The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 10.23.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the City of Georgetown, Texas O ct ober 2 3, 2 01 8 The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on October 2 3, 2018 at 3:05 PM at Council Chambers - 101 East 7th Street The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930- 3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay Texas at 7 11. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A Prese ntation and discussion on future Arts and Culture projects -- Eric Lashley, Library Service Dire c to r, and Sarah Blankenship, Arts and Culture Coordinator B Prese ntation and discussion of the Solid Waste Master Plan Projec t -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director and Teresa Chapman, Solid Waste Program Coordinato r C Prese ntation, review, and disc ussio n o f past and c urre nt historic preservation policy -- Sofia Nelso n, P lanning Director Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes, Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular se ssio n. D Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items - "In the Matter of the Application o f 3 B&J Wastewater Company, Inc . for a New Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. WQ0014911002," SOAH DOCKET NO. 582-16-1893 and TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2015-0 56 5-MWD -3 70 1 West Highway 29 Se c . 55 1:0 72 : Del i berati ons of Real P roperty - No rthwest Blvd/FM 971, Parcels 3 & 4 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Se rvices Coordinator - Rabbit Hill Road Project - Parce ls 9 & 10 , Rabbit Hill Road and Co mmerce -- Travis Baird, Re al Estate Services Coordinator Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal - City Secretary Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Eco nomi c Devel opment Ne go ti ati ons - Pro ject Office Space - Pro ject Legacy Page 1 of 100 Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the s cheduled time of s aid meeting. __________________________________ Shelley No wling, City S ecretary Page 2 of 100 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop October 23, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n on future Arts and Culture pro jects -- Eric Lashley, Library Service Director, and Sarah Blankenship, Arts and Culture Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Ge orgetown's downtown has been de signated as an official Cultural Arts District by the Texas Commissio n on the Arts. The City suppo rts Arts and Culture through public art projects and grants to arts and culture organizations. The City's current Fisc al and Budgetary P olicy allows for the funding of public arts proje c ts in future City facilities. Howeve r, the language is vague and staff would like Council to co nsider placing a percentage o f c onstruction cost for public art projects. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This item has no direct financial impact. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENT S: Description Arts and Culture Pres entatio n Page 3 of 100 Arts & Culture October 23, 2018 Council Workshop Page 4 of 100 Purpose: •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 •Arts and Culture Board was established in 2005 •The Arts and Culture Board helps facilitate the Council’s goal of becoming a destination for unique experiences. Page 5 of 100 Arts & Culture Board & Board Liaisons Current Arts & Culture Board Members: •Jane Estes •Carol Watson •Laura Sewell •Linda Wilde •Sharon Snuffer •Susie Flatau •Timothy Fleming Staff Liaisons: •Eric Lashley •Sarah Blankenship •Lawren Weiss Page 6 of 100 Thank you! To other City Departments for their support and teamwork: •Facilities •Main Street •CVB •Parks •Planning •Parks •Etc. Page 7 of 100 2017-2018 Grants The following Grants were awarded: Organization Name Request Funding Congregation Havurah Shalom in partnership with the GPL $2,500 $2,500 GISD Fine Arts at Carver Elementary School in Georgetown $250 $250 GISD Angel Fountain Educational Endowment, Inc.$1,750 $1,750 SU Native $2,500 $1,875 Georgetown Festival of the Arts $3,000 $2,250 GISD Annie Purl Elementary PTA $2,000 $1,500 Georgetown Cultural Citizen Memorial Association (GCCMA)$3,500 $1,750 The Georgetown Palace Theatre, Inc.$6,000 $1,000 Georgetown Symphony Society, Inc.$5,000 $2,500 The Williamson Museum $1,500 $750 Williamson County Symphony Orchestra $2,500 $1,250 Georgetown Ballet $4,000 $1,000 GISD Georgetown Performing Arts Alliance $10,000 $625 Texas Bach Festival, Inc.$5,000 $1,000 $63,500 $20,000 Projects: Grants Page 8 of 100 Congregation Havurah Shalom Projects: Grants Examples of Grants 2017-2018 Page 9 of 100 SU Native Projects: Grants Examples of Grants 2017-2018 Page 10 of 100 Annie Purl Fiesta De Vecinos Projects: Grants Examples of Grants 2017-2018 Page 11 of 100 Projects: Grants Examples of Grants 2017-2018 Texas Bach FestivalPage 12 of 100 Projects: Grants For upcoming events Page 13 of 100 October 2018-March 2019 The Board voted to award the following: Total of $10,000 to give.There was a total of $26,111 requested. 