Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.08.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 8, 2019 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7`h 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 Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember Valerie Nicholson, District 2. Councilmember Nicholson joined the dais during the presentation of Item A. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, John Hesser, 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 3:30 PM A. Update on the Berry Creek Interceptor Project - Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities General Manager of Utilities, Jim Briggs, gave an update on the Berry Creek Interceptor Project. Briggs reviewed the Project Team consisting of the City of Georgetown as the owner, Walker Partners as the design consultant, SWCA as the environmental and hydrogeologist, Cambrian Environmental as the providers for geologic work and karst assessments, and Terracon as the geotechnical consultant. Briggs reviewed the purpose of the workshop is to share project update and results from appearance at Commissioners Court in December, share the route, review the Parks and Wildlife Code, Easement requested from the County, and subsequent route changes. Briggs showed Council the map of the gravity basin. uwuT WasteNvMer Master Plan Ten -War Caphal ImproNemenls Plan and Ouilduut Proposed Projeet+, Georgelonn UtIllly SYstemc ILI Briggs reviewed the project purpose is to find most effective solution to provide wastewater service to a growing area with a projected ultimate service to 25,000 LUEs (Living Unite Equivalents) in the basin for existing and future customers. He then reviewed the items of consideration: environment, cultural resources, constructability, maintenance, operability, permitting and risk reduction. i Briggs reviewed the project purpose is to find most effective solution to provide wastewater service to a growing area with a projected ultimate service to 25,000 LUEs (Living Unite Equivalents) in the basin for existing and future customers. He then reviewed the items of consideration: environment, cultural resources, constructability, maintenance, operability, permitting and risk reduction. Briggs then presented the feasible option that was presented to the county, which showed the proposed route in yellow, circles indicating springs in the park. and the recharge zone. Bdrry r �klS - � fes• ' ',.yLl .� ,. ��:" � " . A ,- � �VtG[locrl�utncrx • r r OF GEOR(K TOM r � Pecan Branch " 1'r W I4AR-1 M WWTP Briggs then presented Option 2 that was offered to the County, which showed the proposed route in yellow, circles indicating springs in the park, and the recharge zone. He explained that City felt the negative aspect to this option was the depth at which the line would be placed making maintenance and operation of the line a challenge. Briggs stated that the depths could reach 60 to 70 feet, which in not a depth he could feel comfortable sending staff. He then stated that this option also goes through an area of heavy tree cover on the south side of Berry Creek and this would change much of the view if someone is in the park looking south. Briggs said that both the County and City staff did not like this option because of what it would do to the visual aesthetics to the park. r E. Fera WM .� Ea Wwlvr u.rn.i SW sP.9 f RECKMGE P... M. ... ZONE M N.rnwrM. BOUNDARY I wwwaM. ] 100.YNr B..v Cn- IM.rpp1IX Pr01.G A ,- � �VtG[locrl�utncrx • r r OF GEOR(K TOM r � Pecan Branch " 1'r W I4AR-1 M WWTP Briggs then presented Option 2 that was offered to the County, which showed the proposed route in yellow, circles indicating springs in the park, and the recharge zone. He explained that City felt the negative aspect to this option was the depth at which the line would be placed making maintenance and operation of the line a challenge. Briggs stated that the depths could reach 60 to 70 feet, which in not a depth he could feel comfortable sending staff. He then stated that this option also goes through an area of heavy tree cover on the south side of Berry Creek and this would change much of the view if someone is in the park looking south. Briggs said that both the County and City staff did not like this option because of what it would do to the visual aesthetics to the park. )L Legend —.� ja i � �'�•(�� E. Fare Man U. E. R.uf. lin • y Wbnny •� y .. •� .r .y Y Gnbrirw •'1 ` _ Buhr .t RECHA1RGE + FOA°""• ZO BOUNDARY lWyear l a' • �. cxoaann r � t.SiA00 - ^k • CITY OF GEORGETOWN • } Pecan Branch :4i rlsr gtlitlMnrF�l WWTP fit Briggs presented Option 3 that was offered to the County, which showed the proposed route in yellow, circles indicating springs in the park, and the recharge zone. He said that this option would include constructing a lift station along IH -35. Briggs said that this would allow gravity down to the lift station, then be pumped along the private property that is adjacent to SH -130, and then move around property lines before getting back to Berry Creek. He then explained how gravity lines work versus pressure lines. Briggs also explained the concern of the maintenance and size of a 16 million gallon per day lift station. He said that lift stations are mechanical, run off of electricity, and have the possibility of being interrupted which is a concern of City staff and not a risk staff would recommend. Briggs explained that if the lift station discharged it would create a very large problem. :. Lewd .k' ` , . ' y. - `• - � RECHARGE � ."'.... !}Z..` •�:,. �, ZONE :t BOUNDARY _rIvI j� i00 V 0$ Q(0QrA TOM P [�� ••�:�•1' � _ � .oil -- Briggs presented Option 4 that was offered to the County, which showed the proposed route in yellow, circles indicating springs in the park, and the recharge zone and included a wastewater treatment plant with non - discharge upstream from Berry Springs Park. He said this would be a roughly 8 million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant and the non -discharge plant would require irrigation and the necessary area is represented in the black circle. Briggs stated this acreage is not readily available. F) RECHARGE ••••"•• ti ZONE """.... • VVtSl1P * a— C— % f 'L ry_ 1 __ --� - F r ►�1�� 1 L Ow Circle 1IpW5 the minlRHsnl area required for - .4! .y' J - _ - I&W applicatanol the treated effluent from the n a CA OWA t Option 4 WWTP The required amount of vacant . •� land h not jrva•4bk n '1 '. 5r )'.ht•t Briggs reviewed the Field Investigation Resource Map which showed white dots indicating the number of core drills needed for the routes to perform geological testing. He then said that water, wetlands, springs, seeps and other cultural resources were also considered. V OR, SIR Yk, 17 ■ ';• ��ee TT� _ d+; fir`' t ':r r t,� r• v _ _ 1 c ' .