The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda UDCAC 03.13.2019Notice of Meeting for the Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee of the City of Georgetown March 13, 2019 at 3:30 P M at City Hall, 808 Martin Luther K ing Jr Street, Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on the agenda. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B Nomination and selec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary for the 2019/20 UDC Advis ory C ommittee. Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager. C Disc ussion and possible action es tablishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) Advisory C ommittee for 2019/20. Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager. D P ublic hearing and pos s ible ac tion on proposed amendments to C hapter 2, R eview Authority, C hapter 3, Applic ations and P ermits , and C hapter 16, Definitions , of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the Historic Dis tric ts (Amendment No. 2). S ofia Nels on, C NU-A, P lanning Director E Disc ussion on proposed amendments to the Unified Development C ode regarding the building standards of the multi-family residential zoning dis tric ts (Amendment No. 14). Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager F Disc ussion on proposed amendments to the Unified Development C ode regarding additional notific ation requirements for land use applications (Amendment No. 17). Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager G Update on the 2018/19 UDC Annual R eview P lan, S chedule and Next S teps . Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager Page 1 of 131 Adjournment Adjournment C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid meeting. ____________________________________ R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary Page 2 of 131 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee March 13, 2019 S UB J E C T: As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on the agenda. IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: na S UB MIT T E D B Y: Page 3 of 131 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee March 13, 2019 S UB J ECT: P ublic hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to C hapter 2, Review Authority, C hapter 3, Applications and P ermits, and C hapter 16, Definitions, of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the Historic Districts (Amendment No. 2). S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Director IT E M S UMMARY: Background: T he City C ouncil directed staff to update the UDC ’s standards and processes relating to the historic districts as part of the 2018/19 UDC Annual Review process (Amendment No. 2). T he purpose of this amendment is to incorporate recommendations from the 2016 Historic R esource S urvey, streamline the standards based on the City's historic resources, and address challenges in the review process. In November 2018, December 2018, and January 2019, the City Council discussed the City's historic resources, current processes, and provided direction and guidance on changes to improve the historic standards and review process. S ummary o f P ro posed U DC Amendments City Code/UDC Section Proposed UDC Change City Code 2.50 HAR C to provide C ity C ouncil with a recommendation on C O As UDC Section 3.03 Update public notice requirements for C ity Council review of C O As UDC Section 3.13 • Reflect C ity Council as the decision maker, instead of HAR C • Make a Master S ign P lan an application that can be approved administratively if all design guidelines are met • Include the use of in-kind (like or similar material) replacements of architectural features on medium and low priority resources • Include “creating or adding to an existing street facing façade” to Table 3.13, therefore requiring C ity C ouncil approval • Remove review of Low P riority (outside a National R egister District) and Non-Contributing S tructures • Remove 60-day demolition delay period for properties outside of a historic district UDC Section 16.02 Updated to Clarify Definition · Historic S tructure, C ontributing · Historic S tructure, Non-C ontributing · Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission · Downtown and O ld Town Design G uidelines · C ertificate of Appropriateness Develop New Definition · National Register of Historic P laces · R eplacement Materials, In-Kind Next Steps: Requested Back up Materials: At your last UDC AC meeting the committee requested the following information in advance of providing a recommendation to the C ity C ouncil and P lanning and Zoning C ommission: S ummary of the conducted public outreach- T he 11.2019 presentation made to C ity C ouncil is attached for your review. It includes a summary of each of the conducted surveys and community feedback. Map of the low priority structures within a historic district- T he following interactive map to review all historic structures (in and outside of a historic district). https://georgetowntx.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=22cfe94aa87c4224a6b87347e0668220 F IN ANCIAL IMPACT: None. Page 4 of 131 S UB MITT E D B Y: S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Director AT TAC HMENT S: Description Type COA summary guide of udc amendments Cover Memo Summary of public outreach pres ented to City Council Nov 2018 Cover Memo public comment Cover Memo udc amendments Cover Memo Page 5 of 131 Reader’s Guide Unified Development Code (UDC) Changes for the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Process February 2019 Page 6 of 131 2018 Council Workshop Discussions Related to COA Process February 27, 2018 •Workshop on implementation of the Historic Resource Survey and recommendation by UDC Advisory Committee on revisions for COA process August 14, 2018 •City Council requested changes to COA review authority August 28, 2018 •Workshop on public engagement plan for COA process October 23, 2018 •Review of past and current Historic Preservation Policy November 27, 2018 •Presented findings of public outreach efforts •Confirmed goals for measuring success for historic preservation •Presented short, medium, and long term opportunities for improving the COA process December 11, 2018 •Identifed short term educational opportunities and long term policy improvements January 8, 2019 •Direction provided on low priority resources, resources outside the District, and the use of in-kind materialsPage 7 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Based on Public Outreach Education Regulation Process Policy Page 8 of 131 Strategies with Consensus from City Council on Dec. 11, 2018 Education Strategies •Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan (start Jan. 2019) •Execute HARC Commissioner Training Plan (continuous) •Prepare an annual public education seminar/outreach (May 2019, coincide with Preservation Month) •Hold HARC meetings twice/month (March 2019) •Update the Historic Resource Survey every 3-5 years, rather than every 10 years (Council Resolution) •Review and remove conflicts between the UDC and the Design Guidelines. Specially, update the UDC appeal requirements for a supermajority vote. (3 to 6 months) Process Strategies •Review Design Guidelines for consistency with Downtown Master Plan (6 to 10 months) •Utilize the local landmark process (1 to 2 years) •Prepare a Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2 to 3 years, coincide with DMP update) Policy Strategies Page 9 of 131 Strategies with Consensus from City Council on Jan. 8, 2019 •Review of Low Priority –no review of low priority structures inside Old Town and Downtown, unless located with one of the four National Register Districts •Use of In-Kind* Materials –the use of in-kind materials in medium and low priority structures *In-Kind = Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that it is either the same or a similar material, and the result match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original character and historic integrity of the structure. •Review of Demolition Process Outside of Historic District –Retain HARC Review for high priority structures, staff-only review for medium priority structures, and remove 60-day waiting period •Review Authority Change –The final decision maker of COAs requiring a public hearing shall become the City Council. HARC shall prepare a recommendation for the City Council. Page 10 of 131 Code Section Amended and Summary of Change City Code Section 2.50 updated to… •Reflect responsibility of HARC to provide City Council with a recommendation on COAs. UDC Section 3.03 updated to… •Reflect the notice requirements for City Council review of COAs. UDC Section 3.13 updated to… •Reflect City Council as the decision maker, instead of HARC •Make a Master Sign Plan an application that can be approved administratively if all design guidelines are met •Include the use of in-kind (like or similar material) replacements of architectural features on medium and low priority resources •Include “creating or adding to an existing street facing façade” to Table 3.13, therefore requiring City Council approval •Remove review of Non-Contributing Structures •Remove 60-day demolition delay period for properties outside of a historic districtPage 11 of 131 Code Section Amended and Summary of Change UDC Section 16.02 (Definitions) Updated to Clarify Definition •Historic Structure, Contributing •Historic Structure, Non-Contributing •Historic and Architectural Review Commission •Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines •Certificate of Appropriateness Develop New Definition •National Register of Historic Places •Replacement Materials, In-Kind Page 12 of 131 Questions and Additional Resources Hyperlinks •Current UDC Requirements •View Past City Council Workshops •Interactive Historic Properties Map (Identifies all resources, priority levels, Historic Districts, and National Register Districts) Staff Contacts •Sofia Nelson, Planning Director –sofia.nelson@georgetown.org –512-931-7611 •Madison Thomas, Historic Planner –Madison.Thomas@georgetown.org –512-930-3581 Page 13 of 131 Certificate of Appropriateness Public Input Process and Opportunities for Improvement November 27, 2018 Page 14 of 131 Outreach Team •Communications Department Jackson Daly Keith Hutchinson Beth Wade •Planning Department Karen Frost Madison Thomas Andreina Davila- Quintero Nat Waggoner Page 15 of 131 Purpose of Presentation •Present findings of public outreach efforts •Confirm goals for measuring success for historic preservation in Georgetown, Texas •Identify short, medium, and long term opportunities for improvements to education, regulations, process, and policy Page 16 of 131 Feedback Requested •Identify short, medium, and long term opportunities for improvements to education, regulations, process, and policy. •Based on goals and public input, are there specific changes and alterations to the UDC or Design Guidelines City Council would like implemented? Page 17 of 131 Presentation Agenda •Cases •Workshops •Outreach Direction •Information Requested Part 1 Recap 2018 Discussions •Outreach Impact Report •Confirm Themes Part 2 Public Engagement Feedback Themes •Overarching goals •Downtown Development Goals Part 3 Reconfirm Goals •Themes •Possible Next Steps •Opportunities for improvement Part 4 Action Plan Page 18 of 131 Part 1: Recap of 2018 Discussions on Historic Preservation Page 19 of 131 Jan. 2018: Appeal on HARC action on a CoA for 204 E. 8th Street Feb. 2018: Workshop on UDC revisions for COA approvals Aug. 2018: •Appeal on HARC action on CoA for 511 S. Main St. •City Council requests changes to CoA review authority •Workshop on COA process outreach efforts Sept. 21, 2018:Public comment on demolition of a medium structure priority Oct. 23, 2018: Review of Past and Current Historic Preservation Policy 2018 Historic Preservation Conversations Part 1Page 20 of 131 Appeal Cases 204 E. 8th St. 511 S. Main St. Located in Downtown Overlay District-Area 2 Key Points of Appeals: Massing and scale of property in the transition zone Part 1Page 21 of 131 Outreach Themes •Process Experience & Cost •Education •Value of Historic Preservation Stakeholders •Development Professionals •Property Owners •Business Owners •Georgetown Citizens •Current & Past HARC