100% funding for top 3 scores #1: Cinematic Symphony requested: $2,361 100% =$2361 #2: Williamson County 4-H requested: $2,000 100% = $2000 #3: Georgetown Poetry Festival requested: $1,000 100% = $1000 #5-#8 all received $250 #5: ODA (One Day Academy)requested: $500 =$250 #6: Watch Homeschool Co-Op requested: $750 =$250 #7: Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown requested: $1,500 =$250 #8: Stuart Wallace Art requested: $1000 =$250 Remainder is for #4 score: requested $9000 awarded:$3639 Projects: Grants Page 14 of 100 Projects: Phone Booth Pop Culture Event tie in with Red Poppy Festival Page 15 of 100 Projects: New Downtown Mural Page 16 of 100 Projects: New Downtown Mural Page 17 of 100 Projects: New Downtown Mural Page 18 of 100 Projects: New Downtown Mural Page 19 of 100 Projects: Outdoor Sculpture Tour 2017-2018 Pieces Page 20 of 100 Projects: Outdoor Sculpture Tour Page 21 of 100 Projects: Outdoor Sculpture Tour 2018-2019 Pieces: To be installed November 13th-15th Page 22 of 100 Projects: Outdoor Sculpture Tour Thor’s Hammer sold to new development: A&C receives 25% of sale Page 23 of 100 Thank you Sarah for all your help on this! I did speak with Sun and we have coordinated the move with our Contractor on-site. Keep an eye out for an invite to our Grand Opening planned for November 29th.We will recognize Sun & Georgetown Arts & Culture for the Art in Public Places piece, Thor's Hammer. I have attached a couple pictures -I think you will see why we thought this piece best complimented the development. Thank you again, Kathy Turner 817-360-1360 (cell) Development Assistant Saigebrook Development, LLC www.saigebrook.com Visit Us on Facebook Projects: Outdoor Sculpture Tour Thor’s Hammer sold to new development: A&C receives 25% of sale Thank you Sarah for all your help on this! I did speak with Sun and we have coordinated the move with our Contractor on-site. Keep an eye out for an invite to our Grand Opening planned for November 29th.We will recognize Sun & Georgetown Arts & Culture for the Art in Public Places piece, Thor's Hammer. I have attached a couple pictures -I think you will see why we thought this piece best complimented the development. Thank you again, Kathy Turner Development Assistant Saigebrook Development, LLC More opportunities with new developments & art? Page 24 of 100 95 Entries! Projects: Art in New City Buildings Page 25 of 100 City Hall Rotunda Municipal Court Transaction Window Municipal Court Lobby Wall Projects: Art in New City Buildings Page 26 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings Page 27 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings Municipal Court Transaction Window: Kevin Greer Hutto, TX Page 28 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings Municipal Court Transaction Window Kevin Greer Hutto, TX Page 29 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings Municipal Court Lobby Wall Jonathan Muzacz Austin, TX Page 30 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings Municipal Court Lobby Wall Jonathan Muzacz Austin, TX Page 31 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings City Hall Rotunda Cruglez Sternmann LLC Rosa Cruglez Sternmann, Artist, Designer and Lawyer Seattle, WA Page 32 of 100 Projects: Art in New City Buildings City Hall Rotunda Cruglez Sternmann LLC Rosa Cruglez Sternmann Seattle, WA Page 33 of 100 Public Art in New City Garage Project: Arts & Culture was invited to be at the initial brainstorming meeting 9/12/18. Murals, sculpture, artistic architectural design were all discussed. Page 34 of 100 Public Art in New City Garage Project: Arts & Culture was invited to be at the initial brainstorming meeting 9/12/18. Murals, sculpture, artistic architectural design were all discussed. Page 35 of 100 Projects: 20th Anniversary Art for Red Poppy Festival Collaboration with CVB and Main Street Page 36 of 100 Bloomberg Grant Possibility: Page 37 of 100 Bloomberg Grant Possibility: Page 38 of 100 Bloomberg Grant Possibility: Public Space Meets Interactive Art Page 39 of 100 Percentage For Art in Public New Construction Cities can implement their own public art program and can budget accordingly from whatever sources they choose Texas does not have a uniform percentage (Dallas ranges from 0.75 to 1.5%, Houston is 1.75%, Austin is 2%). Page 40 of 100 Austin: 1st municipality in TX to make a commitment to include works of art in construction projects. By ordinance 2%of eligible capital improvement project budgets are allocated to commission or purchase art for that site. Examples of sites: airport, convention center, libraries, parks, police stations, rec centers, streetscapes, public places. Population: 947,890 (2016) % for Art in Public Project Examples Page 41 of 100 % for Art in Public Project Examples City of Columbia, Missouri, Population: 120,612 (2016) In May 1997, the Columbia City Council passed legislation to create the Percent for Art program. The program allows for 1%of the cost of new city construction or renovation projects to be used for site-specific public art. City of Wake Forest, NC, Population: 40,112 (2016) All allocations of funds for eligible projects shall include an amount equal to 1%of the projected construction costs at the time the project is included in the capital improvement program to be used for the selection, acquisition, and commissioning of artists and works of public art. City of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Population: 178,752 (2016) Fort Lauderdale’s public art program is organized under the Broward County Public Art and Design Program, which celebrated its 30th anniversary in 2006. The program allocates 