�1• tet•• 7 r• •� f. OW ABerry Sprtngs Park • Spnng —Pond Pos.live Shovel iesl C-1— L.- A:gnmenl Seep — Waterway Negative Shovel 7esl SW V V A f�� -Atrynmenl Corhd. 50-m rin Spg 8W1! , Welland Parcel B—dary B.xJhl iren h Briggs reviewed the Geological Assessment that came back from all of the investigations performed. He then explained the Georgetown formation and its dense limestone. Briggs explained how faults allow water to come up and seep down. He then explained how staff reviewed the previous geologic studies and scientific literature, performed field investigation of creeks, springs, faults, topography, etc., performed geotechnical borings and soil sample testing, performed Piezometer readings of groundwater flow through Georgetown Formation and reviewed `Edwards Aquifer recharge,) flow and discharge. ' r ` ' 151 �� � 1' ' �_. � •--ti�'1 �� / ' l • 1 M1M1M1g ' r Ot ', ' + •1 � •Y�C� •gym 1 Q4,1 x f AI C7%UA Barry Springs Park and Preserve i....ni. it :reit ►Mebn •"a .e. stl33 Y aMMwH Sa heath M les _ -wp-1. 0... N � �....a4y �1Ye �•. r 4mne+rgk l�+M .. 1 Mygr Fslrl�atlon lva�lsyry r.}Aawrwl Briggs reviewed the project history to show the number of meetings held to discuss this project: ■ 1989 — Texas Water Development Board funded Wastewater Master Plan identifies need for Berry Creek Interceptor • October 1, 2016 — Fiscal Year 2017 funding for the City includes Berry Creek Interceptor ■ February 28, 2017 — Citizens to Address the Council • October 24, 2017 — Council Approval — Walker Partners MSA • October 24, 2017 — Council Approval — Terracon — GeoTechnical Engineering • October 24, 2017 — Council Approval — Walker Partners Engineering Design • November 14, 2017 — Initial Presentation to Wilco Commissioner's Court • December 1, 2017 —April 30, 2018 — Right of Entry for Field Investigations • August 27, 2018 — Meeting with Commissioner Long • September 4, 2018 — Meeting with Commissioner Cook ■ September 4, 2018 — Meeting with Commissioner Madsen • September 5, 2018 — Meeting with Commissioner Covey ■ October 4, 2018 — Open House at the Parks Administration Meeting Room • November 1, 2018 — Meeting with Judge Gattis • November 16, 2018 — Site Tour with McDaniels Family at Berry Springs Park • December 4, 2018 — Commissioners approved request for a Public Hearing to be held on December 18, 2018 • December 11, 2018 Commissioners Court Presentation (no action) • December 18, 2018 Public Hearing and Court Action ■ January 8, 2019 City Council Update Briggs explained the planning that was included to protect the Edwards Aquifer and Spring Hydrology. He informed that the planning included: • Minimum 50 -meter buffer from all springs to avoid direct impacts • Construction monitoring for sensitive hydrologic features by professional geoscientists • Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain site hydrology (under drains, seep collars, etc.) • Additional BMPs per approved TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan • Install pipe with leak -proof joints and water -tight manholes • Conduct internal inspection of pipeline every 5 years FLOW �7j' Gowan SEWER PIPE TRENCH WIDTH r ' UNDERDRAIN PIPE CROSSING TRENCH WIDTH 1 PONDED WATER IN TRENCH CONCRETE SEEP COLLAR KEYED INTO SEWER UNDISTURBED SOIL P -PE Briggs stated that the County decided there were no feasible options that would allow a pipe to go through the park and declined access into the park. He then presented a new proposed alignment and option as the result of County action taken on December 18, 2019 with new route indicated in blue. He said that this new route will take the line from Berry Creek watershed to Dry Berry Creek and along private property bypassing the park property, but utilizing developed property to the north along Market Street which is industrial. Briggs then explained the depths and possibility of development tying in. He explained that it will be a mostly gravity line, but does not eliminate the need for a much smaller lift station that poses less risk just on the west side of IH - 35 to serve development. 4 Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor Options r �+ 6my Geek Wastewater wmeptu ag", � 0 0.MI" 05 1 Briggs asked the Council to discuss and provide direction that would allow staff to move forward based on discussion so he could return to GUS and Council with revisions. He said that the new proposal is about a 10% increase in costs. Briggs stated that staff suggests to move the line through Market Street shift it through Dry Berry, moving around the park, and completing the line down to the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. Fought asked if staff direction is followed, will the County no longer be part of the project. Briggs responded that the City would only work with County when needing to cross County Roads, but not in regards to Berry Springs Park and Preserve. Fought said that having the project under one political body is very attractive. Mayor Ross asked about increased costs. Briggs said it is about a 10% increase of $2.5 million. Mayor Ross asked if it was safer to let gravity do the job instead of having a pump station. Briggs responded yes because gravity lines are typically in vacuum and pressure lines tend to take water out when there is an issue. He then said that these gravity lines are typically always flowing and not likely to get a blockage in line, but with a lift station you could experience much more difficult and time sensitive problems. Briggs added that the capacity of a lift station this large would be a challenge. Mayor Ross asked if gravity is safer and more environmentally friendly. Briggs responded yes as far as operations of the wastewater line. Mayor Ross stated that he agrees with Fought and the City should minimize its interaction with the Commissioners Court. Pitts asked Briggs to verify that Option 1 is off the table and if staff was recommending Option 2. Briggs clarified that is staff recommending the last slide. Pitts asked if the staff option is on comparison chart. Briggs responded that is was not, but it is mostly comparable to Option 2, and is actually better than Option 2. Pitts asked what the total cost would be. Briggs responded $30 million. Pitts stated that he agrees with staff. Gonzalez asked if the City would be going slightly around the park and operating a more hazardous line right next to the park instead of a less hazardous line through the park. Briggs responded that the route is not hazardous in either location as it is a gravity line. He added that the County Commissioners understood that with the line being just outside the park, there could still be an impact, but it