Commissioners •Current and Past COA applicants Methods for Engagement •Survey •Focus Groups •Public Meeting •Office Hours Outreach Direction Provided Part 1Page 22 of 131 Information Requested •Development Process •Historic District Boundaries Part 1Page 23 of 131 Development Process Part 1 Page 24 of 131 COA Application Submittal Completeness Review Technical Reviews HARC DeterminationStaff Determination Pre-Application Meeting (Optional, but highly encouraged) HARC Conceptual Review (Optional, but highly encouraged) Certification of Appropriateness Application Process Part 1 Page 25 of 131 After technical review is complete, and all proposed changes meet the Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code Criteria: •HPO Approval Memo is issued immediately Administrative Determination If proposed changes do not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines: •Proposed changes can be appealed to HARC HARC Determination After technical review is complete, a project is scheduled for the next HARC Meeting. At the meeting HARC can: •Find all criteria is met, approve project •Find all criteria is not met, add conditions or delay to next meeting so the applicant may address comments •Find all criteria is not met, deny project Applicant can appeal to City Council Part 1 Page 26 of 131 HARC Public Hearing Schedule HARC Meetings occur once a month . •Steps required for scheduling a case for a HARC hearing •21 Days Prior: Technical Review Due •17 Days Prior: Signs & Letters ready and posted •15 Days Prior: Staff Reports Due •10 Days Prior: Project put in Novus •6 Days Prior: Agenda Posted Part 1 Page 27 of 131 Historic District Boundaries Part 1 Page 28 of 131 District Boundaries •Courthouse Historic District (1977) •Courthouse National Historic District expanded (1986) Part 1 Page 29 of 131 District Boundaries •Downtown Overlay District Part 1 Page 30 of 131 District Boundaries •Old Town Overlay District Part 1 Page 31 of 131 District Boundaries •University-Elm Street National Register Districts Part 1 Page 32 of 131 District Boundaries •National Register Districts •Belford Historic District (1986) Part 1 Page 33 of 131 District Boundaries •National Register Districts •Olive Street Historic (2013) Part 1 Page 34 of 131 Part 2: Public Engagement Page 35 of 131 Outreach Methods Surveys (4) Property Owners on the Historic Resource Survey and/or within a Historic District Applicants who have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Community-at-large Past HARC Commissioners •Office Hours •Focus Groups •Public Meeting Part 2Page 36 of 131 Outreach Impact Surveys •4 unique surveys •667 Respondents Office Hours •5 participants Focus Groups •4 groups •20 participants Public Meeting •46 attendees Page 37 of 131 Highlights of Community Surveys Part 2Page 38 of 131 Survey No. 1 Property Owners designated on the Historic Resource Survey and/or within a Historic District Part 2 …11% …35% …54% …38%…62% Page 39 of 131 Who Responded? 89.46% 2.15% 9.46% 6.45% 4.95% Residential property owner Residential property tenant Commercial property owner Commercial property tenant (business owner or manager) Other (please specify) Part 2Page 40 of 131 Survey Findings -Property Owners •85% of respondents find value in owning property on the HRS or in the historic overlay district. •97% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties. •61% of respondents own a property on the HRS. •72% of respondents have not taken a project through HARC. Part 2Page 41 of 131 Survey Findings-Property Owners •82% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the overlay. •50% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight over the demolition of structures on the Historic Resources Survey that are OUTSIDE a historic district. •74% feel that the city’s overview of properties on the HRS add value. •General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures. Part 2Page 42 of 131 Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 97.01%74.73%39.40% Non-street facing facades 82.80%57.35%21.51% Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 89.87%63.07%23.53% Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 90.63%68.88%26.89% Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature 95.29%73.96%31.30% Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 85.96%60.70%23.51% Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.37%63.79%22.92% Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade 90.63%67.81%26.56% Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district 96.98%76.65%40.11% Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 88.54%64.97%29.94% Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51%Page 43 of 131 Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51% Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure 90.19%67.09%28.48% Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.97%72.33%40.63% Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district 87.32%64.49%31.88% New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 93.64%75.76%44.55% Signage 94.79%76.07%52.76% Part 2Page 44 of 131 Survey No. 2 Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Applicants, 2015 -present Part 2Page 45 of 131 COA Cases 2015 -present Part 2 43 16 27 45 17 28 41 20 21 58 31 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total COA's HARC Cases Administrative COA's Certificate of Appropriateness Cases 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 46 of 131 Who Responded-Applicants Survey 41.38% 41.38% 10.34% 27.59% 6.90%Residential property owner Commercial property owner Commercial property tenant (business owner or manager) Development Professional (i.e. Engineer, Architect, Contractor) Other (please specify) Page 47 of 131 Survey Findings-Applicants •57% of respondents find value in properties in the Historic Resource Survey or historic district. •78% of respondents understood the additional oversight for historic properties in Georgetown prior to beginning their project(s). •40% of respondents identified the Guidelines were not easy to understand or apply. •61% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds value to the properties. Part 2Page 48 of 131 88%92% 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Development Professionals Commercial Property Owner Residential Property Owner Types of applicants Did you understand the additional oversight for historic properties in Georgetown prior to beginning your project(s)? 38%33% 9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Development Professionals Commercial Property Owner Residential Property Owner Types of applicants Do you think the guidelines governing what can and cannot be done on historic properties are clear and easily applied? Agree Survey Findings: Applicants Part 2Page 49 of 131 Survey Findings: Applicants 38% 50% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Development Prof.Commercial Property Owner Residential Property Owner Types of applicants Was the development process fair? Part 2Page 50 of 131 Survey Findings: Applicants •32% of respondents had a positive perception of HARC •39% of respondents identified all decisions by HARC should have final approval by City Council. •53% identified HARC should NOT have oversight of new construction in the overlay . Part 2Page 51 of 131 Survey Findings: Applicants •61% feel HARC should not have oversight of HRS properties outside of the districts. •General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures. Part 2Page 52 of 131 Survey of COA Applicants: Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 95.65%65.22%30.43% Non-street facing facades 93.33%26.67%6.67% Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 94.12%47.06%17.65% Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 95.00%30.00%10.00% Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature 100.00%50.00%9.09% Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 90.91%36.36%18.18% Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 93.33%33.33%13.33% Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade 95.24%52.38%4.76% Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district 100.00%50.00%13.64% Part 2 Page 53 of 131 Survey of COA Applicants: Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 93.33%33.33%13.33% Demolition of a street-facing facade 90.48%52.38%33.33% Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure 92.86%50.00%21.43% Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)94.12%58.82%35.29% Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district 92.31%30.77%15.38% New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 100.00%64.29%35.71% Signage 94.12%41.18%17.65% Page 54 of 131 Survey No. 3 Community Wide Survey Part 2Page 55 of 131 Who Responded? •164 Responses •92% of respondents were residential property owners in the City of Georgetown •86% of respondents do not own a property on the HRS •93% of respondents have not taken a project through the HARC process Part 2Page 56 of 131 Survey Findings: Community Wide •78% of respondents indicated Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown. •62% of respondents feel city’s efforts to oversee development in Old Town & Downtown Overlay Districts are effective. •86% of respondents find value in the city having a role in preserving historic buildings. •90% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties Part 2Page 57 of 131 Survey Findings: Community Wide •73% of respondents have a positive perception of HARC. •80% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the overlay districts. •41% or respondents identified HARC should have oversight of demolition of structures on the HRS outside the overlay. •71% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds value to the properties. Part 2Page 58 of 131 High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 96.30%75.00%36.11% Non-street facing facades 76.19%64.29%22.62% Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 85.42%72.92%29.17% Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 92.93%67.68%24.24% Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non- historic architectural feature 96.12%72.82%33.98% Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 83.13%71.08%25.30% Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.30%64.89%22.34% Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade 87.64%68.54%25.84% Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district 95.19%75.96%39.42% Community Survey of Historic Properties & Districts: Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? Part 2 Page 59 of 131 High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 85.71%71.43%29.67% Demolition of a street-facing facade 93.27%71.15%37.50% Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure 90.11%70.33%30.77% Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.00%73.00%38.00% Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district 80.52%77.92%35.06% New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 92.93%73.74%43.43% Signage 90.91%76.77%48.48% Community Survey of Historic Properties & Districts: Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? Part 2Page 60 of 131 Survey No. 4 HARC Commissioners 2015 to Present Part 2Page 61 of 131 Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners •9 Responses •77% of respondents indicated they believe Guidelines governing what can and cannot be done on historic properties are clear and easily applied. •100% of respondents had a positive experience serving on HARC. •100% feel that city oversight of the properties on the Resources Survey adds value. •44% of respondents identified the training provided was adequate. •88% of respondents identified staff provides adequate information prior to the meeting. Part 2Page 62 of 131 Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners •100% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight over all new construction in a Historic Overlay District. •55% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight of demolitions outside of a Historic Overlay District. •General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures. Part 2Page 63 of 131 Focus Groups and Individual Interviews Part 2Page 64 of 131 Summary of Outreach •Focus Groups: •Architecture and