2%of the total new construction budget for new/renovated government buildings and 1%of the capital budget for roads, runways, etc. to commission artists to provide design expertise and create artworks for a broad range of capital projects. Artists are commissioned in the early design stages of a project to promote collaboration with architects and site designers. Tempe, AZ, Population: 182,498 (2016) By ordinance, 1%of the city’s capital budget is allocated to public art. Public art projects develop along with community growth and city construction. Public art appears in the downtown and at Tempe Town Lake, in City Hall, public plazas, city parks, fire stations, transit shelters, and the public library.Page 42 of 100 % for Art in Public Project Examples City of Albuquerque, Population: 559,277 (2016) The City of Albuquerque 1%for Art Ordinance, adopted in 1978, is specifically tied to voter approved G.O. Bonds. The capital budget is established every 2 years and then 1% is ADDED TO the overall G.O. Bond Program. The entire G.O. Bond package is placed on the ballot for voter approval. Our funding formula is critical as the 1% is added to the project budgets as an enhancement for, and not a penalty on, capital projects. Our ordinance also has an option for revenue bond funded projects to add 1% for art onto those types of capital projects with only Administration approvals required (for enterprise departments such as Aviation and Solid Waste), but they haven’t opted in for some time. Documents: http://www.cabq.gov/culturalservices/public-art/about-public-art City of Rockville, MD, Population: 66,940 (2016) City of Rockville Art in Public Places Program -Since 1978. Requires 1%of construction costs of all City construction projects to be spent on public art, supplemented by a $1 per capita fund. To date, 36 permanent works of art have been installed along with annual temporary projects through this program. Option 1: Permanent Visual Art, Option 2: Temporary or Limited-Time Art Presentations, Option 3-Monetary Contribution. Seattle, WA, Population: 704,352 (2016) The program specifies that 1%of eligible city capital improvement project funds be set aside for the commission, purchase and installation of artworks in a variety of settings. By providing opportunities for individuals to encounter art in parks, libraries, community centers, on roadways, bridges and other public venues, we simultaneously enrich citizens' daily lives and give voice to artists. Durham, NC, Population: 263,016 (2016) With this funding model, each fiscal year the City Manager recommends an amount, up to 1%of the proposed General Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget, to be set aside in the project fund for public art. Page 43 of 100 Arts and Culture Board Recommendation The current Fiscal and Budgetary Policy enables the funding of public art projects. Public Art Funding –The City will annually allocate funding for Public Art on a year to year basis depending on the availability of funds in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the City Manager. Funding priority will be given to projects that include a matching donation, including contributions from local organizations and sponsors. Any unspent funds will accumulate and be reallocated in the following budget year. Disbursement of these funds will be determined by the City Council at the recommendation of the City’s Arts & Culture Advisory Board. Every effort will be made to include public art funding in future City facilities whose primary purpose is for public use. These projects will include a reasonable allowance for public art that fits the scope and purpose of the building so long that it does not negatively impact the project cost beyond the original budget. In the event there is cost savings in the construction of City Facilities, the City Council may consider utilizing that savings on the purchase of public art for the facility. Page 44 of 100 Arts and Culture Board Recommendation Amend the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy language to specify 1% for public art for future facility construction projects during the 2019 budget cycle. Page 45 of 100 Page 46 of 100 Council Feedback? Page 47 of 100 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop October 23, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n of the Solid Waste Master Plan Project -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director and Teresa Chapman, Solid Waste Pro gram Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f Georgetown permitted a landfill in 1974 that was subse quently closed in 1990 when transfer o f solid waste operations began. The City’s Solid Waste Master Plan is being undertaken to develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Master P lan to meet demand in future years. The ultimate goal o f the Master P lan is to provide systematic guidelines for the provision of solid waste services to the City of Geo rgeto wn. The Master Plan is intende d to be a proactive docume nt which identifie s and then plans fo r future ne e ds well in advanc e . This is done to ensure that solid waste operational ne e ds are planned and funded in advance to experiencing de trimental effects and to keep up with po pulation growth. The disc ussio n today is to pro vide an update on the progress of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan, including elements of o f the plan such as strategic goals for each of the following sectors; Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Commercial & Institutional, P ublic Spaces & Special Events, Municipal Operations & P olicies, and Household Hazardous Waste. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Octavio Garza ATTACHMENT S: Description S o lid Waste Mas ter Plan Page 48 of 100 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan October 23, 2018 Page 49 of 100 Solid Waste Master Plan (CSWMP) Winter –Goals & Objectives –Studies & Trends –Planning Area Characteristics Summer Budget Process –Infrastructure (Transfer Station) & CSWMP Update September –Transfer Station –Downtown Today –Single Family Residential –Multifamily Residential –Commercial & Institutional –Public Spaces & Special Events –Municipal Operations & Policies –Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) November –Summary CSWMP 2Page 50 of 100 3 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, & composting. 3. Establish specific diversion goals in each sector. 4. Measure progress towards diversion goals. 5. Review and update every five years. Page 51 of 100 Key Industry Trends 4 •Focus on Waste Management Hierarchy •High recycling goals by Texas cities Waste Management Hierarchy •Alternative recycling measurement methods o Product materials are rapidly changing, creating additional challenges in handling of recyclable materials o Measurement options: participation rate, disposal rate, appropriate accepted program materials Page 52 of 100 CSWMP Guiding Principles 5 Develop innovative MSW management methods for residential and commercial sectors consistent with the waste management hierarchy Services must be convenient for customers and price-competitive 1 Enhance aesthetics and services for Downtown Square customers and City parks 2 3 Evaluate alternatives to landfill disposal; landfills are a finite resource in the region4 Page 53 of 100 6 CSWMP Summary by Sector •Current System o Overview of key aspects of the City’s current MSW management system, including what is working well and challenges faced •Implementation of Strategies o Priorities for MSW management moving forward Page 54 of 100 7 •Ongoing MSW contract evaluations •Waste characterization audits and baseline establishment •Standardized MSW collection containers and signage •MSW infrastructure planning STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION City-wide Strategies Page 55 of 100 8 Effective single-stream recycling program •Above average annual material capture per household Single-family ResidentialCURRENT SYSTEM GEORGETOWN: 443 lbs NATIONAL: 337 lbs HIGHEST PERFORMING: above 500 lbs •70% weekly household participation rate •Potential for increased participation and material capture Opportunity to increase yard trimmings (organics) diversion GEORGETOWN: 2.3% of MSW generation HIGH PERFORMING: 10-20% of MSW generation Page 56 of 100 Single-family Residential 9 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION •Increase single-stream recycling participation rates o Targeted education and outreach initiatives •Evaluate changes to yard trimmings program to increase material quantities o Opportunity for significant increased MSW diversion o Evaluate customer needs o Potential for increased collection frequency Page 57 of 100 10 Multifamily ResidentialCURRENT SYSTEM 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 •PROPERTY OWNERS: focused on keeping costs low, so may be less likely to provide recycling services •RESIDENTS: convenient access and sufficient capacity Page 58 of 100 11 Multifamily Residential •Increase single-stream recycling participation and material generation rates: o Work with property owners: Technical support Assistance in resident education and communication o 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) STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Page 59 of 100 12 Commercial & InstitutionalCURRENT SYSTEM City provides typical core services for similarly-sized cities in Texas: landfill trash and recycling Low recycling participation and material quantities •High percentage of customers do not have recycling collection, partially due to recent service initiation (2017) •6.4% of material is recycled •About half has potential to be recycled 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 Page 60 of 100 13 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Commercial & Institutional •Increase recycling participation and material generation rates: o Provide technical support (site assessment), recognition programs, education, best practices guides o Consider policies to encourage or ordinances to compel property owners to provide recycling service •Prioritize key partnerships: o Georgetown ISD o Southwestern University o Williamson County Page 61 of 100 14 Public Spaces & Special Events CURRENT SYSTEM Parks: •City staff provide day-to-day MSW collection •Challenges for public: o Litter and container overflow o Limited recycling opportunities o High potential for recycling contamination •Challenges for collection: o Staff have difficulty distinguishing landfill trash and recycling bags o Frequent and inconsistent collection needs Special Events •Red Poppy Festival is a Zero Waste event •Other permitted events do not have MSW requirements o Contributes to low recycling participation o