Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCAC_03.18.2019City of Georgetown, Texas Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Monday, March 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Council and Courts Building, 101 E 71" St, Georgetown, TX 78626 Committee Member(s) in Attendance: P J Stevens, Chair; Tracy Dubcak, Vice -Chair; Jason Wirth, Secretary; John Philpott; Brian Robinson; and Stuart Garner. Committee Member(s) Absent: Philip Wanke. Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Andreina Davila -Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner. Meeting called to order at 3:30 P.M. Legislative Regular Agenda A. Consideration and possible action on proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Review Authority, Chapter 3, Applications and Permits, Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, and Chapter 16, Definitions, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the Historic Districts (Amendment No. 2). Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director This item was continued from the March 13, 2019 UDC Advisory Committee regular meeting. The Chair opened the Public Hearing. The following individuals signed up to speak on this item: Ross Hunter, Michael Spano (ceded 3 minutes to Ross Hunter), Richard Cuttss, Patricia Taylor (ceded 3 minutes to Richard Cuttss), Melissa Boyd, Linda McCalla, Kay Vossler (ceded 3 minutes to Linda McCalla), Carolyn Britt, Leonard Van Gendt, Larry Brondidge, Ann Seaman, Phil Brown, and Mary "Ginger" Volkman. The Chair closed the public hearing. Nelson provided a presentation regarding the UDC review process, amendments to the historic regulations process discussions, and updates from the Wednesday, March 13 UDCAC meeting. The presentation consisted of four main parts: i) review of low priority resources inside a historic district, 2) use of in -kind materials, 3) review of demolition process outside of a historic district, and 4) review authority change. Nelson stopped the first part of the presentation and asked the UDC Advisory Committee if they had any questions. Stevens asked for clarification on the difference between changes that were discussed in 2017 to what is currently being proposed, particularly as it relates to the differences in contributing vs non- contributing structures (level of priorities). UDC Advisory Committee March 18, 2019 Nelson continued with the presentation after no further questions from the Committee. Nelson presented on parts 2 (in -kind materials) and 3 (demolition process) and asked the UDC Advisory Committee if they had any questions. Nelson continued with the presentation after no further questions from the Committee. Presentation included part 4 (approval process) and updated information requested from the Committee regarding the approval process from other municipalities. Stevens asked for clarification in the current and proposed UDC standards related to the number of votes required to overturn the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's decision. Nelson replies that the majority of the cities surrounding Georgetown that have a Historic Commission, the final decision making falls within the Historic Commission and not City Council. Dubcak asked if the recommendation that the final decision making authority be reallocated to City Council was based on Council's direction. Nelson replied that the proposed amendments to the UDC were drafted following City Council's direction. Nelson also replied that in the presentations provided to City Council staff outlined different strategies to revise the UDC. Stevens asked the UDC Advisory Committee for comments and questions regarding the review of low priority structures. Nelson clarified that review of low priority structures will be required if the structure is located in a National Register district. Review will be completed by the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO). Nelson also presented options for the UDC Advisory Committee to consider including: 1) as proposed, 2) some level of review, 3) as written in the current UDC. Robinson asked regarding level of priorities as not providing clarification in the review it should be completed. Robinson further asked if not possible to request for an exemption to be reviewed individually in lieu of removing them from the list altogether. Garner asked if there is a compelling reason for why staff would not review all low priority structures within city limits. Nelson replied that from a staff perspective, staff reviews all development applications for all properties. Stevens clarified that the UDC Advisory Committee's intent from 2017 was that the low priority structures outside a district should not be reviewed, but that the discussion did not take into consideration low priorities inside a historic district. Garner moved to recommend that low priority structures in the Downtown and Old Town Overlay districts not be reviewed by staff. No second. Motion failed. The UDC Advisory Committee had further discussion and deliberation regarding this part 1. C;arner rnncroti to rernmmend +kn+ 1nTAT-nr;nritjT strrµ`fi red in tlke nnTA7 4-nTAVn anal (lld Tnt1.71 Overlay districts be approved by staff. Second by Philpott. Motion passed 5-1-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, and Garner in favor. Robinson in opposition. Wanke absent. Philpott moved to recommend that replacement of in -kind materials be allowed for medium and UDC Advisory Committee March 18, 2019 low priority structures. Second by Wirth. Motion passed 6-0-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke absent. Wirth moved to recommend that HARC review be retained for high priority resources and HPO review for medium priority resources, and to remove 60-day demolition period of all resources outside a historic district. Second by Philpott. The UDC Advisory Committee discussed and deliberated the motion. Motion withdrawn. Wirth moved to recommend that HARC review be retained for high priority resources, HPO review for medium priority resources, no review for low priority resources, and to retain 60-day demolition period of all resources outside a district. Second by Philpott. Motion passed 6-0-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke absent. Garner moved to recommend that the final decision maker of Certificate of Appropriateness requiring public hearing remain with HARC as it currently exists in the UDC process (including current Appeal process). Second by Robinson. Motion passed 6-0-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke absent. Robinson moved to recommend denial of the urovosed amendments as vresented (with the exception of the recommendations listed above). Second by Wirth. Motion passed 5-0-1-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, and Robinson in favor. None in opposition. Garner abstained. Wanke absent. Adjournment Motion by Wirth to adjourn th meeting. Second by Philpott. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. evens, Attelt Attest; jasbm.Wirth UDC Advisory Committee March 18, 2019