Design professionals (3 participants ) •Residential applicants (8 participants) •Commercial applicants (4 participants) •Real Estate professionals (6 participants ) Part 2Page 65 of 131 Summary of Outreach •Office Hours/Individual Interviews: •4 community members requested a one -on- one session. These members included the following: •1 past HARC Commissioner •1 representative from Preservation Georgetown •2 interested citizens and residents of Old Town Part 2Page 66 of 131 Summary of Feedback: •The COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. It protects property values and separates Georgetown from other suburbs in the area. •The process is too expensive, too lengthy, and generally unclear. •The COA process encourages demolition by neglect and this should be addressed, whether via a grant program or more flexible regulations. Part 2Page 67 of 131 Summary of Feedback: •There is room for improvement in the education of HARC members and citizens. •Low-priority properties should not be subject to HARC review or should be subject to less stringent guidelines. Part 2Page 68 of 131 Feedback Themes COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown. Low Priority structures should receive less review. COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria. Part 2Page 69 of 131 Part 3: Reconfirm Goals for Historic Preservation Page 70 of 131 •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 Resources Survey UDC Design Guidelines/ Secretary of Interior Standards Part 3 Page 71 of 131 Overarching Goals -Confirmed at 10/23 meeting Preservation Rehabilitation Compatibility Character •Encourage preservation of historic structures •Guide/ Promote 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 is encouraged to be maintained as they are adapted to new uses. Part 3Page 72 of 131 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 Part 3Page 73 of 131 Part 4: Identify next steps for implementing goals for Historic Preservation Page 74 of 131 Feedback Themes COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown. Low Priority structures should receive less review. COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria. Part 4Page 75 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Education Regulation Process Policy Part 4Page 76 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan •Timeframe: January 2019 Execute HARC Commissioner Training Plan •Timeframe: continuous Prepare annual public education seminar/outreach •Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation Month Part 4 Education Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Page 77 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Public Outreach Feedback: Length of Development Process/ Low Priority structures should receive less review Implementation Timeframe: 3 to 6 month time frame Change: No Review of Low Priority Structures inside Old Town Downtown Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact: 468 resources out of 1,033 in Old Town would not go through COA review process Change: Staff only review of Low Priority Structures inside Old Town Downtown Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting process. Change: Use of In-kind materials rather than requiring restoration of original architectural features coupled with Option 2. Implementation: UDC Amendment and Design Guidelines Amendment Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting process with added flexibly in use of materials Strategy 4 Option 1 Strategy 4 Option 2 Strategy 4 Option 3 Page 78 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Public Outreach Feedback: HARC review of demolitions shall be limited to properties within a Historic Overlay District. Implementation Timeframe: 3 to 6 month time frame Change: No review of historic resources outside a Historic Overlay District Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:643 resources would no longer require review Change: HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District without 60 day waiting period Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact: 616 resources would no longer require reviewChange: Retain 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 Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:Removes the 60 day waiting period. Strategy 5 Option 1 Strategy 5 Option 2 Strategy 5 Option 3 Page 79 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Public Outreach Feedback: COA Development Process takes too long and process is inconsistent Strategy:Update HARC meeting calendar to meet 2X a month Implementation:March 2019 Strategy:Establishing annual or biannual review of Historic Resources Survey Implementation:Resolution to City Council Strategy:Work with City Legal Department to review for any conflicting language between Design Guidelines and UDC Regulations Implementation:3 to 6 months Strategy 6 Strategy 7 Strategy 8 Page 80 of 131 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Policy Strategy Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Public Outreach Feedback: Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown Strategy: Utilize local landmark process to focus on preservation efforts on highest priority community resources Implementation: 1 to 2 year time frame Strategy: Review Design Guidelines for Downtown Overlay Area 2 for consistency with Downtown Master Plan Implementation:6 to 10 month time frame. Result in update of UDC and Design Guidelines Strategy: Prepare Historic Preservation Element of 2030 Plan as called for in City Charter to allow for more long term goal setting approach to historic preservation. Implementation: 2 to 3 year time frame. Coinciding with the update of the Downtown Master Plan. Strategy 9 Strategy 10 Strategy 11 Page 81 of 131 Feedback Requested •Identify short, medium, and long term opportunities for improvements to education, regulations, process, and policy. •Based on goals and public input, are there specific changes and alterations to the UDC or Design Guidelines City Council would like implemented? Page 82 of 131 From:Allan Barnes To:Sofia Nelson Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC Amendments re Certificates of Appropriateness Date:Friday, March 08, 2019 9:54:20 AM Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Sofia Nelson, City of Georgetown Planning Department Sofia, Thank you for providing the March 6th Workshop for citizens to learn more about the proposed changes in administering Certificates of Appropriateness. My three concerns follow: HARC SHOULD BE RETAINED AS FINAL DECISION MAKER rather than switching that responsibility to the City Council. There are many reasons for this. The approval process will necessarily be delayed for every application by requiring the extra time to go through the next City Council meeting. I have heard that it is important to maintain consistency with all other City Commissions which simply submit recommendations to City Council for approval. I have also heard that The Most Beautiful Square in Texas is the Golden Egg that attracts people to Georgetown. When you have a Golden Egg it should be treated as special rather than being forced into the carton with all the other eggs. Delaying every application in the interest of consistency is putting form over substance rather than providing exemplary service to applicants and in the process nurturing our Golden Egg. Furthermore, the plan to approve HARC’s recommendations via the Consent Agenda will lead to problems. If an application is moved from the Consent Agenda to the Public Agenda early in a meeting, how will the public and the applicant know in order to participate in the public discussion? Will discussion be postponed until a subsequent meeting (a further delay) in order to provide adequate notice? Who decides to move an item from the Consent Agenda? Will an Applicant who disagrees with a HARC recommendation have to find a City Council member advocate on the day of the meeting to get a hearing? Can a City Council member pull a favorable recommendation off the Consent Agenda and make a case to deny it? The present approval procedures provide an earlier decision and a clear avenue for prompt appeal if requested, all with adequate public notice. City Council should be retained as the avenue for prompt appeal for the few rather than an extra delay for every applicant. HARC Commissioners are selected and trained to have expertise in the areas of historic preservation, architecture, and City guidelines; City Council members are not. Accordingly, more consistent and appropriate decisions will flow from HARC. And City Council Members’ broader perspective and compromising skills will be available for the appeals. Furthermore, the supermajority requirement to overturn a HARC decision should be retained to reinforce HARC’s authority, but that should be coupled with a new provision that a majority of City Council may refer an appealed decision back to HARC for further discussion without triggering the penalty of a 6 month delay before re-submission. Such a provision would likely have resulted in better outcomes for two recent cases; the former Eats on Eighth property and the structure at Main and 6th. In the latter case, the existing High Priority Structure will certainly be downgraded to Medium or Low when the next Inventory of Historic Page 83 of 131 Resources is done by a preservation professional applying state-wide accepted standards, and that is unfortunate. In summary, I submit retaining the present approval provisions which have worked well for years will provide quicker more consistent decisions for applicants and adhere closer to accepted historic preservation standards than will the proposed change, which may have unexpected consequences that only surface over time. LOW PRIORITY STRUCTURES WITHIN A HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES at least as relates to consideration for demolition. Structures attain historical significance not only due to architectural attributes but also due to association with historically significant people or events. Those who do the Inventory of Historic Resources see the physical attributes but may not have access to the historic significance of a particular structure which would dictate it should be preserved in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education and welfare of the people. Consequently, what should be categorized as High Priority may unintentionally be rated Low. By definition a historic structure has stood for 50 years or more and neighborhood memories may have faded, but a public notice, review by HARC, and the 60 day window before approval (which should be retained) may provide the spark to produce forgotten evidence of historic importance which could lead to re-categorization as a High Priority and thus preservation or relocation. Therefore, I submit that HARC should be the decision-making party for all demolitions of historic structures within a Historic Overlay District. I did not hear anyone say an objective of these proposed changes was to hasten demolitions. Once gone a structure cannot be brought back, so public review is appropriate to avoid mistakes. CONFLICTING GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THIS REVIEW. When the subject of “Concerns about HARC” was raised last Spring there was much discussion about apparently arbitrary decisions by HARC and confusion among applicants, possibly related to inconsistent guidelines, which together diminished the attractiveness of Georgetown as a place to invest. Now with these historic preservation issues on the table it would be remiss not to take the opportunity to identify and resolve conflicting guidelines and criteria. There are complex issues of compatibility, relating to mass, shape and setbacks of proposed new buildings in the Historic Overlay Districts, which require prioritization, trade-offs and compromises, particularly in transition areas. Given that one stated duty of HARC is “to act and assist City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review” and given that these guidelines and criteria are within the UDC, I submit that while dealing with these UDC Amendments, the UDC Advisory Committee should solicit advice from the current HARC Commissioners. Most of the current members