Does not support City’s guiding principles Page 62 of 100 15 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Public Spaces & Special Events Public Support •Provide paired landfill trash and recycling containers •Strengthen public outreach and education o On-the-ground instructional demonstrations o 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 Page 63 of 100 16 CURRENT SYSTEM Municipal Operations & 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 during collection by contracted custodial staff Page 64 of 100 17 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Municipal Operations & Policies •Develop a comprehensive staff education program o Short, mandatory trainings with annual refreshers o Targeted communications upon program changes o Internal best practices guide o 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: o Green purchasing policies o Incorporate MSW diversion terms in all third-party contracts o Standard business practices for disposing of hazardous materials o Incorporate MSW diversion into Emergency Management plans Page 65 of 100 18 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) CURRENT SYSTEM 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: •Comparable •Many mid-sized cities partner with larger entities or municipalities PARTICIPATION: •Comparable •2.8% household participation rate •89 pounds of material per voucher COSTS: •Higher per-customer costs due to lack of economies of scale Page 66 of 100 19 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) o Environmental impact o Source reduction o Reuse program o Program visibility •Continue public education and outreach to promote program participation, with focus on •Establish a baseline for customer satisfaction through customer surveys •Continue to consistently track program data, including participation, material generation, and costs o Conduct annual program review •If annual program review necessitates, further evaluate alternative program options Page 67 of 100 20 Composting 1.Currently working with GISD to implement composting in all K-12 schools 2.Work with food producers for solutions to the organic material they are generating including composting 3.Long term solutions and options for cohesive organic material management Page 68 of 100 21 Summary CSWMP 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 Page 69 of 100 22 CSWMP Next Steps November 27th Workshop •Come back with specifics on Downtown plan •Summary of Consolidated Solid Waste Master Plan •Proposed adoption of Final CSWMP •Fall 2019 –come back with specific goals Page 70 of 100 Items for City Council 1.Consideration of SWMP format –dividing 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 work to increase diversion in each sector while developing a method to measure progress, and establish specific goals based on data. 23Page 71 of 100 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop October 23, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation, review, and discussion of past and c urre nt historic preservation polic y -- So fia Nelson, Planning Direc to r ITEM SUMMARY: Purpose of P rese ntati o n • Education. • Pro vide a history and background on past and current historic preservation efforts and policy documents. • Identify a le vel of co nsensus on the following: • Direction on any additional information neede d regarding past and current historic preservation policy. • Goals and purpose of each of the presented historic preservatio n policy do cuments. Presentati on Outl i ne • Histo ry of historic preservation in Ge orgetown • Review policy documents regarding histo ric preservation • Que stio ns and Direction from City Co uncil FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description wo rksho p pres entation Page 72 of 100 Historic Preservation in Georgetown Workshop October 23,2018 City of GeorgetownPage 73 of 100 Purpose of Presentation •Education. •Provide a history and background on past and current historic preservation efforts and policy documents. •Identify a level of consensus on the following: •Direction on any additional information needed regarding past and current historic preservation policy. •Goals and purpose of each of the presented historic preservation policy documents. Page 74 of 100 Presentation Outline •Part 1: –History of historic preservation in Georgetown •Part 2: –Review policy documents regarding historic preservation •Part 3: –Questions and Direction from City Council Page 75 of 100 Part 1Part 1: History of Historic Preservation in Georgetown Page 76 of 100 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) 1980s •Georgetown enters into Main Street Program (1982) •City was designated a Certified Local Government (CLG) Program(1982) •First Historic Resource Survey Completed (1984) •Courthouse National Historic District expanded (1986) 1980s cont. •The Belford Historic District was listed on the National Register (1986) Page 77 of 100 2000-2005 •Downtown Design Guidelines & overlay district adopted (2001) •Changed the Historic Preservation Commission to the Historic and Architectural Review Committee (2001) •Downtown Master Plan (2003) •Old Town Overlay created (2004) 2005-2010 •2nd Historic Resource Survey Completed (2007) 2010-present •Historic Design Guidelines were amended (2012) •Olive Street Historic District listed on National Register (2013) •Downtown Master Plan updated (2014) •UDC Amendments authorizing HPO over small requests (2015) •3rd Historic Resource Survey completed (2017) Page 78 of 100 Part 2: Review Policy Documents Regarding Historic Preservation Page 79 of 100 Overarching Goals Preservation Rehabilitation Compatibility Character •Encourage preservation of historic structures •Guide maintenance and rehab of distinctive key character defining features •Seek compatibility with the character of the existing area as new infill development is considered •Character of historic structures are encouraged to be maintained as they are adapted to new uses. Page 80 of 100 Overarching goals for Downtown Development Compatibility Pedestrian Friendly Environment •Maintain traditional mass, size, and form. •Sidewalk and amenities for comfortable walking experience. •Building placement and scale City of GeorgetownPage 81 of 100 Historic Preservation-How do the policy documents work together? UDC/ Design Guidelines/ Secretary of Interior Standards Downtown Master Plan Historic Resource Survey Page 82 of 100 •Purpose •To establish application and review procedures, public notice and hearing procedures, and review criteria for the processing of applications for COAs •Purpose. •A basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic resources and new construction. •Purpose •Documents historic resources within the community •Purpose •Sets vision for downtown •Goals for land use, public improvements, urban design, and public spaces Downtown Master Plan Historic Resource Survey UDC Design Guidelines/ Secretary of Interior Standards Page 83 of 100 Historic Preservation Policy Documents Downtown Master Plan City Council sets vision UDC General Requirements and Processes Design Guidelines Specific Guidance based on location Secretary of Interior Standards Guides the Design Guidelines and specific UDC approval criteria Historic Resource Survey Technical Assessment HARC Reviews for compliance with COA approval criteria set in UDC Page 84 of 100 Downtown Master Plan •The Downtown Master Plan seeks to provide an updated framework / 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, Page 85 of 100 Downtown Master Plan Page 86 of 100 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. Page 87 of 100 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. Page 88 of 100 Georgetown’s Design Guidelines- Downtown and Old Town Overlays Page 89 of 100 Area 1-Design Goals •To rehabilitate existing historic commercial buildings; •To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area; •To maintain the traditional mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a building should be a rectangular mass that is one-to three-stories in height.); •To design commercial buildings with storefront elements similar to those seen traditionally (i.e., a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kick plates, transom windows, midbelt cornices, cornices or pediments, and vertically-oriented upper-story windows.); •To design a project that reinforces the retail- oriented function of the street and enhances its pedestrian character;Page 90 of 100 Area 2-Design Goals •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 Page 91 of 100 Old Town-Design Goals •To preserve historic structures; •To continue the use of traditional building forms and materials in new construction; •To maintain the residential character of street facing 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 Page 92 of 100 Design Guidelines-How are they used? City of GeorgetownPage 93 of 100 Secretary of Interior Standards-Goals 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. Page 94 of 100 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. Page 95 of 100 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 Page 96 of 100 Unified Development Code-Criteria for Approval •The application is complete. •Compliance with any design standards. •Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards •Compliance with the Design Guidelines, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; •The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; •New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties •The overall character is protected; Page 97 of 100 Direction from City Council Page 98 of 100 Seek discussion and direction from City Council on the following: •Direction on any additional information needed regarding past and current historic preservation policy. •Direction on goals and purpose of each of the presented historic preservation policy documents Page 99 of 100 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop October 23, 2018 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther 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. WQ0 01 4911002," SOAH DOCKET NO. 582-16-1893 and TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2015-0565-MWD -3701 West Highway 2 9 Sec. 551:072: De l i berati o ns of Real Property - Northwest Blvd/FM 97 1, Parcels 3 & 4 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coo rdinato r - Rabbit Hill Ro ad Pro ject - Parcels 9 & 1 0, Rabbit Hill Road and Commerce -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Se rvic e s Coordinator Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Secretary Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject Office Space - P roject Legacy ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Page 100 of 100