would be outside their jurisdiction. Briggs then said that the risk to the City operationally is in the depth of the lines. Gonzalez said that with this change the City didn't decrease the risk to the park, it just increased the costs. Briggs responded that by not going through the park there will not be any surface disturbances in the park, which is also a preserve. He added that there was also discussion on whether a line of this nature would cutoff groundwater flow to the springs and that even though City staff did not feel that would be a problem. Gonzalez asked if the surface disturbance was what the County wanted protect. Briggs responded that there was a lot of discussion on disturbances. Jonrowe asked if the current staff option included the lift station in the costs. Briggs responded that the lift station is not included in the costs and would be driven by developer needs in area. Jonrowe asked if this would be a smaller lift station and what the capacity would be. Briggs responded that it would be in the vicinity of half a million gallons per day instead of 16 million gallons per day. Jonrowe asked about the difference in maintenance and possibility for electronic malfunction in the different sizes of lift stations. Briggs responded that the risk is pretty much the same, but much more manageable than a large lift station. Jonrowe asked if error occurs where the water would go. Briggs responded away from the park. Jonrowe asked if the City had any access to data on the exact likelihood of leak from gravity line versus a lift station. Briggs responded that during the events that caused problems the gravity lines are pumping issues that come out at manhole covers, but these have water tight covers. He added that when discharge problems occur with gravity lines they are taking in water, not taking water out if there is a problem. Briggs said that staff can test at the wastewater treatment plant to know how to respond to anomalies with the system. Jonrowe asked if Council could get comparison data for future projects. Briggs responded that staff can do that and currently the failure rate is roughly 1% of the time from mechanical failure. Mayor Ross asked if the risk is equivalent in both line options. Briggs responded yes, but the line is deeper than it would have been through the park. He said that the new route will lead to dealing with more property owners and County properties will stay on septic. Briggs said that one of the benefits of moving over to Dry Berry Creek is that it will allow future tie in to City's future industrial area. Mayor Ross asked if there was an advantage of County decision. Briggs responded that the advantage is moving into Dry Berry Creek and that the City will have more pipes with a line on each side of the park. Mayor Ross asked what the vote at Commissioners Court was. Briggs responded that is was unanimous. Mayor Ross asked if this included Commissioner Covey. Briggs responded yes, the discussion was that the business decision was yes, but their hearts said no. Mayor Ross said that there was minimal risk difference but a $2 million difference in cost. Briggs responded yes. Mayor Ross asked what Briggs needed from Council. Briggs responded that staff needs and indication to proceed forward and make needed adjustments to engineering contacts and go back to GUS Board. Fought stated that the staff option is reasonable. Mayor Ross asked if anyone disagreed. No councilmembers responded. B. Presentation and discussion of the Certificate of Appropriateness development process --Sofia Nelson, CNU- A, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the Certificate of Appropriateness development process. Nelson stated that Madison Thomas and Nat Waggoner of Planning staff will be backing up as needed. She said that his is a continuation from the last Council Workshop. Nelson said that the purpose is to confirm Council's direction for improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development Process. She said that she will recap previous conversations to verify that staff has correctly captured Council direction, confirm City Council direction for improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development Process including: seek direction on four options on the review of low priority resources inside the Downtown/Old Town Overlay Districts, seek direction on two options on the use of "in-kind" materials, seek direction on five options on the review of demolition requests of historic resources located outside a historic district, and confirm direction on final review of CoA's requiring HARC approval. Nelson reviewed the 2018 CoA Process discussions: February 27, 2018: Workshop on Implementation of Historic Resource Survey and recommendation by UDC Advisory Committee on revisions for CoA process August 14, 2018: City Council requests changes to CoA review authority August 28, 2018: Workshop on public engagement plan for COA development process October 23, 2018: Review of Past and Current Historic Preservation Policy November 27, 2018 Present findings of public outreach efforts Confirm goals for measuring success for historic preservation Present short, medium, and long term opportunities for improving the COA development process December 11, 2018 Identify short term education opportunities and long term policy improvements Nelson reviewed the quo. 1 Goals that were confirmed at October 23, 2018 Preservation • Encourage preservation of hsstonc structures Rehabilitation • Guidej Promoter maintenance and rehab of distinctive key Environment character defining features Compatibility character of the existing area as new Infill development is considered • Character of historic Character structures is encouraged to be maintained as they are adapted to new uses Nelson reviewed the specific goals for downtown • Maintain traditional Compatibility mass, size, and form. Pedestrian • Sidewalk and amenities for Friendl y comfortable walking experience. Environment • Building placement and scale Nelson recapped the CoA workload: Certificate of Appropriateness Cases 0 0 58 0 45 43 41 0 J Total COAs 35 30 t; 25 Q) 620 a c 15 Z 10 5 0 25 r- 20 0 ca `—' 15 .Q CL w 10 0 0 5 z 0 AOR Infill 17 31 20 1� 12 HARC Cases 2015 2016 2017 ^ 2018 Project Types by Year 111i WIRWI Renovation Demolition Project Types 2015 2016 +2017 v2018 Priority Level Projects by Year 16 12 13 10 5 �u 2016 2017 Year ■ High 0 Medium • Low 27 28 27 as Administrative COA's 1101 Signage 23 20 16 11 11 2018 Nelson reviewed the Public Outreach Feedback Themes: Nelson stated that the strategies that received consensus support from the City Council on December 11, 2018 were: 1. Education 2. Regulation/Process 3. Policy Nelson said