HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 05.08.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
May 8, 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 Maureen G riffin regarding potential changes to the res idential lawn s tandards
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ontinued from the April 10, 2019 meeting:
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.
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2019 s pecial meeting, and
April 10, 2019 regular meeting of the Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee -- Andreina Dávila-
Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager.
D P ublic Hearing and possible action on propos ed amendments to C hapter 7, Non-res idential Development
S tandards and C hapter 8 Tree P res ervation, Lands caping, and F encing of the Unified Development C ode
relative to s etbac ks and bufferyards when non-residential development is loc ated adjacent to s ingle family
development in the ET J -- S ofia Nels on, C NU-A, P lanning Director
E Disc ussion and possible direction on amendments to C hapter 5, Zoning Us e R egulations, of the Unified
Development C ode (UDC ) -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager.
F Disc ussion and possible direction on potential future changes to S ec tion 8.07, F ence S tandards , of the
Unified Development C ode -- 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 21
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
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 posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes of the Marc h 18, 2019 spec ial meeting, and April
10, 2019 regular meeting of the Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee -- Andreina Dávila-
Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager.
IT E M S UMMARY:
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
March 18, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Exhibit
April 10, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes Exhibit
Page 3 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 1
March 18, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
Monday, March 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM
Council and Courts Building,
101 E 7th St, Georgetown, TX 78626
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: PJ Stevens, Chair; Tracy Dubcak, Vice-Chair; Jason Wirth,
Secretary; John Philpott; Brian Robinson; and Stuart Garner.
Committee Member(s) Absent: Philip Wanke.
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning
Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 P.M.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A. Consideration and possible action on proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Review Authority,
Chapter 3, Applications and Permits, Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, and Chapter 16, Definitions, of
the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the
Historic Districts (Amendment No. 2). Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
This item was continued from the March 13, 2019 UDC Advisory Committee regular meeting.
The Chair opened the Public Hearing. The following individuals signed up to speak on this item:
Ross Hunter, Michael Spano (ceded 3 minutes to Ross Hunter), Richard Cuttss, Patricia Taylor
(ceded 3 minutes to Richard Cuttss), Melissa Boyd, Linda McCalla, Kay Vossler (ceded 3 minutes to
Linda McCalla), Carolyn Britt, Leonard Van Gendt, Larry Brondidge, Ann Seaman, Phil Brown, and
Mary “Ginger” Volkman. The Chair closed the public hearing.
Nelson provided a presentation regarding the UDC review process, amendments to the historic
regulations process discussions, and updates from the Wednesday, March 13 UDCAC meeting.
The presentation consisted of four main parts: 1) review of low priority resources inside a historic
district, 2) use of in-kind materials, 3) review of demolition process outside of a historic district, and
4) review authority change.
Nelson stopped the first part of the presentation and asked the UDC Advisory Committee if they
had any questions.
Stevens asked for clarification on the difference between changes that were discussed in 2017 to
what is currently being proposed, particularly as it relates to the differences in contributing vs non-
contributing structures (level of priorities).
Page 4 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 2
March 18, 2019
Nelson continued with the presentation after no further questions from the Committee. Nelson
presented on parts 2 (in-kind materials) and 3 (demolition process) and asked the UDC Advisory
Committee if they had any questions.
Nelson continued with the presentation after no further questions from the Committee.
Presentation included part 4 (approval process) and updated information requested from the
Committee regarding the approval process from other municipalities.
Stevens asked for clarification in the current and proposed UDC standards related to the number of
votes required to overturn the Historic and Architectural Review Commission’s decision. Nelson
replies that the majority of the cities surrounding Georgetown that have a Historic Commission, the
final decision making falls within the Historic Commission and not City Council.
Dubcak asked if the recommendation that the final decision making authority be reallocated to City
Council was based on Council’s direction. Nelson replied that the proposed amendments to the
UDC were drafted following City Council’s direction. Nelson also replied that in the presentations
provided to City Council staff outlined different strategies to revise the UDC.
