage or ordinances to compel
property owners to provide recycling service
• Prioritize key partnerships:
Georgetown ISD
Southwestern University
Williamson County
�,!uk",l lii�%♦
1
'3
CURRENT Public Spaces &
SYSTEM Special Events
Parks:
• City staff provide day-to-day MSW collection
• Challenges for public Challenges for collection:
Later and container overflow Staff have difficulty distinguishing
Limited recycling opportunities landfill trash and recycling bags
High potential for recycling Frequent and Inconsistent
contamination collection needs
Special Events
• Red Poppy Festival is a Zero Waste event
• Other permitted events do not have MSW requirements
Contributes to low recycling participation
Does not support City s guiding principles
I r l l jl l. r i U 41
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION
Public Spaces &
Special Events
Public Support
• Provide paired landfill trash and recycling containers
• Strengthen public outreach and education
On- the. ground instructional demonstrations
Affix simple. graphics based Instructional signage to containers
City Operations Support
• Provide trainings to City collections staff for proper material
recognition and separation procedures
• Utilize different color bags for landfill trash and recycling
• Collaborate with appropriate City departments to incorporate
MSW management into other long-term plans
is
f
CURRENT Municipal Operations &
SYSTEM Policies
Recycling opportunities, along with landfill trash, are
provided in all 32 City facilities, in shared and individual
work spaces
However, there are multiple challenges:
• Inconsistent use of recycling by City staff
Contamination of recyclables
• Landfill trash and recyclables may not be properly separated
dunng collection by contracted custodial staff
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION
s
Municipal Operations &
Policies
• Develop a comprehensive staff education program
o Short mandatory trainrngs with annual refreshers
* 'Targeted communications upon program changes
o Internal best practices guide
U Consistent graphic based signage in shared spaces
• Require custodial contractor to provide guidance for
correct collection procedures, at City's approval
• Collaborate with other City departments, as appropriate,
for items such as:
v Green purchasing policies
o Incorporate MSW diversion terms in all third -party contracts
o Standard business practices for disposing of hazardous materials
o I
kl ncorporate MSW diversion into Emergency Management plans
tl l l�c,�I t 7th 1
CURRENT Household Hazardous
SYSTEM Waste (HHW)
Current program structure:
• City contracts with Williamson County Recycle Center (WCRC)
• Permanent collection facility
• On-line vouchers for residents, once per quarter
• No cost to residents
Steady growth in program participation for past five years
• Transition to on-line vouchers (paper vouchers prior to 2017)
• City's continued population growth
• City's increase education and outreach efforts
Comparison to similar programs in Texas:
STRUCTURE
PARTICIPATION.
COSTS.
• Comparable
Comparabxe
Higher per -customer
• Many mid•saed cines
2 8% household
costs due to lack of
partner with larger
participation rate
economies of scale
entities or
89 pounds of material
municipalities
per voucher
(it() T ETx�sC�k
1B
rl
STRATEGY Household Hazardous
IMPLEMENTATION Waste (HHW)
• Continue public education and outreach to promote
program participation, with focus on
Environmental Impact Reuse program
Source reduction Program visibility
• Establish a baseline for customer satisfaction through
customer surveys
• Continue to consistently track program data, including
participation, material generation, and costs
Conduct annual program review
• If annual program review necessitates, further evaluate
altemative program options
19
1. The CSWMP separates the City into sectors with similar waste streams; commercial, single family,
multifamily, municipal operations, special events and others.
2. The CSWMP then requires the establishment of a baseline and development of specific goals to measure
progress in diverting materials away from landfill disposal in each of those sectors, with a formula to
combine the information into an overall diversion measurement.
3. The CSWMP provides multiple strategies to increase diversion activities in each sector. The strategy
utilized will be determined by baseline information, cost and stakeholder feedback.
Chapman said staff will come back to Council with specifics on the Downtown Plan at the November 27th Workshop.
She explained that at this workshop, there will be the summary of the Consolidated Solid Waste Master Plan and the
proposed adoption of the Final CSWMP. Chapman noted that specific goals will be brought to the Council in fall
2019.
Items for Council Feedback and guidance were shown.
1. Consideration of SWMP format — dividing the City into sectors and developing strategic goals for each,
versus city-wide goals.
