Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 02.03.2015Notice of Meeting for the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee of the City of Georgetown February 3, 2015 at 3:00 PM at Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 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 at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order B Consideration of the minutes of the November 4, 2014, meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Legislative Regular Agenda C Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the pre-application process in UDC Section 3.02.010 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 1). D Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the establishment of the UDC Development Manual in UDC Section 1.11 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 2). E Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the minimum Planned Unit Development (PUD) size in UDC Section 4.04.030 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 13). F Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the non-residential dimensional and setback requirements of UDC Section 7.03 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Items 16 & 30). G Discussion regarding specific use limitations related to building size (UDC List Item 20). H Discussion regarding residential accessory structures and dwelling for direction (UDC List Items 22 & 25). I Update the committee on City Council additions to the 2014 UDC General Amendments List. J Update the Committee on the status of any UDC Executive Amendments that are being processed separate from the General Amendment process. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of the minutes of the November 4, 2014, meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft minutes Cover Memo Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / November 4, 2014 Page 1 of 2 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 3:00 PM Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 Committee: Porter Cochran, Chair; P.J. Stevens, Vice-chair; Renee Hanson; John Horne; Philip Wanke and Robert Young. Committee Member(s) Absent: Ercel Brashear Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator. Matt Synatschk, Downtown Planner and Stephanie McNickle; Recording Secretary. A. Chair Cochran called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. B. Consideration of the minutes of the July 1, 2014, meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee with amendment. Motion by Committee Member Stevens to approve the minutes from the July 1, 2014 Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Second by Committee Member Young. Approved. (6-0) C HARC Process Review Update -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Staff report given by Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator. Staff stated that during the October 28, 2014 Workshop Session, City Council provided additional feedback and direction to staff on possible changes to existing processes and regulations for historic properties. Major focus areas discussed included staff level reviews for minor projects; inventory of resources; local designations (landmarks); resources, programs and incentives to promote preservation of the city’s historic resources; and HARC power and duties. Staff is proposing to use the updated Historic Resource Survey to identify individual structures that may be designated as a Historic Landmark. These will be structures that are designated via ordinance as the highest priority historic resources. Due to notification requirements, property owners will become apprised of the historic status of their property, and will have opportunities to comment at public hearings. In conjunction with the development of the Historic Landmark designation process, the UDC language related to demolition will be restructured and amended for process clarity. The process will be modified to simplify the properties that must secure CDCs for demolition, penalties for demolition without a CDC, expand demolition by neglect, and make the demolition subcommittee a recommending body to the full commission, with members from different backgrounds including a structural engineer, an architect, or a historic preservationist. Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / November 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2 In addition, proposed changes include increased staff review for signage and site features, demolition of non-historic structures, and alternative parking plans. Staff will also propose changing CDCs to Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) to be consistent with state and national standards. Finally, the UDC will be amended to clarify HARC’s purpose, which includes the review of exterior building alterations. Review for building use, zoning, or Special Use Permits shall be in accordance with current UDC requirements. It was asked and staff stated the amendments will be presented as a Public Hearing during the Planning and Zoning and City Council. Mr. Ross Hunter commends staff on the public hearing process. It was asked and Matt Synatschk stated he will be glad to forward the location of the public input site on the city website. There was some concern with the historic survey emphasizing on the “high” priority Historic buildings in Georgetown, when the “low” and “medium” historic structures could be just as important. D Discussion of various items on the current UDC General Amendments List for direction including minimum district sizes, gateway overlay district standards, specific use limitations, nonresidential setback requirements, and residential accessory structures and dwelling units. Discussion regarding the minimal size of a Planned Unit Development along with the minimum acreage size for industrial park zoning district. Board stated as Georgetown grows, staff may need to review the possibility for different types of PUD’s or have more flexibility for special projects. Board