Stevens asked the UDC Advisory Committee for comments and questions regarding the review of
low priority structures. Nelson clarified that review of low priority structures will be required if the
structure is located in a National Register district. Review will be completed by the Historic
Preservation Officer (HPO). Nelson also presented options for the UDC Advisory Committee to
consider including: 1) as proposed, 2) some level of review, 3) as written in the current UDC.
Robinson asked regarding level of priorities as not providing clarification in the review it should be
completed. Robinson further asked if not possible to request for an exemption to be reviewed
individually in lieu of removing them from the list altogether.
Garner asked if there is a compelling reason for why staff would not review all low priority
structures within city limits. Nelson replied that from a staff perspective, staff reviews all
development applications for all properties.
Stevens clarified that the UDC Advisory Committee’s intent from 2017 was that the low priority
structures outside a district should not be reviewed, but that the discussion did not take into
consideration low priorities inside a historic district.
Garner moved to recommend that low priority structures in the Downtown and Old Town
Overlay districts not be reviewed by staff. No second. Motion failed.
The UDC Advisory Committee had further discussion and deliberation regarding this part 1.
Garner moved to recommend that low priority structures in the Downtown and Old Town
Overlay districts be approved by staff. Second by Philpott. Motion passed 5-1-1. Stevens,
Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, and Garner in favor. Robinson in opposition. Wanke absent.
Philpott moved to recommend that replacement of in-kind materials be allowed for medium and
Page 5 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 3
March 18, 2019
low priority structures. Second by Wirth. Motion passed 6-0-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott,
Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke absent.
Wirth moved to recommend that HARC review be retained for high priority resources and HPO
review for medium priority resources, and to remove 60-day demolition period of all resources
outside a historic district. Second by Philpott. The UDC Advisory Committee discussed and
deliberated the motion. Motion withdrawn.
Wirth moved to recommend that HARC review be retained for high priority resources, HPO
review for medium priority resources, no review for low priority resources, and to retain 60-day
demolition period of all resources outside a district. Second by Philpott. Motion passed 6-0-1.
Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke
absent.
Garner moved to recommend that the final decision maker of Certificate of Appropriateness
requiring public hearing remain with HARC as it currently exists in the UDC process (including
current Appeal process). Second by Robinson. Motion passed 6-0-1. Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth,
Philpott, Robinson and Garner in favor. None in opposition. Wanke absent.
Robinson moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendments as presented (with the
exception of the recommendations listed above). Second by Wirth. Motion passed 5-0-1-1.
Stevens, Dubcak, Wirth, Philpott, and Robinson in favor. None in opposition. Garner abstained.
Wanke absent.
Adjournment
Motion by Wirth to adjourn the meeting. Second by Philpott. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Jason Wirth
Page 6 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 1
April 10, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 3:30 P.M.
City Hall
808 Martin Luther King Jr Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: John Philpott; Brian Robinson; Philip Wanke; Stuart Garner.
Committee Member(s) Absent: PJ Stevens, Chair; Tracy Dubcak, Vice-chair; Tim Bargainer; Jason Wirth,
Secretary.
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director.
*** Due to Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary being absent, the UDC Advisory Committee voted to appoint a Chair
and Secretary for this meeting.
Motion by Wanke to appoint Philpott as the Chair for this meeting. Second by Robinson. Motion passed 4-0-3.
Motion by Philpott to appoint Robinson as Secretary for this meeting. Second by Wanke. Motion passed 4-0-3.***
Meeting called to order at 3:35 P.M.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found
at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and
present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to
speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A Julie Damian regarding potential changes to the fence standards
Damian addressed the UDC Advisory Committee regarding concerns with the City's current fence
standards. Specifically, the lack of requirements for flat top fencing for new construction, especially
in high traffic areas. Damian requested the UDC Advisory Committee to consider this as a possible
future amendment to the UDC.
The UDC Advisory Committee asked what the process would be to consider this item.
Dávila-Quintero responded the two processes to amend the UDC: annual review and executive
amendment processes.