have at least one year of experience on HARC and who better to bring forward suggestions for guideline improvements that would help resolve conflicting objectives, and render the sometimes difficult decisions they must make more easily reached and explained? It is clear from the signs around town that HARC has community support and it should be important for City Council to do whatever can be done to maximize the credibility of HARC. Accordingly, I request that advice on guidelines should be solicited from HARC with a view to making this review process as thorough and comprehensive as possible, before these proposed amendments are moved forward. If the UDC Advisory Committee is not in a position make that request perhaps City Staff or the City Council would do so. Sofia, thank you again for your efforts and transparency on this process. I hope you will treat this as though it was submitted on your comment form and share it with everyone appropriate. Page 84 of 131 I plan to share it with others also. Respectfully, Allan Barnes 512 917 6711 Allanrbarnes@gmail.com 611 S. Elm St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Sent from my iPad Page 85 of 131 Page 86 of 131 Page 87 of 131 Page 88 of 131 Page 89 of 131 Page 90 of 131 Page 91 of 131 From:Jimmy Johnson To:GRP_UDC Subject:Proposed changes to UDC Sect 2.50.040 Date:Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:34:56 PM It is unbelievable that the initial proposal to streamline the approval process for the historical district could possibly end up with an additional step for Council approval. This is not streamlining the process. This is merely removing HARC from the process. It has become very clear in previous appeals that the council will vote their will regardless of HARC or P & Z recommendations. In other words, we are about the create a process that allows the council to ignore the UDC process entirely. This is an unbelievable recommendation. It is a major step back for all of Georgetown and a travesty for the citizens of Georgetown. The Council is supposed to be the representatives of the citizens, not a higher authority with no regard for the wishes of the citizens. The HARC was created to provide a knowledgeable body to review and approve projects in the historical district. This proposal takes that authority away and allows a group of unqualified politicians to make critical decisions without any real understanding of the codes approved by the citizens of Georgetown. This proposal is a travesty. It is rivaled only by the underhanded way the council and city handled the energy contracts. Jim Johnson 3005 Parker Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 Caution: This email is not from the City of Georgetown. Page 92 of 131 UDC Public Comments Name :* Addre ss * Email: Phone Numbe r: Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts: Larry Brundidge City Georgetown State / Province / Region Texas Postal / Zip Code 78626 Country US Street Address 908 Pine St Address Line 2 brundidges@suddenlink.net 5126355832 Certificate of Appropriateness I diagree with City Council making final decisions on COAs. HARC has effectively made these decisions over the last four years with only three appeals, two of which were upheld. Taking away this authority from HARCwill remove any incentive for applicants to adapt their projects to objections voices by HARC. This is a powerful tool in HARC arsenals. Pre-City Council adaptations prior to approval are a major source of improvement change. Lastly, and importantly, changes made at the City Council review process must be submitted for citizen approval via publication. Last minute "shoot from the hip" changes without thorough visual review will destroy citizen rights. Page 93 of 131 UDC Public Comments Name :* Addre ss * Email: Phone Numbe r: Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts: Lee Bain City Georgetown State / Province / Region Texas Postal / Zip Code 78626 Country US Street Address 120 W 8th Address Line 2 5126355977 Certificate of Appropriateness If the council desires to have veto power over HARC, my recommendation is for it to require a 5-2 and not 4-3 decision -- this would be consistent with P&Z decisions Page 94 of 131 UDC Public Comments Name :* Addre ss * Email: Phone Numbe r: Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts: Ross Hunter City Georgetown State / Province / Region Texas Postal / Zip Code 78626 Country US Street Address 908 S. Walnut Street Address Line 2 ross@hunterhost.com 5129300542 Certificate of Appropriateness I think it important to specify the process when a recommended denial from HARC comes to the consent agenda. How does an applicant trigger the matter to be pulled from the consent agenda to become an legislative agenda item? It's easy to say "ask a council member" but this seems like something we could actually write into the code so the mechanism can be made dependable and independent of needing a council member. Furthermore, when an item is pulled from consent, council can review it that same evening, under current protocols. I advocate tabling such an item (a HARC decision) to the following council session. This way, the expense and effort required to attend a council public hearing need only occur on a known date. Having to show up for the consent agenda, and then waiting for the item to be pulled, and seeing where on the agenda it will be dealt with, is not very efficient. It would be better to give public notice, so that everyone knows clearly when to show up and what the issue is. This proposal from council is taking away the right of appeal from a HARC decision, and turning a legal decision into a political decision. The maximum process we can write into the code, the better. Page 95 of 131 UDC Public Comments Name :* Addre ss * Email: Phone Numbe r: Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts: Sherwin Kahn City Georgetown State / Province / Region Texas Postal / Zip Code 78626 Country US Street Address 908 E University Ave Address Line 2 drkahn@chiropractice.com 9188161660 Certificate of Appropriateness The current further castration of HARC is literally killing the unicorn. No one in Old Town favors these changes. They were proposed by men who do not live or care about the historic character of our city. They are corrupt men coopted by bankers and developers. They want to make money. Period. They have no regard for preservation. This change will destroy Old Town. It will become East Austin or worse as backyards are redefined as infill locations and historic homes of low history are demolished. We will take large historic home backyards and fill them with high density inappropriate modern condos and townhouses. Our leaders have failed this city. They should all be removed and someday this will be seen as the worst of times. Sadly the developers will be long gone like the plague of locusts they are. And certain politicians will be very rich. I strongly opposed the changes to HARC two years ago. The same two Councilmen wanted its complete elimination. Here we are two years later and through the stroke of pen that is exactly what they are getting. AS A PROPERTY OWNER I STRONGLY OPPOSE THESE CHANGES. SADLY THEY ARE NOT UP FOR A VOTE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY. Page 96 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 16 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 16 - DEFINITIONS SECTION 16.01. - GENERAL *** SECTION 16.02. - DEFINITIONS The following definitions describe terms found in this Code. *** Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). A certificate documenting approval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)City Council or the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) to construct, reconstruct, alter, restore, remove, relocate, or demolish a building or structure that is designated as a historic landmark, or contributing historic structure, or located in a historic overlay district, including specific site features such as signage and fences, as applicable. *** Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. A Council-adopted ordinance that provides guidance and approval criteria for the City Council, Historic and Architectural Review Commission, along with theand Historic Preservation Officer, when reviewing design compliance and proper preservation practices for proposed projects in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Overlay districts. *** Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). A City Council-appointed board, consisting of seven members, who have decision-making authoritymake recommendations to the City Council regarding Certificates of Design ComplianceAppropriateness, and make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic Districts, in addition to other duties as identified in Section 2.03 of this Code. *** Historic District, Designated. Any site, district, or area of historical, archeological, or cultural importance or value which the City Council determines by action shall be protected, preserved, or enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people. Historic Places, National Register. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Page 97 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 16 Deleted language is strikethrough Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. The City of Georgetown, Texas, contains four historic districts that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”):  Williamson County Courthouse Historic District, designated in 1977, includes a period of significance ending in 1923. Its boundaries were increased in 1986.  University Avenue-Elm Street Historic District, designated in 1979, includes a period of significance ending in 1900.  Belford Historic District, designated in 1986, includes resources constructed prior to 1935.  Olive Street Historic District, designated in 2013 *** Historic Structure, Contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that supports the district's historical significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings identified as low, medium and high priority structures in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered contributing Historic Structures for purposes of this Code. For the purpose of demolition only, buildings or structures listed in this survey and that are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic structuresone of the following shall also be considered a Contributing Historic Structure for purposes of this Code:.  Medium and High priority structures, as identified on the city’s most recent historic resources survey, and that are located within a Historic Overlay District;  Low, Medium, and High priority structures, as identified on the city’s most recent historic resources survey, and that are located within a National Register of Historic Places. Historic Structure, Non-Contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that does not support the district's historic significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings that are not identified in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered non-contributing historic structures for purposes of this Code. *** *** Page 98 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 3 Chapter 2 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 2 - REVIEW AUTHORITY SECTION 2.01. - GENERAL *** Sec. 2.01.020. - Summary of Review Authority. The following table summarizes the decision-making authority of each review body for the City. Table 2.01.020: Summary of Review Authority Procedure Planning Director Building Official Dev Engineer Urban Forester Historic Preservation Officer HARC ZBA P&Z City Council City Council Action *** Certificate of Appropriateness R <R> DM Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or building height, setback or floor- to-area ratio modification R <R> <DM> *** Administrative Action *** Master Sign Plan DM A Master Sign Plan in a historic overlay district DM A *** Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Action Certificate of Appropriateness R <DM> A HARC Exception (Building Height/Setback R <DM> A Page 99 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 2 of 3 Chapter 2 Deleted language is strikethrough variations pursuant to Section 4.08) Master Sign Plan R <DM> A *** r - Review or Recommendation DM - Decision Making Authority A - Appeal Authority < - Public Hearing * Administrative Exceptions related to Chapter 8 items are sent to the City Council, all others are appealed to ZBA. *** SECTION 2.02. - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS *** Sec. 2.02.060. - Historic Preservation Officer. *** B. Powers and Duties. The duties of the Historic Preservation Officer shall include, but are not limited to: 1. Providing review, report and recommendation to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (H ARC) and City Council regarding Certificates of Appropriateness and any other provisions of this Code requiring action by HARC; *** SECTION 2.03. - HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (HARC) Sec. 2.03.010. - Powers and Duties. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) has the following powers and duties as described in this Code: A. Final ActionReserved. The HARC shall be responsible for hearing and taking final action on the following procedures described in this Code: 1. Certificate of Appropriateness; 2. HARC Exceptions on building height and setback variations pursuant to Section 4.08 of this Code; and 3. Hear and take final action on an appeal of an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness. Page 100 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 3 of 3 Chapter 2 Deleted language is strikethrough B. Review and Recommendation. The HARC shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on the following procedures described in this Code: 1. dDesignation of Historic Overlay Districts and Historic Landmarks, subject to the terms and conditions set forth for the procedure in this Code;. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness; and 3. Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or building height, setback or floor-to-area ratio modification. C. Additional Duties. The HARC has the following additional duties: 1. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; and 2. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant, on new construction or the restoration, alteration, or maintenance of any building or structure within a Historic Overlay District or designated as a Historic Landmark. *** *** Page 101 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 3 – APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS *** SECTION 3.03. - PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE Sec. 3.03.010. - Provision of Public Notice. A. Summary of Notice Required. Notice shall be required for application review as shown in the following Table. Table 3.03.010: Summary of Notice Requirements Procedure Published Mailed Posted *** Certificate of Appropriateness (Sec 3.13.030, City Council approval) ‡ X Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or building height, setback or floor-to-area ratio modification X ‡ X ‡ X *** X = Notice Required * = Notice to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20 ‡ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission *** *** Sec. 3.03.020. - Required Public Hearing. The following table identifies the types of applications requiring a Public Hearing and the review body responsible for conducting the hearing. Table 3.03.020: Summary of Required Public Hearing Type of Application HARC Zoning Board of Adjustment Planning & Zoning City Council *** Page 102 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 2 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Certificate of Appropriateness (Sec 3.13.030, City Council Approval) ‡X Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or building height, setback or floor-to-area ratio modification X X *** X = Public Hearing Required * = Public Hearing to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20. ‡ = Only applicable to certificate of appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission *** SECTION 3.12. - MASTER SIGN PLAN *** Sec. 3.12.030. - Criteria for Approval. In addition to the general review criteria in Section 3.03.050.D or 3.13 for property in a historic overlay district, the Building Official or Historic and Architectural Review CommissionPreservation Officer, as applicable, must shall determine the following in order to approve the Master Sign Plan: *** Sec. 3.12.040. - Responsibility for Final Action. *** B. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionPreservation Officer is responsible for final action on Master Sign Plans for property located in a historic overlay district. *** SECTION 3.13. - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Sec. 3.13.010. - Applicability. A. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Texas Local Government Code ch. 211 and the City Charter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with Table Page 103 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 3 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough 3.13.010 below. Activities that include more than one project (scope of work) shall be subject to the review process and criteria for approval for each specific project as identified in Table 3.13.010. Table 3.13.010: Certificate of Appropriateness Required Project (Scope of Work) Historic Significance Review AuthorityDecision Making HARC = Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCC = City Council * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required New Construction (Infill Development) New building construction All Historic Overlay Districts HARCCC Additions ToAddition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure All Historic Overlay Districts Non-Contributing Historic Structure HPO Addition of a Nnon-street facing facades Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR New addition does not comply with the zoning standards of the historic overlay district Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure Awning or canopy Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC Non-Contributing Historic Structure * HPO Porch, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * HPO Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes Restoring historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Page 104 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 4 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature+ Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing roof materials with different roof materials+ Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps using in-kind material Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC Non-Contributing Historic Structure * HPO Paint removal from historic and significant architectural features (back to original condition; does not include repainting) Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes to paint color on previously painted surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on previously painted surface) Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * New paint on unpainted historic and other significant architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes in color to awning fabric Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or structure Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Page 105 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 5 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Non-Contributing Historic Structure * Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in no modifications to the building facade Historic Landmark * HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in modifications to the building facade Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * HPO Removal, Demolition or Relocation Awnings or canopies Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Exterior non-historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic siding materials Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR 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 Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure * HPO Non-historic additions that are made of non- historic materials Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Attached carport, porch, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARCCC‡ Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark HPO Page 106 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 6 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made of non-historic materials Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to original condition Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Street facing facade Historic Landmark HARCCC‡ Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure High Priority resources identified in the Historic Resource Survey located outside a Historic Overlay District NR CC‡ Medium Priority resources identified in the Historic Resource Survey located outside a Historic Overlay District HPO‡ Relocation of a building or structure on the same lot Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts) Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure Non-Contributing Historic Structure NR Signage Master Sign Plan All Historic Overlay Districts HARCHPO Page 107 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 7 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved Master Sign Plan HPO New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines HARCCC Changes in content or configuration (re- facing) that do not involve changes in sign location, dimensions, lighting or total sign area HPO Amending an approved Master Sign Plan HARCHPO Fences New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines All Historic Overlay Districts† HARCCC Miscellaneous HARC eExceptions on (building height, setback and FAR variations alternative standards pursuant to Section 4.08) of this Code All Historic Overlay District HARCCC Renewal of an expired Certificate of Appropriateness All Historic Overlay Districts HPO Historic Landmark * Only applicable to a street facing facade † Only applicable to fences along a street lot line or located in a street yard ‡ CLG demo delay period and Demolition SubcommiĴee review not applicable + Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources. *** Sec. 3.13.020. - Certificate of Appropriateness—Administrative Approval. A. Review Process. *** 4. Responsibility for Final Action. Page 108 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 8 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough *** b. Should the Historic Preservation Officer be unable to approve the request, the Historic Preservation Officer may forward the request to the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council for review and final action at the next available meeting following a recommendation from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and public notification in accordance with Section 3.03 of this Code. *** Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval. A. Review Process. 1. Initiation. Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council may be made upon application by the property owner of the affected property or their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this Chapter. *** 3. Staff Review. a. Once a Certificate of Appropriateness has been initiated and the application deemed complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with any applicable criteria for approval. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall prepare a report to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and City Council. c. The Historic Preservation Officer's report shall include a recommendation for final action. 4. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Review. Following notice in accordance with Section 3.03 of this Code, the Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and State law and make a recommendation to the City Council. 45. Responsibility for Final Action. Page 109 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 9 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough a. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission City Council shall review the application, the Historic Preservation Officer's report, and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation, conduct a hearing and in accordance with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's City Council’s established procedures and State law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. An application before the Historic and Architectural Review Commission City Council shall be considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council. B. Criteria for Approval. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall determine whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the following criteria: *** 2. Compliance with any applicable design standards of this Code; *** C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height ExceptionsModification. 1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC the City Council that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: *** 3. HARC City Council may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: *** D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback ExceptionModification. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards Page 110 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 10 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough of the underlying base zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District. 2. HARC City Council may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a setback exception: *** i. Reserved. ji. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; kj. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; lk. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or ml. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. E. Additional Requirements for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure. In addition to the staff review process established in Section 3.13.030.A, applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be subject to the following additional review: 1. Demolition Delay Period Certified Local Government (CLG) Program. a. Upon deeming the application complete, requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be subject to a 60-day demolition delay period. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall not take action on a request for demolition until the 60-day demolition delay period is complete. *** d. The Historic Preservation Officer shall present the findings and resolution, if applicable, to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and City Council with the request. Page 111 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 11 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough *** 3. Responsibility of Final Action. a. In addition to the application, andthe Historic Preservation Officer's report, and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation, the City Council shall review the recommendation by the Demolition Subcommittee, conduct a hearing in accordance with the HARC's Historic and Architectural Review Commission and City Council’s established procedures and state law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. As conditions of approval, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may recommend and the City Council may require historic materials to be salvaged, archival-quality photo-documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer. F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: *** Sec. 3.13.040. - Relocation, Removal or Demolition Prior To Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. A. Demolition, including demolition by neglect, of a building or structure prior to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council, when required, shall be subject to an automatic hold on all permits. No permit may be granted until this period is complete and the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council has granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable. Page 112 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 12 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough B. The permit delay period shall be determined by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council, but in no case shall it exceed 365 days. C. The Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable, shall be reviewed and final action taken by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council concurrently with the determination of the longevity of the permit hold period. *** Sec. 3.13.050. - Certificate and Compliance Inspections. A. It shall be the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Officer to issue the actual Certificate of Appropriateness following approval by the Historic Preservation Officer or the HARCCity Council, with any designated conditions, and to maintain a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness, together with the proposed plans. The certificate shall be forwarded to the Building Official. These shall be public documents for all purposes. *** Sec. 3.13.060. - Limits on Resubmission. No application for the same project shall be considered within 180 days of the rejection or disapproval by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, of an application. The applicant may submit a design for an entirely new project or a revised design that substantially responds to the reasons for denial as set forth by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, at any time. *** Sec. 3.13.080. - Appeals. A person aggrieved by a final action of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the final action. Appeals from an administratively issued Certificate of Appropriateness will be processed through the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, subjectHistoric Preservation Officer on a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council pursuant to the procedures established for new applications and set forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the administrative action. Page 113 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 13 of 13 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough A. Appeal Hearing. The hearing shall be set for the next available City Council or HARC meeting, subject to the provision of public notification. Notification shall be provided in the same manner as the initial certificate of appropriateness. B. Burden of Proof in Appeals. When an appeal is considered by the appellate bodyCity Council, the final action by the original reviewing authority is presumed to be valid. The person filing the appeal shall present sufficient evidence and have the burden to justify a reversal of the action being appealed. C. Findings and Conclusions. All findings and conclusion necessary to the appeal decision shall be based upon reliable evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a court of law) will be preferred whenever reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based solely upon incompetent evidence unless competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence in question appears to be particularly reliable, and the matter at issue is not seriously disputed. In exercising its authority, the appellate bodyCity Council may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part or modify the original order, requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose the appellate body has the same authority as the original reviewing authority. D. Decision on Appeal. The appellate bodyCity Council shall review the application, the staff report and meeting minutes, conduct a hearing in accordance with established procedures and state law, and take final action on the appeal. It shall require a concurring vote of by a majority of the appellate body's members to overturn a decision on a certificate of appropriatenessvote. *** *** Page 114 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 4 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 4 - ZONING DISTRICTS *** SECTION 4.08. - HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS *** Sec. 4.08.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness Required. All new buildings and changes to existing buildings located in a Historic Overlay District , or designated as a Historic Landmark, or located in a National Register of Historic Places of the US National Park Service are subject to the Certificate of Appropriateness provisions of Section 3.13 of this Code. Any activity requiring review of a Certificate of Appropriateness per Section 3.13 of this Code will be subject to the Design Guidelines adopted by the City of Georgetown. Sec. 4.08.040. - Applicability of Historic Overlay District Standards. *** D. Any regulations for a specific Historic Overlay District shall apply to all properties or structures wholly contained within that district and to those portions of any property or district located within the districtReserved. E. All uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning districts shall continue to be permitted or conditionally permitted, respectively, unless otherwise specified in the specific standard for the overlay district. HARC shall not have the authority to approve the specific use of a site. Sec. 4.08.050. - General Guidelines Applicable to All Historic Overlay Districts. *** J. Maintaining and repairing features is preferred over replacing features as to maintain the high-quality materials, character, and embodied energy of historic buildings and to reduce the amount of waste that goes to a landfill. However, if features are deteriorated beyond repair in-kind replacement using new components that match the original in form, finish, and materials is favored. Substitute materials should be used only on a limited basis and only when they will match the appearance and general properties of the historic material and will not damage the historic resource. *** Page 115 of 131 Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19 Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 4 Deleted language is strikethrough Sec. 4.08.070. - Standards Specific to the Downtown Overlay District. This Section contains specific development and design standards applicable to properties located in the Downtown Overlay District of the City of Georgetown. A. Building Height. 1. Building height in the Downtown Overlay District shall not exceed 40 feet, unless a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by HARC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. 2. Buildings located along the portion of Austin Avenue that lies within the boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District shall be at least two usable stories in height with an overall building height of not less than 20 feet, subject to compliance with the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District of Section 4.10. However, HARC may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. *** *** Page 116 of 131 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee March 13, 2019 S UB J E C T: Dis cus s ion on propos ed amendments to the Unified Development C ode regarding the building s tandards of the multi-family res idential zoning districts (Amendment No. 14). Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager IT E M S UMMARY: O n April 24, 2018, the C ity C ounc il direc ted s taff to update the UDC ’s standards and current site design requirements of the multi-family zoning dis tric ts as a part of the 2018/19 UDC Annual R eview proc es s (Amendment No. 14). T he purpos e of this amendment is to review the maximum number of units allowed per building, and minimum separation between buildings requirements of the Low Density Multi-F amily (MF -1) and High Density Multi-F amily (MF -2) zoning dis tric ts. In 2015, the UDC was amended to add a maximum number of units per building in order to pres erve building s izes that were in c ontext with G eorgetown's development pattern and avoid buildings that were large in mas s and sc ale. C urrently, the maximum number of units permitted per building is 12 in the MF -1 dis tric t and 24 in the MF -2 district. S inc e the adoption of this provis ion, C ity s taff and developers have s een challenges in meeting these requirements due to the variation of unit s izes in one building, as well as other market and s ite cons traints. T he minimum dis tance s eparation between buildings requirements has also pos ed additional challenges due to the sizes of the lots and other required site improvements , s uc h as setbacks , landsc aping, parking and impervious c over. Dis tance s eparation between buildings are impos ed in order to allow for air, s pace and light to travel between buildings . C urrently, the minimum building separation requirement is 15 feet for both dis tric ts. T hrough P lanned Unit Developments (P UDs ) or zoning variances developers have sought relief from thes e s tandards to allow alternative des igns and standards. T hese have included: Incorporating U, T, or L-shaped buildings that c an acc ommodate greater number of units while meeting the intent of the UDC . Es tablishing a minimum building faç ade width. Allowing for wider fac ades where a building fac es a common amenity area. P roviding for minimum dis tance s eparation c onsistent with the Building C ode, whic h varies depending on number of openings and cons truction materials O n F ebruary 13, 2019, the UDC AC reviewed the potential revisions that may be inc orporated into the UDC and reques ted s taff to s earch standards from surrounding c ities. S taff found that no other c ity within the region do not have a maximum number of units per building requirement. In addition, the minimum building s eparation requirement ranged between 15 and 50 feet. O n February 26, 2019, the City Council directed staff to also review the minimum setback requirements when multi-family is adjacent to residential development in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (E T J). T he following items have been identified as pos s ible revis ions for c onsideration (Attachments I and I I): Decrease the minimum building s eparation requirements from 15 feet to 12 feet for the Low Density Multi-F amily (MF -1) to be c onsistent with other lower density res idential districts . Increase the maximum number of units per building in the Low Density Multi-F amily District (MF -1) from 12 to 14 units . Allow the maximum number of units per building to be inc reas ed provided that additional des ign s tandards are met for the Low Density Multi-F amily (MF -1) and High Dens ity Multi-F amily (MF -2) dis tric ts. Increase the minimum s ide and rear s etbac ks when adjacent to res idential development to 20 and 30 Page 117 of 131 feet for the for the Low Density Multi-F amily (MF -1) and High Dens ity Multi-F amily (MF -2) dis tric ts, respec tively. O n March 6, 2019, the P lanning Department hosted an O pen House on various UDC Amendments , to inc lude the potential c hanges to building s tandards of the multi-family zoning districts , to obtain public input. No major c onc erns have been expres s ed on the propos ed revis ions. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Attachment I - Summary of proposed changes 03.07.2019 Backup Material Attachment II - Sec 6.02 MF-1 and MF-2 Building Standards proposed amendments 03.07.2019 Backup Material Page 118 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Page 1 of 2 Summary of proposed changes to the Low Density Multi-Family (MF-1) and High Density Multi-Family (MF-2) Building standards (UDC Section 6.02) As of March 7, 2018 Requirements Current UDC Requirement Proposed UDC Revision Maximum Number of Multi- Family Units Per Building MF-1 12 units/building 14 units/building Buildings with more than 14 units may be allowed provided: The building does not face a public street right-of-way, residential zoning district, or public park; or The building is a non-rectangular building that has a shape similar to a “C”, “U”, “T”, “L”. The length of any building façade/wall shall extend a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the primary building façade/wall. MF-2 24 units/building Buildings with more than 24 units may be allowed provided: No building façade/wall shall exceed 240 feet in length. Building facade/wall exceeding 240 feet in length may be permitted when: The building does not face a public street right-of-way, residential zoning district, or public park; or The building is a non- rectangular building that has a shape similar to a “C”, “U”, “T”, “L”. The length of any building façade/wall shall extend a minimum of one- third (1/3) of the primary building façade/wall. Page 119 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Page 2 of 2 Requirements Current UDC Requirement Proposed UDC Revision Building Separation MF-1 15’ minimum MF-1 12’ minimum Minimum side and rear setback to an existing single- family home in the ETJ that is platted and planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map MF-1 and MF-2 Not Applicable MF-1 20 feet MF-2 30 feet Page 120 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 4 Chapter 6 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 6 - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS *** SECTION 6.02. - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS *** Sec. 6.02.080. - MF-1—Low Density Multifamily District. The Low Density Multifamily District (MF-1) is intended for attached and detached multifamily residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and fourplexes, at a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. The MF-1 District is appropriate in areas designated on the Future Land Use Plan as high density residential or one of the mixed-use categories, and may be appropriate in the moderate density residential area based on location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure impacts. Properties zoned MF-1 should have convenient access to major thoroughfares and arterial streets and should not route traffic through lower density residential areas. The MF-1 District is appropriate adjacent to both residential and non- residential districts and may serve as a transition between single-family districts and more intense multifamily or commercial districts. A.Lot and Dimensional Standards. MF-1 - Low Density Multifamily *** Dwelling Units per structure, maximum 12 *** Side Setback to residential district or an existing single-family home in the ETJ that is platted and planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map, minimum feet 20 *** Rear Setback to Rresidential Ddistrict or an existing single- family home in the ETJ that is platted and planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map, minimum feet 20 *** *** C.Residential Design Standards. Page 121 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Added language is underlined Page 2 of 4 Chapter 6 Deleted language is strikethrough The design standards below apply to all residential development in the MF-1 District in addition to the provisions of Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of this Chapter. 1. All development within the MF-1 District shall also comply with the building design standards of Section 7.047.03 and the lighting design standards of Section 7.057.04 of this Code. 2. A minimum building separation of 15 12 feet is required between all buildings on the site. *** 5. The maximum number of dwelling units per structure shall be 14 units. Buildings with more than 14 units may be allowed provided the following additional standards are met: a.The building does not face a public street right-of-way, residential zoning district, or public park; or b.The building is a non-rectangular building that has a shape similar to a “C”, “U”, “T”, “L” or other shape as approved by the Planning Director. In this event, the length of any building façade/wall shall extend a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the primary building façade/wall. D.Non-Residential and Accessory Design Standards. 1. Non-residential structures shall meet all of the lot and dimensional standards of the MF-1 District, in addition to the requirements of Sections 7.047.03 and 7.057.04 of this Code. 2. Residential accessory structures shall meet the requirements of Section 6.06.0106.05.010. *** Sec. 6.02.090. - MF-2—High Density Multifamily District. The High Density Multifamily District (MF-2) is intended for attached multifamily residential development, such as apartments and condominiums, at a density not to exceed 24 dwelling units per acre. The MF-2 District is appropriate in areas designated on the Future Land Use Plan as high density residential or mixed-use. Properties zoned MF-2 should have direct access to major thoroughfares and arterial streets and should not route traffic through lower density residential Page 122 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Added language is underlined Page 3 of 4 Chapter 6 Deleted language is strikethrough areas. The MF District is appropriate adjacent to both residential and non-residential districts and may serve as a transition between single-family districts and more intense commercial districts. A.Lot and Dimensional Standards. MF-2 - High Density Multifamily *** Dwelling Units per structure, maximum 24 *** Side Setback to Residential District or an existing single-family home in the ETJ that is platted and planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map, minimum feet 30 *** Rear Setback to Residential District or an existing single-family home in the ETJ that is platted and planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map, minimum feet 30 *** C.Residential Design Standards. The design standards below apply to all residential development in the MF-2 District in addition to the provisions of Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of this Chapter. 1. All development within the MF-2 District shall also comply with the building design standards of Section 7.047.03 and the lighting design standards of Section 7.057.04 of this Code. 2. A minimum building separation of 15 feet is required between all buildings on the site. *** 5. The maximum number of dwelling units per structure shall be 24 units. Buildings with more than 24 units may be allowed provided the following additional standards are met: a.No building façade/wall shall exceed 240 feet in length. b.Building facade/wall exceeding 240 feet in length may be permitted when: Page 123 of 131 Multi-Family Building Standards UDC Amendment No. 14 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 7, 19 Added language is underlined Page 4 of 4 Chapter 6 Deleted language is strikethrough i.The building façade/wall does not face a public street right-of-way, residential zoning district, or public park; or ii.The building is part of a non-rectangular building that has a shape similar to a “C”, “U”, “T”, “L” or other shape as approved by the Planning Director. In this event, the length of any building façade/wall shall extend a minimum of one- third (1/3) of the primary building façade/wall. D.Non-Residential and Accessory Design Standards. 1. Non-residential structures shall meet all of the lot and dimensional standards of the MF-2 District, in addition to the requirements of Sections 7.047.03 and 7.057.04. 2. Residential accessory structures shall meet the requirements of Section 6.06.0106.05.010. *** *** Page 124 of 131 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee March 13, 2019 S UB J E C T: Dis cus s ion on propos ed amendments to the Unified Development C ode regarding additional notification requirements for land us e applic ations (Amendment No. 17). Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager IT E M S UMMARY: In ac cordance with the Texas Local G overnment C ode and the C ity’s Unified Development C ode (UDC ), public hearing and notific ation is required for all zoning applications. T his inc ludes applications for a Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning), P lanned Unit Development P lans (P UD), S pecial Us e P ermit (S UP ) and other land us e c hanges. C urrently, minimum public notification requirements inc lude the following: Pursuant to Texas Local Government Code P ursuant to UD C Mail notic es to all property owners within the city limits and 200 feet from the property s ubjec t to the zoning request Mail notices to all property owners within the c ity limits and 200 feet from the property subject to the zoning reques t P ublis hed notice in a loc al newspaper of general c irculation P ublished notic e in a local news paper of general circ ulation P os ted notice on the property s ubjec t to the zoning request O n April 24, 2018, the C ity C ounc il direc ted s taff to review the public review and notification requirements for c ertain zoning reques ts, to include the pos s ibility of requiring neighborhood meetings . T he purpos e of this revis ion is to identify proc es s es and standards that would promote a more robus t public review and provide the opportunity of res idents to learn, dis cus s and provide feedbac k on propos ed zoning reques ts in advance of the required public hearing. In addition, on F ebruary 26, 2019, the C ity C ouncil directed staff to look into inc reas ing the notification radius to 300 feet, as well as providing notific ation to property owners in the extraterritorial juris diction (ET J). O ther cities within the region, state and across the c ountry require varying public notific ations and review requirements, including but not limited to: Notific ation to property owners beyond the 200-foot radius (i.e. 300, 400 or 500 feet); Notific ation to a Home O wner, P roperty O wner and/or Neighborhood As s ociation located within the notific ation area; Notific ation to other agencies and entities within the notification area or that may be affec ted by the propos ed zoning reques t; and Inclus ion of additional information regarding the zoning reques t, to include inclus ion of the applicant’s contac t information, on the web and/or mail notice. O n July 11, 2018, and F ebruary 13, 2019, the UDC AC reviewed the notification requirements of other municipalities , as well as potential revisions that may be inc orporated into the UDC . T he following items were identified as pos s ible revis ions for c onsideration (Attachments I and I I): Increase the notific ation buffer requirement from 200 to 300 feet. Include property owners loc ated in the ET J within the 300-foot notification buffer Include neighborhood, property and home owner assoc iations regis tered with the C ity of Page 125 of 131 G eorgetown and located within the 300-foot notification buffer. O n March 6, 2019, the P lanning Department hosted an O pen House on various UDC Amendments , to inc lude the potential c hanges to the notific ation requirements , to obtain public input. No major c onc erns have been expres s ed on the propos ed revis ions. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Attachment I - Summary of proposed changes 03.06.2019 Backup Material Attachment II - Sec 3.03 Public Notice Requirements proposed amendments 03.06.2019 Backup Material Page 126 of 131 Rezoning Notification Requirements UDC Amendment No. 17 *** DRAFT *** Printed on Mar. 6, 19 Page 1 of 1 Summary of proposed changes to the Public Hearing Notice requirements (UDC Section 3.03) As of March 6, 2018 Requirements* Current UDC Requirement Proposed UDC Revision Distance of Notification Area 200’ notification area 300’ notification area Notification of ETJ owner of real property Not Applicable Notify property owners within the 300’ buffer Notification of HOAs and Neighborhood Associations Not Applicable Notify registered contact of HOAs and Neighborhood Associations within the 300’ buffer *Other current requirements include notification in the newspaper and sign posted on-site. No changes are proposed to these requirements. Page 127 of 131 Rezoning Notification Requirements *** DRAFT *** UDC Amendment No. 17 Printed on Mar. 6, 19 Added language is underlined Page 1 of 1 Chapter 3 Deleted language is strikethrough Chapter 3 ‐ APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS *** SECTION 3.03. ‐ PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE Sec. 3.03.010. ‐ Provision of Public Notice. *** C. Mailed Notice. 1. Generally. a. A notice of Public Hearing shall be sent by U.S. mail to owners of record of real property within 200 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, as determined by the most recent municipal tax roll, and county tax roll information. b. A notice of Public Hearing shall be sent to neighborhood, community, property, and home owners’ associations registered with the City and located within 300 feet of the boundary of property under consideration. c. Notice of Public Hearing shall be sent by United States mail. The notice may be served by its deposit in the municipality, properly addressed with postage paid, in United States mail at least 15 days prior to the date set for the Public Hearing or as otherwise required by the Texas Local Government Code, as amended. 2. Special Mailed Notice Required for Certain Replats. Replats containing any area or lot that, during the preceding five years, was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot or in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot, require mailed notice to all owners of lots that are part of the original subdivision and located within 200 feet of the boundary of the property to be replatted, in the same manner as prescribed in Subsection 3.03.010.C.1.c above and in accordance with Texas Local Government Code § 212.015, as amended. *** *** Page 128 of 131 City of Georgetown, Texas Unified Development Code Advisory Committee March 13, 2019 S UB J E C T: Update on the 2018/19 UDC Annual R eview P lan, S c hedule and Next S teps. Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager IT E M S UMMARY: T he purpos e of this item is to provide an update on the UDC Annual R eview P lan, tentative s chedule and next s teps. In addition, C ity S taff and members of the UDC AC will disc uss the tas ks identified at the previous meeting, as well as new tas ks to be c ompleted for the next meeting. F eedbac k and information received on eac h task will be inc orporated when related UDC topics are sc heduled and presented for dis cus s ion. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type 2018/19 General Amendments Lis t Update Backup Material Page 129 of 131 Printed on 2/8/2019 UDC Annual Review 2018/19 Schedule ***DRAFT*** General Topic Group Status Am e n d m e n t N o . Requested Amendment UDC Chapter/ Section*Re s e a r c h a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Dr a f t L a n g u a g e UD C A C R e v i e w CC W o r k s h o p Op e n H o u s e M e e t i n g Dr a f t O r d i n a n c e L a n g u a g e UD C a n d o t h e r B o a r d s d i s c u s s i o n Fi n a l i z e O r d i n a n c e L a n g u a g e Po s t O r d i n a n c e o n W e b s i t e f o r P u b l i c Re v i e w UD C A C P u b l i c H e a r i n g & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n P& Z P u b l i c H e a r i n g & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n CC 1 P u b l i c H e a r i n g & C o n s i d e r a t i o n CC 2 F i n a l A c t i o n Ef f e c t i v e D a t e Application Processes and Requirements Complete 8 Expand development agreement language establishing clear requirements and processes. Ch. 3, Sec 3.20 & Ch. 13, Sec 13.10 13-Jun 12-Jun July UDC Aug Discussion July Aug-Sep 14-Nov-18 4-Dec-18 11-Dec-18 8-Jan-19 Q1 2019 Nonresidential Standards Complete 4 Consider revising the minimum district size for the BP zoning district (Executive Amendment). Ch. 7, Sec 7.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3-Apr-18 10-Apr-18 24-Apr-18 Q2 2018 Land Uses Complete 1 Acknowledge mobile food trailers as a use within the UDC and outline appropriate regulations governing mobile food vendors. Ch. 3 & Ch. 5 10-Jan-18 8-May-18 UDC July Discussion Jul-Aug 8-Aug-18 4-Sep-18 25-Sep-18 9-Oct-18 Q4 2018 Historic Districts In Review 2 Review the standards pertaining to historic districts and structures based on the revised Historic Resource Survey Ch. 3, Sec 3.13 & Ch. 16, Sec 16.02 Nov-19 13-Feb-19 Nov 18 Dec 18 Jan 19 Jan-19 Feb-19 Feb-19 13-Mar-19 19-Mar-19 26-Mar-19 9-Apr-19 Q1 2019 Parkland In Review 3 Update provisions governing parkland dedication based on forthcoming recommendations by the Parks & Recreation Board subcommittee review. Ch. 13, Sec 13.08 Jan-19 13-Feb-19 Feb-19 Jan-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 10-Apr-19 16-Apr-19 23-Apr-19 14-May-19 Q2 2019 Residential Standards In Review 14 Review the maximum number of units required per building, and building separation requirements for MF districts Ch. 6, Sec 6.02 Jan-19 Feb-19 13-Feb-19 Feb-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 10-Apr-19 16-Apr-19 23-Apr-19 14-May-19 Q2 2019 Application Processes and Requirements In Review 17 Review the rezoning public review requirements to require neighborhood meetings for certain rezoning cases. Ch. 3, Sec 3.06 Jan-19 Feb-19 13-Feb-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 Mar-19 10-Apr-19 16-Apr-19 23-Apr-19 14-May-19 Q2 2019 Residential Standards In Review 15 Consider masonry requirements for residential development Ch. 6 Jan/Feb 19 Q2 2019 13-Feb-19 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Land Uses In Review 11, 12, 13 Review and update Permitted Use tables: - Consider changes to the zoning districts various Specific Uses may be permitted in (in general) - Consider updating the list of Specific Uses in Chapter 5 to include various uses that are not currently listed (i.e. self service machines (ice) and storage yards; commercial vehicle sales, micro-distillery). - Consider changes to the zoning districts various Specific Uses may be permitted in ("Contractor Services Limited", "Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse" Specific Uses in the C-3 zoning district); Food Establishment Services in IN with SUP Ch. 5 Jan/Feb 19 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\2018‐19\General Amendments\2018 UDC_General_Amendment_List ‐ APPROVED Page 1 of 2Page 130 of 131 Printed on 2/8/2019 UDC Annual Review 2018/19 Schedule ***DRAFT*** General Topic Group Status Am e n d m e n t N o . Requested Amendment UDC Chapter/ Section*Re s e a r c h a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Dr a f t L a n g u a g e UD C A C R e v i e w CC W o r k s h o p Op e n H o u s e M e e t i n g Dr a f t O r d i n a n c e L a n g u a g e UD C a n d o t h e r B o a r d s d i s c u s s i o n Fi n a l i z e O r d i n a n c e L a n g u a g e Po s t O r d i n a n c e o n W e b s i t e f o r P u b l i c Re v i e w UD C A C P u b l i c H e a r i n g & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n P& Z P u b l i c H e a r i n g & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n CC 1 P u b l i c H e a r i n g & C o n s i d e r a t i o n CC 2 F i n a l A c t i o n Ef f e c t i v e D a t e Administrative Clean-Up: Federal and State law compliance In Review 7, 9, 10 Revisions to standards and requirements to ensure compliance with Federal and State Law: Review Authority; Subdivision Regulations: When a plat is required; Subdivision Regulations: Replat approval w/out vacating preceding plat; Subdivision Regulations: Plat Exemptions; Wastewater connection requirements in ETJ; TUPs (portable classrooms); Definitions: Household; Definitions: Portable Signs; Impervious Cover credit for Places of Worship. Clean-Ups: Permits and Processes; ZBA 45-day review timeline; Model Homes; Accessory Structures (size limitations); Definitions; Conflicting and outdated cross-references and sub/section numbers Ch. 2, Ch. 3, Ch. 5, Ch. 11, Ch. 13 & Ch. 16 Jan-19 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Signage Not Started 18 Review of Ch. 10 including signage for bus stops, transit vehicles and others (portable signs); sign variance process Ch. 10 and Ch. 16, Sec 16.02 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Application Processes and Requirements Not Started 5, 6, 18 New/revise processes: - Create a process to address requests for vesting determinations. - Create a process to address requests for appeals. - Sign variances Ch. 3, Sec 3.14 and 3.15 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Q4 2019 Application Processes and Requirements On Hold 16 Clarify what triggers the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and when an appeal may be made and review the improvements that are considered or required. Ch. 12, Sec 12.09 TBD * The UDC Chapter or Section referenced in this column provides the regulation subject to this amendment. However, please note that other sections may need to be amended to address any conflicts and ensure consistency throughout the document. L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\2018‐19\General Amendments\2018 UDC_General_Amendment_List ‐ APPROVED Page 2 of 2Page 131 of 131