there was general support for the following Strategies for Improvement — Education: o Strategy 1. • Support was expressed for preparing a HARC Commissioner Training Plan • Timeframe for start: January 2019 o Strategy 2. Support was expressed for executing a HARC Commissioner Training Plan • Timeframe: continuous o Strategy 3. • Support was expressed for preparation of an annual public education seminar/ outreach • Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation month Nelson reviewed the Strategies for Improvement - Regulation/Process: o Strategy 6. • General support for holding HARC meetings 2X a month. • Timeframe for implementation: March of 2019 o Strategy 7. • General Support to update the Historic Resource Survey every 3 to 5 years rather than every 10 years. • Timeframe for implementation: Resolution to Council o Strategy 8. • Support for reviewing and removing conflicts between UDC and Design Guidelines. Specifically, update the UDC appeal requirement for a super majority vote. 0 Timeframe for implementation: 3 to 6 months Nelson reviewed the Strategies for Improvement — Policy: o Strategy 9. • Support for reviewing Design Guidelines for consistency with Downtown Master Plan. • Timeframe: 6 to 10 months. o Strategy 10. • General support for utilizing the local landmark process. • Timeframe: 1 to 2 years. o Strategy 11. • General support for preparation of a Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • Timeframe: 2 to 3 year time frame. Coinciding with update of the DMP. Nelson stated that consensus on strategies 4 and 5 have not been achieved and focus was needed on: 1. Review of low priority resources 2. Use of "in-kind" materials 3. Review process for demolitions outside of a historic district Nelson reviewed the options presented for Strategy 5 — Review of demolition process for resources outside Nelson reviewed the additional workshop discussion points: • Funding of improvements in the historic district was generally supported but additional discussion is needed to understand possible tools for funding. • Removing current super -majority requirement for COA approvals was generally supported. • Removal of 60 day demolition for high priority resources outside of a historic district was generally supported. • Further review of low priority resources was discussed. • Further breakdown of options for strategies 4 and 5 were requested. Nelson presented Part 2 — Review of Strategies 4 and 5: 1. Review of Low Priority Resource category. 2. Review of options for proceeding with review of Low Priority Resources. 3. Review of use of "In -Kind" materials. 4. Review of options for proceeding with the review of historic resources outside of a historic overlay district. 5. Confirm direction on final review of CoA's. Nelson reviewed the 2016 Survey — Categories. Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Old Town Outside a Category Downtown District Total Count High 164 27 191 Medium 401 187 588 Low 468 429 897 Total 1,033 643 1,676 samples: Nelson stated that she will present 4 options for Strategy 4 and provided an overview of the options: o Option 1 - • No HARC or staff review o Option 2 - • Staff only review of Low Priority Resources. (Utilizing current design standards.) o Option 3 - • Identify low priority resources as non-contributing resources. o Option 4 - • Prioritize review of low priority resources utilizing the National Register Districts. Nelson presented Option 1: No HARC or staff review of Low Priority resources. o Number of resources impacted: • 468 resources out of 1,033 historic overlay district resources o Impact on length of review process: • Removal of approximately 30-45 days in development process. o Impact to historic district: Allows for HARC and staff to prioritize review of higher priority resources. • 468 low priority resources do not receive a review for demolition, scale & design, consistency o Impact to Historic Districts: • Setback variances for property within a historic district currently receive review by HARC. This review prioritizes the context and compatibility of resources rather than the Zoning Board of Adjustment's strict approval criteria of "hardship and unique circumstances". Given the size of Old Town lots it will be important to preserve this review. Nelson presented Option 2: Staff only review of Low Priority Resources (Utilizing current design standards.): o Number of resources impacted: • 468 resources out of 1,033 historic overlay district resources o Impact on length of review process: • Removal of approximately 15-30 days in development process. o Impact to Historic District: • Allows for HARC to prioritize review of higher priority resources. Nelson explained the improvements that would move from HARC review to staff review (Low Priority Resource): o Additions • To create or add to an existing street facing facade • Awning or canopy Porch, patio or deck o Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes • Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural feature. • Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps. • Paint removal from historic and significant architectural features (back to original condition; does not include repainting). o Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes • Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in modifications to the building facade. o Removal, Demolition or Relocation ■ Awnings or canopies • Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction of any historic and architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district • Attached carport, porch, patio or deck o Removal, Demolition or Relocation • Street facing facade Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure • Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts) • Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district Nelson explained the improvements assigned to HARC regardless of contributing designation: • New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable Guidelines • Master Sign Plans • HARC exceptions (building height, setback and FAR) • New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable Guidelines New Building Construction — single-family in Old Town is exempt Nelson presented Option 3 which is the option the Historic Resources Survey Consultant Recommended and UDC Advisory Committee Recommended: Identify low priority resources as non-contributing resources: o Number of resources impacted: • 468 resources out of 1,033 historic overlay district resources. o Impact on length of review process: • Removal of approximately 20 - 45 days in development process. Remove certain improvements from staff and HARC review. Nelson explained the improvements that would move from