request to “beef-up” the Gateway Overlay area and there should be more consistency with design guidelines. Board decided to discuss the Specific Use Limitation at a later date. Board and Staff discussed non-residential setback requirements in industrial to industrial parking. Residential accessory structure discussion delayed to next meeting. Further discussion regarding the process of items being presented to City Council in the future. Motion to Adjourn at 5:31 p.m. _____________________________________ __________________________________ Porter Cochran, Chair Ercel Brashear, Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the pre-application process in UDC Section 3.02.010 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 1). ITEM SUMMARY: The pre-application process listed in the UDC is somewhat rigid in what requires and does not require a pre-application meeting. Over the last couple of years development has increased leaving a backlog of meetings. Staff has worked to reduce the number of pre-application meetings required and looked to opportunities to waive the requirement when appropriate. The proposed amendments to Section 3.02.010 of the UDC include removing the list of applications requiring a pre-application meeting to provide for more flexibility and changing the term conference to meeting to reflect currents references. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type UDC List Item 1 Amendment Language Exhibit Chapter 3 Applications and Permits Section 3.02 Common Review Elements 3.02.010 Pre-application ConferenceMeeting Prior to the submission of an application required by this Code, a Pre-application Conference with the Director shall be required as follows. B.A. Prior to the submission of an application required by this Code, a A Pre-application Conference Meeting is a meeting between a potential applicant under this Code and the Planning Director of Planning and Development Department or a designated representative(s) may be required. The conference meeting is an opportunity for an applicant to describe what application is being consideredthe proposed project, and the Director to indicate which application is appropriate, which review body is responsible for final action, and what criteria will be used to determine whether the permit application should be approved. C.B. There is no required format for a Pre-application ConferenceMeeting; it may occur in any form so long as the potential applicant receives the information described above. The applicant is responsible for completing a Pre-application ConferenceMeeting, and must sign a Pre-application Statement indicating the date of the Pre-application Meeting. D. A Pre-application Conference is required for the following applications: •••• Access Point Connection Exemption •••• Administrative Exception •••• Annexation (Voluntary) •••• Certificate of Design Compliance •••• Comprehensive Plan Amendment •••• Conservation Subdivision Site Analysis Map •••• Construction Plans •••• Courthouse View Height Determination •••• Development Agreement •••• Driveway Permit •••• Historic District Designation •••• License to Encroach •••• Master Sign Plan •••• Planned Unit Development •••• Plat Waiver •••• Plat Vacation •••• Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) •••• Site Plan •••• Special Exception •••• Special Use Permit •••• Stormwater Permit •••• Subdivision Plats - All •••• Temporary Use Permit •••• Unified Development Code Text Amendment •••• Variance DD.C. Pre- application Conferences Meetings may be combined when an applicant will be making simultaneous applications for the same project. EE.D. Completion of a Pre-application Conference Meeting does not imply or assume subsequent approval of the permit or application. City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the establishment of the UDC Development Manual in UDC Section 1.11 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 2). ITEM SUMMARY: The current UDC regulations require any changes to the UDC Development Manual, which houses all the application forms among other documents, to be published on the City's website for 30 days following public notice in the local newspaper. In recent years the City of Georgetown has moved to a more electronic, web-focused information base whereby news of any updates would reach the end users more often and quickly than would publication in the newspaper. Additionally, the 30-day time period often presents a challenge when staff needs to update an element of the Manual quickly. Thirty days is longer than the notification time period required for a rezoning, for example. The proposed amendment language reduces the time period for posting to 15 days and removes the required newspaper notice. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type UDC List Item 2 Amendment Language Exhibit Page 1 of 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Section 1.11 UDC Development Manual The UDC Development Manual prepared by the City of Georgetown Planning and Development Department is hereby adopted by reference as if set forth in full. The UDC Development Manual shall contain application forms, required application materials, fees, application submittal deadlines and application review timelineschecklists, calendars and other materials to aid applicants in the preparation and submittal of applications. The UDC Development Manual may be amended from time to time by the Director, following posting of the proposed changes on the City’s website Public Notice and a 3015-day public comment period. City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the minimum Planned Unit Development (PUD) size in UDC Section 4.04.030 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 13). ITEM SUMMARY: The current UDC minimum Planned Unit Development (PUD) size is three acres. Staff has been presented with many situations where a PUD less than three acres may have been appropriate, but it was not a possibility. This topic was brought before the UDC Advisory Committee on November 4th, 2014, where the committee generally did not feel a minimum acreage was necessary. This item is brought back to reflect the actual UDC language that would implement this change. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type UDC List Item 13 Amendment Language Exhibit Page 1 of 1 Chapter 4 Zoning Districts Section 4.04 Zoning District Purpose Statements 4.04.030 Special Purpose Zoning Districts D. Planned Unit Development District (PUD) The Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is intended to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties that are a minimum of three acres in size and are to be developed in accordance with a common development scheme. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate various types of development, including multiple housing types, neighborhood and community retail, professional and administrative areas, industrial and business parks, and other uses or a combination thereof. A PUD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land use and standards not permitted by zoning or the standards of this Code. Although greater flexibility is given to allow development in a PUD that would not otherwise be allowed, procedures and standards are established in this Code that are intended to ensure against misuse. * For Special Requirements of a PUD District, see Section 4.06 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the non-residential dimensional and setback requirements of UDC Section 7.03 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Items 16 & 30). ITEM SUMMARY: Multiple topics regarding Section 7.03 were brought before the UDC Advisory Committee on November 4th, 2014, related to minimum district sizes, minimum setback requirements, and what could be constructed within the required setbacks. The committee discussed the minimum acreage requirement of five acres for the Industrial District and did not find a reason or necessity for the size. The proposed amendment language removes the minimum requirement all together to return to the standards in place when the UDC was adopted. Also discussed was the minimum 20 acre requirement for the Business Park District, but the committee did not feel there was a necessity to change this requirement. The committee also discussed setback requirements, specifically for the Industrial District. The committee felt that the Industrial setbacks could be reduced, in particularly because of the buffering requirements of Chapter 8 of the UDC. The proposed amendments reduce the Industrial setbacks from 35 to 25 for the front and from 20 to 10 for the side and rear setbacks. Finally, the committee discussed parking within required setbacks. The current UDC requirements allow parking to encroach into required setbacks when adjacent to parking on a neighboring non- residential property, excepting Industrial. The committee felt that there was no justification to exclude Industrial properties, and that the requirement to allow only if parking existed on the adjacent property was not necessary. The amended language removes the restriction for Industrial properties as well as the adjacent parking requirement. This item is presented to reflect the actual UDC language that would implement the discussed changes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type UDC List Items 16 & 30 Amendment Language Exhibit Page 1 of 2 Chapter 7 Non-Residential Zoning Districts: Lot, Dimensional, and Design Standards Section 7.03 Development Standards Table 7.03.020: Non-Residential Lot and Dimensional Standards Non-Residential Zoning Districts Dimension CN C-1 C-3 OF BP IN PF MU-DT MU District Size, min. acreage -- -- 5 -- 20 --5 -- -- 5 Lot Width, minimum feet 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 Fo r M U L o t a n d D i m e n s i o n a l S t a n d a r d s , S e e S e c t i o n 4 .1 1 Front/Street Setback, min. feet 20 25 25 25 25 3525 25 0 Front Setback, Build-to Option 0 0 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- Refer to Section 7.03.030.B for the Build-to Option Front Setback, Downtown Gateway Overlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- Refer to Section 4.13.040 for Downtown Gateway Setbacks Side Setback, min. feet 5 10 10 10 10 2010 5 0 Side Setback to Residential District, min. feet 10 15 15 15 20 25 15 0 Rear Setback, min. feet 0 0 10 10 10 2010 0 0 Rear Setback to Residential District, min. feet 20 25 25 25 25 35 25 0 Building Height, max. feet 30 35 45 45 60 60 45 40 Bufferyards Refer to Section 8.04 for Bufferyard Requirements Landscaping Refer to Chapter 8 for Minimum Landscape Requirements Impervious Coverage Refer to Section 11.02 for Impervious Coverage Requirements 7.03.030 Dimensional Interpretations and Exceptions C. Setback Exceptions 4. Features Allowed Within Required Setbacks a. The following features may be located within a required setback: i. Landscape features (as defined in Chapter 16). ii. Fences and walls. iii. Driveways. iv. Sidewalks. Formatted: Font: Bold Page 2 of 2 v. Minor utilities. vi. Mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, pool pumps and similar equipment, but such equipment is not allowed in the front setback and is allowed in the side and rear setbacks only if such equipment cannot be reasonably located behind the structure. vii. Sills, belt courses, cornices, buttresses, chimneys, flues, eaves and other architectural features that extend less than 18 inches into the setback. viii. On-site parking, in Districts other than Industrial, may be located within a side or rear setback if: • Such parking is directly adjacent to parking on a neighboring property in a Non-Residential District; and • Such parking is located no closer than five feet from the lot line; and • The lot complies with the applicable bufferyard requirements in Section 8.04 of this Code. b. None of the features above (except plant material and public sidewalks) shall extend into a public easement without approval of a License to Encroach.