2. Approval of the implementation plan: establish a baseline in each sector, consistently working to increase
diversion in each sector while developing a method to measure progress and establish specific goals based
on data.
Mayor Ross confirmed that the Council is in agreement.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding current and past historic preservation policy -- Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on current and past historic preservation policy. She introduced Madison
Thomas, the City's Historic Planner and Nat Waggoner, the City's Long Range Planner.
Nelson said the purpose of the presentation was to provide a history and background on past and current historic
preservation efforts and policy documents. She said she would identify a level of consensus on the following: 1)
direction on any additional information needed regarding past and current historic preservation policy and 2) goals
and purpose of each of the presented historic preservation policy documents.
Nelson spoke on the history of historic preservation in Georgetown and provided slides depicting what has been done
across the years.
1970s
• Historic Preservation
Commission established
(1975)
• Town Square Historic
District Established (1975)
• Courthouse Historic
District was listed on the
National Register (1977)
• The University -Elm Street
Historic District was listed
in the National Register
(1979)
(IIORL.FIIri�♦
I I \\N
r2600-2005
Downtown Design
Guidelines & overlay
district adopted (2001 j
• Changed the Histonc
Preservation
Commission to the
Histonc and
Architectural Review
Committee (2001)
• Downtown Master
Plan (2003)
n Overlay
Zdaw
(2004)
0\A'N
1980s
• Georgetown enters
George
Main Street
Program (1982)
• City was
designated a
Certified Local
Government (CLG)
Program(1982)
• First Historic
Resource Survey
Completed (1984)
• Courthouse
National Historic
Distnct expanded
(1986)
J
r2005-2010' Historic
Resource
Survey
Completed
(2007)
Ad
r
0s cont.e Belfordtoric District
was listed on the
National Register
(1986)
A
2010 -present
■ Historic Design
Guidelines tivere amended
(2012)
• Olive Street Histonc
District listed on National
Register (2013)
• Downtown Master Plan
updated (2014)
• UDC Amendments
authorizing HPO over
small requests (2015)
• 3 -' Histonc Resource
Survey completed (2017)
Part 2: Review Policy
Documents Regarding Historic
Preservation
li •1 �
I �
711
■
HN•.�•q: �'! rrii. fry •
Preservation - Encourage preservation of
historic structures
• Guide maintenance and rehab
Rehabilitation of distinctive key character
defining features
• Seek compatibility with the
character of the existing area as
Compatibilitynew infill development is
considered
• Character of historic structures ar
Character encouraged to be maintained as
they are adapted to neer uses
Purpose
Sets vision for
downtown
Goals for land use,
public improvements,
urban design, and
public spaces
Downtown Historic
Master Plan Resource
Survey
Design
Guidelines/
Secretary Of UDC
Interior
Standards
• PuWsg,
A basis for making
decisions about the
appropnate treatment
of historic resources
and new construction.
• Purpose
• Documents historic
resourceswithin the
Community
-Put ose
• Toestablish
application and
review procedures.
public notice and
hearing procedures,
and review criteria
for the processing
Cof OAs
applications for
The Downtown Master Plan and Georgetown's Design Guidelines were discussed in detail.
Downtown Master Plan
The Downtown Master Plan seeks to
provide an updated framework i vision for
the citizens of Georgetown to use in
planning for the future of the downtown
through the year 2030.
This Plan establishes a policy base
regarding capital improvements and
other public investments. new private -
sector development. and opportunities for
public-private partnerships. It is a tool to
guide policy decisions rather than
mandate them.
Downtown Master Plan
Georgetown's Design Guidelines
The guidelines are not a rigid set of rules
They do not require that buildings be restored
to a historical period or style Rather, their
purpose is to provide-
• Guidance to property owners and tenants
about buildings. their distinctive
characteristics, and how to maintain them,
• Various appropriate ways to address
design. repair, and rehabilitation issues:
• Good maintenance practices, and,
• Appropriate ways to design new,
compatible infill buildings and site layouts
Georgetown's Design Guidelines
While the guidelines provide direction for specific design
issues, some basic principles of preservation form the
foundation for them. The following preservation principles
apply in Georgetown:
1. Respect the historic design character of the building.
2. Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of
the building.
3. Protect and maintain significant features and stylistic
elements.
4. Preserve key, character -defining features of the property.
5. Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those
elements that cannot be repaired.