HARC review to staff review (Low Priority Resource): o Additions: • Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade. • Awning or canopy • Porch, patio or a deck o Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes: • Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in modifications to the building facade • Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps o Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes: • Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction of any historic and architectural feature that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district Nelson explained the improvements that would move from HARC or staff review to no review (Low Priority Resource): o Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes: • Restoring historic architectural features • Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural feature • Replacing roof materials with different roof materials • Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps using in-kind material • Paint removal from historic and significant architectural features (back to original condition; does not include repainting) Gonzalez asked Nelson to explain differences between Option 1 and Option 3. Nelson explained that Option 1 would have no HARC or staff review of low priority structures. She then explained that Option 3 would label low priority structures as non-contributing structures and they would be subject to the UDC guidelines for non- contributing structures. Nelson continued that some of the improvements would require no review and some improvements that would move from HARC review to staff review. She then said that Option 1 would only require someone with a low priority to come to Planning if a variance is needed, Option 3 identifies specific requirements that would trigger either HARC, staff, or no review. Gonzalez asked if only a portion of the home was contributing, could that lead to a staff review. Nelson responded that was correct, it prioritizes for staff review, instead of HARC: additions, reconstructions and alterations. She then said that from a HARC or staff there would be no review of reconstruction, alterations, or changes to: restoring historic architectural features, replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural feature, replacing roof materials with different roof materials, modifications to exterior steps, and paint removal. Nelson added that the following would also not require staff review and would go straight to the permitting process: the demolition of awnings or canopies, exterior siding to reflect the historic siding, non -historic additions could be demolished, attached carports, and patios or decks of non -historic materials. Jonrowe asked if the buildings in existence that are not on the survey within the overlay districts are considered non-contributing. Nelson responded yes. Jonrowe asked if they would be subject to guidelines that were just laid out. Nelson responded yes. Jonrowe asked if this would be like putting low priority structures from the survey into the same group as everything else in the downtown or old town overlay. Nelson responded, yes, everything else that didn't make the survey. Nelson resumed her presentation by explaining the improvements currently assigned to staff review regardless of contributing status: • Changes to paint color on previously painted surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on previously painted surface) • Changes in color to awning fabric • Signs that are in keeping with a Master Sign Plan • Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or structure • Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in no modification to the building facade • Relocation of a building or structure on the same lot Nelson explained the improvements assigned to HARC regardless of contributing status: ■ Relocation of a building or structure to a Historic Overlay District (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same Historic Overlay District). • New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable Guidelines. • HARC exceptions (building height, setback and FAR) • New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the Overlay District's characteristics and applicable Guidelines • New Building Construction - single family in Old Town is exempt • Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure. o Recommended by UDC Advisory Committee and Historic Resource Survey that all demolitions within a Historic District require approval by HARC. Nelson reviewed Option 4 which is a new option for consideration: • Prioritize review of Low Priority resources. o Identify Low Priority resources outside of a National Register District as non-contributing resources, o Identify Low Priority resources within a National Register District as contributing resources. • Impacted Low Priority Resources: 0 468 resources out of the total 1,033 Historic Overlay District resources are prioritized as Low Priority. 0 65 resources out of the 468 Low Priority resources are located within a National Register District. ■ National Register Districts: o Olive Street District o Williamson County Courthouse District o Belford District o University/ Elm Street District • Impact on length of review process: o Low Priority Resources within a National Register District (65): process would remain the same. o Low Priority Resources outside of a National Register District (403): Removal of approximately 20-45 days in development process. • Impact to historic district: o Allows National Register Districts to retain highest level of review. • Other: o Should City Council proceed with work to establish an incentive program for historic properties, resources within a National Register District held to a higher standard may be good starting place for investment? Nelson reviewed the Strategy 4 Options: • Option 1 o No HARC or staff review Option 2 o Staff only review of Low Priority Resources. (Utilizing current design standards) Option 3 o Identify Low Priority resources as non-contributing resources. Option 4 o Prioritize review of Low Priority resources utilizing the National Register Districts. Pitts asked if Option 1 were selected would in-kind materials be allowed on low priority structures. Nelson responded yes, the applicant would go straight to building inspections for the permitting process. Pitts asked if Nelson was seeking feedback at this time on these options. Nelson responded yes. Pitts stated that his choice was Option 1, which would allow the City to concentrate on its highest assets that are rate medium and high priority. He then said that removing low priority structures will speed up the process. Pitts said that this option will promote rehab, which is part of Council's overarching goals, by having less regulation and not having to worry about going through a process to get those approvals. Eby stated that she feels Option 4 is the best compromise, because it addresses Council's concerns and takes into account the impact low priority structures have on their surrounding neighborhoods. She said that she would like to maintain some level of review for structures in the National Register Districts. Eby also likes the efficiencies taken from Option 3. Hesser stated that his preference would be Option 1. Fought stated that he also prefers Option 1. He then said that from Option 4 the process of identifying resources off the National Registry is appealing, but he feels -that could be done independently. Fought stated he could live with Option 4 but his preference is Option 1 because these places are low priority for a reason. Nicholson asked Nelson to clarify the differences between Option 1 and Option 4. Nelson responded that Option 1 would have no review and Option 4 allows for a higher review of the National Register Districts, while relaxing some of the review authority to staff for the low priority resources that are outside the 4 National Register Districts. Nicholson asked about the resources outside the districts. Nelson clarified that for 65 of the resources inside the district the process would stay the same, but for the 468 resources located outside a National Register District it would mean a removal of about 20-45 clays in the development process. She said this could be paired with in-kind materials, but the current question is who should have approval authority. Nicholson asked if there would be more staff approval. Nelson responded yes. Nicholson asked if there were any concerns about the increased workload for staff. Nelson responded no, not at this point, as staff already does a review before sending to HARC. Nicholson stated that she is more comfortable with some level of review and Option 4 would be her choice. Jonrowe stated that she would be very concerned with Option 1 and no review of demolitions. She added that the Secretary of the Interior does consider low priority structures to still be contributing. Jonrowe said the removal of structures could start to undermine the look of Old Town and would make those 468 properties more attractive for demolition and new construction. She said her first preference would be to leave things the way they are, but for the sake of compromise she would prefer Option 2, followed by Option 4. Jonrowe added that she feel low priority structures need a level of scrutiny whether they are in the National Register Districts or not. Gonzalez asked how a property goes from low priority to medium priority. Nelson responded that is could be in restoring features that are still present. Gonzalez asked if there was anything stopping an outside organization from offering assistance to help low priority structure become a medium priority structure. Nelson responded that she didn't have the numbers in front of her to show how many properties moved up in priority, but it wasn't many. Gonzalez asked if there were any that went down in priority. Nelson responded absolutely. Gonzalez asked what the percentage was for that occurrence. Nelson stated that she didn't have those number but could get them. Gonzalez said that one of his concerns was because of the location and needs of the low priority structures, maintenance is not happening and they are deteriorating further and many homeowners, if given the opportunity, would like to restore original features. He said that giving the homeowners more freedom to make those improvements would make more economic sense. Gonzalez said that he is leaning toward Option 1 and he agrees with Fought about addressing the historic districts as a different time. Mayor Ross stated that is sounds like the Council is split between Options 1 and 4 and asked Nelson to review the sameness and significant differences of those options. Nelson explained that the general sameness is hard to find, but is in the time improvement. Morgan stated that the biggest difference is that Option 1 allows for no review at all but with Option 4, 65 properties would have the same process as today. Mayor Ross asked why having 65 resources of the 468 are located within the National Registry is significant. Morgan responded it matters if Council wants a different level of review for properties located inside a National Registry District. Mayor asked that out of the 468 maybe 65 are special because they are located inside a district. Morgan responded that is correct. Nelson reviewed the Courthouse Square National District and its low, medium, and high priority structures. Fought asked if demolitions would be covered later and there is a possibility that Council could decide to send any demolitions to HARC. Nelson explained that Option 5 is looking at demolitions outside of a historic district, but Council could decide to send all demolitions through HARC. She added that as presented Option 1 would allow for demolitions without review. Gonzalez asked if the options were mutually exclusive. Morgan responded yes and clarified that Strategy 5 specifically covers demolitions outside the districts. Gonzalez asked if having Option 1 with the exception of demolitions would be an acceptable amendment. Mayor Ross asked Council to consider adding the 65 properties from Option 4 and the incentives from Option 4 to Option 1. Fought responded that he liked Mayor Ross' suggestion and he understands properties within the historic districts being treated differently. He added the Mayor's suggestion provides a little bit of caution to move forward. Nelson asked Mayor Ross for clarification on his suggestion. She asked if he was proposing taking the 65 properties from the National Register District and give them contributing status. Mayor Ross responded yes. Pitts stated that Mayor Ross' suggestion is basically Option 4 if the word non-contributing is removed. Ross agreed and said that he wants some kind of review on the 65 properties. He added that he likes the incentives if costs are going to be increase for the homeowner. Nelson reviewed Councils comments as proving staff review on the 65 properties in the National Register Districts and the 403 outside of the districts would have no review. Pitts, Mayor Ross, and Gonzalez stated they could support that option. Nicholson asked about demolitions and if that conversation should happen now. Nelson responded that Strategy 5 only refers to demolitions outside the districts, so if Council would like to discuss demolition inside the district they should do so now. Gonzalez stated the