G rox o wN
L
• To rehabilitate existilirlg historic commercW
buildings;
• To continue the use of traddmW bu g
materials focus in the area;
• To maintain the traditional mess, size, and forrr
of buildings seen akxig the street O.e., a
building should be a rectangular mass that is
one- to three -stories in height);
• To deso commercial buildings with storefront
elements skrilar to those seen traditionally (.e.
a commercial buikkV should iincltlde: recesses
entries, display whndows, kick plates, hwu m
wkdows, midbelt cornices, cornices or
pediments, and vertically-oriented upper -story
wows. );
• To design a project that reinforces the retail -
oriented function of the street and enhances its
pedestrtan character;
I
s
.
r
icy �
•• -'
�
.J
•i
�
L
• To rehabilitate existilirlg historic commercW
buildings;
• To continue the use of traddmW bu g
materials focus in the area;
• To maintain the traditional mess, size, and forrr
of buildings seen akxig the street O.e., a
building should be a rectangular mass that is
one- to three -stories in height);
• To deso commercial buildings with storefront
elements skrilar to those seen traditionally (.e.
a commercial buikkV should iincltlde: recesses
entries, display whndows, kick plates, hwu m
wkdows, midbelt cornices, cornices or
pediments, and vertically-oriented upper -story
wows. );
• To design a project that reinforces the retail -
oriented function of the street and enhances its
pedestrtan character;
• To develop in a compatible nature with that of
Area 1; whereas the entire Downtown Overlay
District is seen as a distinct commercial district
that also allows and encourages residential
development;
• To define the sidewalk edge with elements that
are amenities for pedestrians-,
• To establish a sense of scale in buildings and
streetscape design that can be enjoyed by
pedestrians;
• To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles;
and
• To strengthen the pedestrian network of
sidewalks, plazas, and paths
M
Councilmember Gonzalez asked about Area 2 and said the map seems to have areas in the middle cut out. He
asked if this represented areas not as historic as the others. Nelson said staff was looking at the character of the
"areas" and the consistency in types of buildings. She explained that it has to do with setbacks, as well. Nelson said
she wants to go back and look at the goals and core areas again.
Nelson described how Design Guidelines are used. She showed the Secretary of Interior Standards and Goals and
their standards for rehabilitation projects
• To preserve historic structures;
• To continue the use of
-
-----
traditional building forms and
materials in new construction;
IL,
• To maintain the residential
`
character of street facing
r
facades, streets, and front
.�
-•— --- ---�
yards, and the overall
(.
residential character of the
area; and,
• To preserve the character of
:-
^�
historic houses that may be
adapted to new uses
Councilmember Gonzalez asked about Area 2 and said the map seems to have areas in the middle cut out. He
asked if this represented areas not as historic as the others. Nelson said staff was looking at the character of the
"areas" and the consistency in types of buildings. She explained that it has to do with setbacks, as well. Nelson said
she wants to go back and look at the goals and core areas again.
Nelson described how Design Guidelines are used. She showed the Secretary of Interior Standards and Goals and
their standards for rehabilitation projects
Original architectural detalis that have deteriorated beyond
repair should be replaced In kind
'rtSA7vC rS•*F[ Mdar7ob aAirma7.+ n .- � .
:rtaitr?ns / MrtOn 4r q+0 cu'Pn?I R1 -Q^7 ,•._ r. .: .5
rwte-.al ++av t+ Cwyara r+'S�' Aet�fcr'rrr! • i
tI•xAd s[cu xly 11Ae M rtseq A s4e K ryee i • � r • •
ny�rrwxtle,na�rr•Hryeetar�d inT••,ert •:--,
re4=►xR Rr : 1!Ll:yl t� P** n•iytreE
�trm" ^ath flue t!sv fro4Cn7 a s—.qr
`
\ct"
il.rns r..rq, tftaf whrp w 9110!40nrx31114
■ ld mull W Ift!•E4+d
etwn aM tFd0M a err cwx'wn xre Nrr. �:.�..rr .r. �r•r . �,...y
Jrd+n.A Mt C" Ie1XXffg rrxlrys d w• t �-••• •+w +v+. o..�na nrr
:s, VAP 0 Ow &emit ori *ar an n rt.=
The Standards offer four distinct approaches to the treatment
of historic properties—
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• restoration, and
• reconstruction—with accompanying Guidelines for each
The Standards offer general design and technical
recommendations to assist in applying the Standards to a
specific property- Together, they provide a framework and
guidance for decision-making about work or changes to a
historic property.
Secretary of Interior Standards
for rehabilitation projects
• A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a
new use that requires minimal change
• The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved
• Changes that create a false sense of historical development shall be
avoided
• Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques shall be
preserved.
• Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced
• New additions exterior alterations or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property
A6,
"l I l lIt \
11 �\�
Unified Development Code
• Sets definitions for Contributing and Non-
contributing resources.
• Process and Procedures for the following:
— application and review procedures,
— Authority of decisions
— public notice and hearing procedures,
— Review criteria and authority for the
processing of applications for COAs
Nelson asked the Council for discussion and direction on the following:
Mayor Ross asked about compatibility. He noted that if a house were to burn down, there would not be further
demand to comply with construction. Nelson said this is in field development in the guidelines and it will show which
area — such as area 1 or 2 and demand a certain placement of the building. Ross asked about a stucco garage not
being consistent with homes in Old Town in the past. Nelson said the guidelines ask for a distinct difference. City
Manager, David Morgan, said if a building is not on the historic resource survey, the owner is not required to follow
the guidelines, but commercial infill development would have restrictions.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked about homes missing from the map. Nelson explained that these could be homes
that are not on the historic resource survey. Gonzalez said he wants people to understand what is expected when
purchasing properties and it must be consistent. Nelson said she would do further research.
Councilmember Jonrowe said it could be helpful to look at areas that were changed in the latest downtown
commercial study. She said the character would need to be based on people still living there and the latest update
process and rezoning issues. Jonrowe said seeing the contributing documents was very helpful.
Mayor Ross said this was a very well done presentation. He said the one thing missing is cost consideration. He
said these requirements become unfunded government mandates. Ross said he wants tax credits and other
considerations researched and everything needs to be fair and equitable. He explained that those required to do
things to their property deserve to be helped.
Jonrowe asked if people are sent something requiring updates to their house. She said most buyers come with a
design and the intention to update the house. Jonrowe said she wanted to see the comparison of the costs of historic
home updates and a home, not historic, being updated. She said, if a homeowner is forced to do something because
of regulations, they need to get help. Jonrowe said she wants data regarding this and not just a point of view from
one person. Mayor Ross said the City has reached out to stakeholders and will get good feedback.
Councilmember Gonzalez said historic rehabilitation needs to be examined and there needs to be flexibility in
materials. He said a house could be let go, if the owner cannot afford an exact replication of materials.
Morgan asked the Council if the language in the slide was broad enough. Gonzalez said it needs to be more specific
and he wants a better description of "in kind". Morgan read the language and said it is broad enough that the
materials Gonzalez mentioned would be allowed. Gonzalez said it could be interpreted differently. Morgan said staff
is asking Council to confirm that they want the basic principles, such as distinctive key character defining features.
Gonzalez said he agrees with the basic principles.
Councilmember Fought said this was a great presentations. He said confusion has been caused sometimes because
it takes a 5 to 2 vote to override a HARC Decision. He said as a part of the next document review, he would like to
understand the reasoning for this and if it was intentional. Fought said he wants to know specifically where this came
from. Fought said he would also like to know what has to be done to change this. He said this has caused quite a bit
of trouble.
Charlie McNabb, the City Attorney, said super majority vote requirements are throughout the code and are not used
uniformly. He said it can be an easy fix. McNabb said that there is confusing wording in the City Charter. He
explained that it would be easy to address the Code. Fought spoke on the goals and asked if the City is trying to
preserve a point in time or structures as they immerged. He asked if it is the manner of how the City matured or
evolved that is what needs to be preserved. He explained that Georgetown is not a Williamsburg, and there must be
discussion in intention. Fought said he is not in favor of putting in space age things. He spoke on unfunded
mandates and said if HARD says a homeowner can't do a desired design, which ends up costing him more money,
the City needs to be a part of this and needs to make a budget decision.
Morgan clarified and asked if an additional goal should indicate the historic overlay guidelines stating that the City
needs to have a part financially. Mayor Ross said economic feasibility needs to be discussed and spoke on milled
wood as an example.