recent discussion has been to allow 403 properties to have demolition without any review and be removed from consideration and 65 would have a staff review for properties in the districts and next Council will discuss demolitions outside the districts and he can support that. Mayor Ross asked for suggestion on where Council should go from here. Morgan asked if there was a consensus on Gonzalez's proposal. Gonzalez repeated his proposal. Eby responded that the general terms of Gonzalez's proposal was Option 1 with the addition of the 65 properties. Gonzalez responded that she was correct. Eby stated that she didn't agree with that but understands. Mayor asked who was in favor of that proposal. Hesser, Fought, Pitts, and Gonzalez agreed. Jonrowe stated that as far as all the Strategies were concerned, these are all things Council will have to vote on at a future meeting. Morgan responded that is correct and staff would take these comments and put them into documents that Council could consider. Nicholson asked if staff could map out the 403 low priority properties. Nelson responded yes. Nelson presented Strategy 4a: Allow for use of "in-kind" materials: o Option 1: • Allow for use of "in-kind" materials for all Low Priority structures. o Option 2: Allow "in-kind" materials for all Low Priority structures not located in a National Register District. Gonzalez stated that based on the discussion he would prefer Option 1. Fought stated that having recently restored a house he would allow in-kind and replica materials across the board with a general rule of if you can't tell from the street it should be fine. Fought discussed his own experience with the cost of using in-kind materials when remodeling a home from 1860. Pitts, Gonzalez, and Mayor Ross agreed with Fought's proposal. Eby stated that she would be willing to compromise on low and medium priority structures, but not on high. Gonzalez said he would accept that. Pitts said he could agree to that. Mayor Ross aske the burden of higher costs and incentives. Pitts stated he believed that would be a later discussion and he would want to focus on higher priority structures for incentives. Fought stated that he could go along if the percentage increase was small but often times it's not. He added that the HARC process could review and see if the materials fit. Mayor Ross asked Eby and Gonzalez what the distinction in materials is if you can't tell the difference from the street. Gonzalez responded that it's a matter of historical integrity for high priority structures. Mayor Ross said he didn't understand if a better and more efficient material is available. Gonzalez responded that historians want to maintain integrity and to keep it the same. Jonrowe stated that it is historic preservation for a reason not historic replacement. She then asked if there is an appeal process for financial hardship. Nelson responded that it is not part of staff or HARC approval process. Jonrowe asked about demolition. Nelson responded yes, in the past applicants have brought estimates in and shared with HARC. Hesser asked who makes the decision on what kind of screen door is installed. He added that he does not feel it's HARC's responsibility to make that decision. Mayor Ross stated that economics should be a factor considering the cost of living in Old Town. Gonzalez responded the City should contribute incentive for high priority homes. He added that if the City is going to require things be original then the City should have skin in the game. Mayor responded that the incentive would most likely be pennies on the dollar. Gonzalez responded that he understood. Eby stated that it's a consensus from Council to have a later discussion on incentives. She added that people don't have to buy high priority structures or do remodels. Eby said they made a choice when they purchase those homes and that homes in Old Town come with additional components. Mayor Ross asked about the widow who's lived there her whole life who is now in a position of living on a fixed income. Eby asked he was referencing a specific person or posing a hypothetical situation. Mayor responded that it was hypothetical. Pitts asked if there were four Councilmembers in support of this option one way or another. Morgan responded that it didn't appear so. Nicholson said she was fine with high priorities staying as is. Morgan responded if that was the case than there are four who agree. Mayor Ross stated that this was to have special rules and incentives for high priorities. Nelson clarified that the current consensus is to have in-kind materials on low and medium priority structures and require original on high priority structures. Nelson presented Strategy 5: Demolition Review and Approval Process for Historic Resources located Outside of a Historic Overlay District and the Overview of Options: o Option 1: • No review of historic resources outside of a Historic Overlay District. o Option 2: • HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District without 60 day waiting period. o Option 3: UDC advisory committee recommendation • HARC review for High Priority structures, staff only review for Medium Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60 day waiting period o Option 4: Created at the last meeting • All demos on historic resource survey to retain approval by HARC. Resources outside of a Historic Overlay District will not require a 60 day demolition hold. o Option 5: New Option • HARC reviews all level of resources. In order to trigger review a resource must be identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 resource surveys. To be on all 3 you need a structure date of 1935 or older. Nelson then reviewed the Current Demolition Prnr.psG Nelson explained Option 1: Change: No review of historic resources outside a Historic Overlay District o Number of resources impacted: 643 resources out of 1,676 listed resources. o Impact on length of review process: • Removal of approximately 60 days in development process. o Other considerations: • Removal of the structures (specifically the 27 identified High Priority resources) would take place without an opportunity to collect a history of the property prior to removal. Nelson explained Option 2: Change: HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District, without 60 day waiting period. o Number of resources impacted: • 616 resources out of 1,676 Historic Resource Survey listed resources would no longer require review. o Impact on length of review process: • The application would no longer be subject to the 60 day demolition hold. Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Category Old Town Outside a Total Count Downtown District High 164 27 191 Medium 401 187 588 Low 468 429 897 Total 1,033 643 1,676 Nelson presented Option 3 (UDC Advisory Committee Recommendation): Change: • HARC review for only High Priority structures ■ Staff only review for Medium Priority structures • Remove 60 day waiting period Nelson presented Option 4 that was introduced at 12/9/2018 Workshop by Council: Change: All demos on the Historic Resource Survey to retain approval by HARC. Resources outside of a Historic District will not require a 60 day demolition hold. Nelson presented Option 5 which is new and updated: Change: HARC reviews all level of resources. In order to trigger review a resource must be identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 Resource Surveys. Nelson reviewed the resources 1935 and older: o Number of resources impacted: • Approximately 138 resources out of 643 historic resources outside of district have been identified on all 3 surveys. • In order to be on all three surveys the resource must date back to at least 1935. o Impact on length of review process: • The application would no longer be subject to the 60 day demolition hold. Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Category Old Town Outside a Total Count Downtown District High 164 27 191 Medium 401 187 s88 Low 468 329 897 Total 1,033 643 1,676 Nelson reviewed the Strategy 5 - Overview of Options: o Option 1: • No review of Historic Resources outside of a Historic Overlay District. o Option 2: • HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District without 60 day waiting period. o Option 3: UDC advisory committee recommendation • HARC review for High Priority structures, staff only review for Medium Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60 day waiting period o Option 4: Created at the last meeting ■ All demos on Historic Resource Survey to retain approval by HARC. Resources outside of a Historic District will not require a 60 demolition hold. o Option 5: New Option ■ HARC reviews all level of resources. In order to trigger review a resource must be identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 resource surveys. Pitts stated that he would be in favor of Option 2 to allow for the review of high priority structures. Eby stated that she would prefer Option 4, but will compromise with Option 3. She stated that she feels that it would still be appropriate to review medium priority structures. Gonzalez stated he could go with either Option 3 or 2, but prefers Option 3 to allow for at least a staff review. Hesser asked if there was a review process for what replaces a demolition. Nelson stated that there is not for properties outside the Historic Resource Survey. She added that they would go through building permit process and would be subject to zoning regulations. Hesser said he prefers Option 2, but would consider Option 3 as well. Fought stated he likes Option 3, but favors Option 2, and wants to be cautious. Nicholson stated she favors Option 3. Jonrowe asked for a point of clarity and if the 60 day hold for archival purposes. Nelson responded that was correct and that time is to review all possible options as part of the UDC. Jonrowe asked the documentation of the property would still happen if the 60 day hold was removed. Nelson responded staff would work through process, it would just happen faster. Jonrowe asked what the decrease in wait time would be. Nelson responded that she would need to do more research. Jonrowe stated she prefers option 4, but decrease the demolition hold time. She added that Options 2 or 3 would allow for too many structures to be demoed without review and Old Town would be attractive for redevelopment of the wrong sort. Mayor Ross stated if Option 3 was selected there would still be 1247 properties subject to review out of 1676. Nelson responded that was correct based on high and medium priorities being reviewed. He added the majority of Council wants Option 3. Nelson reviewed the confirmation of previous discussions: • All CoA's requiring HARC approval shall require final approval by City Council. ■ No public hearing will be required at City Council and item shall be placed on Consent Agenda. Nelson asked that Council confirm these points. Eby stated that is may be accurate for the majority, but she has strong disagreement with that. She added that the other Strategies that council has been reviewing that take away HARC's authority and gives it Council, she will not be in favor of that. Eby stated that taking away HARC's authority could have value if it would allow HARC to have ultimate authority and improves the process. She added that she did not understand why if items were coming to Council, and the items would be placed on the consent portion of the agenda, how that's any different than what is being done now. Eby stated that by having HARC meetings twice a month would already increase the timing of the process. She added that by placing the items on consent it is a rubber stamp and there is already a process in place to appeal a HARC denial. Eby stated that these changes only chip away at HARC's existence and allow Council to overturn an approval. Mayor Ross responded yes, you could take an item off consent. Eby stated that would make the process more complicated by adding that possibility. Mayor Ross asked how many times in history has Council overturned a HARC approval. Eby responded that is doesn't come to Council currently and they only denials that are being appealed. She added that the answer is none, but would these actions could open up possibilities. Nelson review the feedback she had received as: • Strategy 4 o Review the 65 resources located within the Nation Register Districts that are identified as low and no review for the 403 resources outside the districts. • Strategy 5 o Option 3 • In-kind materials o No in-kind materials allowed on high priority resources, but allowed on medium priority. C. Discussion and direction regarding the legislative agenda for the City of Georgetown during the 86th Legislative Session -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and David Morgan, City Manager Morgan proposed that this item will be moved to the next meeting on January 22, 2019. There was no objection from Council. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074, and Section 551.086 at X:XX 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. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Northwest Blvd/FM 971 - Parcel 2 -- Travis Baird 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 - Purchase Power Update -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities - TrailStone Group Approved by the Georgetown City Council on Z ` Date , � �I , �' -( 2��' Y Dale Ross, Mayor 16, Attest: dty Secretary