Mayor Ross said this is a challenge. Morgan asked if it might help to add language "as is economically feasible".
Mayor said this should be considered. Councilmember Gonzalez said if someone is buying an historic home, they
should know it will cost more to restore it, and if materials are 50% over a different home restoration, the City could
help out, while considering feasibility along with materials.
Mayor Ross said aesthetically replicated windows look the same and have more efficiency. Councilmember
Nicholson said she has heard about the character areas being updated every 10 years, or more, systematically
Nelson said the Downtown Master Plan was adopted in 2014, and general practice would be an update every 5
years. Nicholson said UDC discussion should take place regarding SLA and time expectations, as well.
Council member Eby thanked Nelson for the presentation. She said it was very helpful and has given context for
what is being talked about. She said there is a broader context across the Country and we are looking at overall
policy. Eby said she would like to separate policy from unfunded mandates. She said policy and goals should be
the first focus and tools would be discussed later. She said when policies and goals are in place, then the Council
can talk about incentives and unfunded mandates. Mayor Ross said there is a huge component of the policy, which
is the budget. Eby said she sees this as 2 separate things and feasibility could be discussed later. She said she has
only heard one person voice concern for costs of repairing or updating a home, and Council seems to be
overcomplicating this. Eby said it is important to make goals attainable.
Mayor Ross said he disagrees, because he has worked through the challenges in HARC projects. Ross said the
policy discussion cannot be postponed and needs to happen. He said there are houses that have not been painted in
30 years and feasibility needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Pitts said the City needs to decide if they want a historic district or a museum district and economics
should play into it. Pitts explained that if a house can be rehabbed to preserve it and the character is kept, they
should be able to do it. He said the rehabilitation "guide' should be changed to "promote preservation.". Pitts said
staff should condense the chart — cut out something and make it much easier. He referred to slide 12 that showed
the many different guidelines that Georgetown requires to be followed. Pitts said policy needs to be simplified and
provide much more understanding for applicants. He said people doing nothing does the exact opposite of
preserving. Pitts said there too many guidelines that need to be followed currently and the City needs to eliminate as
many as possible in order to condense the guidelines into something easy to use. He said maintenance and rehab
need to be promoted, not just guided. He said it needs to be easy to do business with Georgetown.
City Manager, Morgan, asked Council if they are comfortable with changing the language under rehabilitation to say
"promote maintenance and rehab" instead of "guide". Council agreed.
Councilmember Gonzalez said, when considering progress in goals for historic preservation, a high priority property
should have a different goal than low priority properties. Mayor Ross said he believes there are more homes on the
historic resource list than Williamsburg and just because a building is old, does not mean it is historic. Nelson said
there are 1600 properties on the list. Councilmember Eby said this is a City inventory, not a historic significance list.
Councilmember Hesser asked about the Secretary of interior mandates and why the City would have to use them.
Nelson said it is part of the UDC requirements. Hesser said he agrees with Councilmember Pitts that there needs to
be a condensed list of requirements. He suggested preserving the properties that really have something to say and
remember that a home should be comfortable. Hesser said people have shared their difficulties with the processes
and people are letting houses deteriorate.
Mayor Ross asked David Morgan for suggestions on proceeding. Morgan said staff will bring back the next steps.
He said a discussion on a consensus on economic feasibility will need to take place, and the overriding goal will need
to be confirmed. Councilmember Nicholson said this would be feasibility in general. Morgan said it will be a whole
process piece. He said the survey of Overlay District residents and applicants is being completed and staff will
provide Council the survey information by the end of the week of October 29th. He said the topic will be on the
agenda again for the November 27th meeting.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074
and Section 551.087 at 5.06 PM.
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.
D. 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
- "In the Matter of the Application of 3 B&J Wastewater Company, Inc. for a New Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit No. W00014911002," SOAH DOCKET NO. 582-16-1893 and TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2015 -0565 -MWD
- 3701 West Highway 29
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
Northwest Blvd/FM 971, Parcels 3 & 4 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
- Rabbit Hill Road Project — Parcels 9 & 10, Rabbit Hill Road and Commerce -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services
Coordinator
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
- City Secretary Update
Sec. 551:087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
Project Office Space
- Project Legacy
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the Workshop meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:17 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
4"--L�z
Dale Ross, Mayor
Date
Attest: City Secre ry