Page 7 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 2
April 10, 2019
The UDC Advisory Committee requested staff place this item at the next available meeting to initiate
discussion.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Continued from the March 13, 2019 meeting:
Discussion and possible action establishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) Advisory Committee for 2019/20. Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP,
Current Planning Manager.
Motion by Robinson to continue this item to the April 10, 2019 meeting. Second by Wanke.
Motion passed 4-0-3. Philpott, Robinson, Wanke and Garner in favor. Stevens, Dubcak and Wirth
absent.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2019 and March 13,
2019 meetings of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Andreina Dávila-Quintero,
AICP, Current Planning Manager.
Motion by Philpott to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2019 meeting as presented. Second
by Wanke. Motion passed 3-0-1-3. Philpott, Robinson, and Wanke in favor. Garner abstained.
Stevens, Dubcak and Wirth absent.
Motion by Robinson to approved the minutes of the March 13, 2019 meeting with the amendment
that the minutes include the request to review the City of Austin’s 500-foot notification
requirement. Second by Philpott. Motion passed 3-0-1-3. Philpott, Robinson, and Wanke in favor.
Garner abstained. Stevens, Dubcak and Wirth absent.
D Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to Chapter 6, Residential Development
Standards, Chapter 8, Tree Preservation, Landscaping and Fencing, and Chapter 13, Infrastructure
and Public Improvements, of the Unified Development Code relative to the parkland dedication
requirements (Amendment No. 3). Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager,
and Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director.
Dávila-Quintero gave a presentation on the purpose of this amendment and the proposed
amendments to the UDC.
The UDC Advisory Committee asked questions to staff regarding amenity requirements for
neighborhood parks such as restroom facilities; process for allowing proposed amenities through
donations; deviation process and approval authority; and method in how the parkland in-lieu-of
dedication fee was established.
Garrett responded that the Master Parks Plan provides guidelines on the amenities needed for park,
which vary by park size. Additionally, other options and amenities may be considered through the
alternative design approval process. For deviations, a recommendation from the Parks Advisory
Board will be required. Parkland dedication fees were based on the estimated construction cost for a
3-acre neighborhood park, which is the minimum size required.
Page 8 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 3
April 10, 2019
The Chair opened the public hearing. No individuals signed up to speak. The Chair closed the public
hearing.
Motion by Wanke to recommend approval of the proposed amendments as presented. Second by
Robinson. Motion passed 4-0-3. Philpott, Robinson, Wanke and Garner in favor. Stevens, Dubcak
and Wirth absent.
E Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to Chapter 6, Residential Development
Standards, of the Unified Development Code relative to building standards in the multi-family
residential zoning districts (Amendment No. 14). Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning
Manager
Dávila-Quintero gave a presentation on the purpose of this amendment and the proposed
amendments.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No individuals signed up to speak. The Chair closed the public
hearing.
Motion by Garner to recommend approval of the proposed amendments as presented. Second by
Wanke. Motion passed 4-0-3. Philpott, Robinson, Wanke and Garner in favor. Stevens, Dubcak
and Wirth absent.
F Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to Chapter 3, Applications and Permits,
of the Unified Development Code relative to public notification requirements for land use changes
(Amendment No. 17). Andreina Dávila-Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Dávila-Quintero gave a presentation on the purpose of this amendment; the purpose of the City of
Austin’s 500-foot notification buffer requirement; and proposed amendments to the UDC.
The Chair opened the public hearing. The following individuals signed up to speak on this item:
Michael Spano. The Chair closed the public hearing.
Motion by Wanke to recommend approval of the proposed amendments as presented. Second by
Philpott.
The UDC Advisory Committee discussed and deliberated on the motion.
Motion by Robinson to amend the motion to change the notification buffer from 300 feet to 500
feet. No second. The amendment to the motion failed.
The UDC Advisory Committee voted on the original motion. Motion passed 3-1-3. Philpott,
Wanke and Garner in favor. Robinson against. Stevens, Dubcak and Wirth absent.
G Update on the 2018/19 UDC Annual Review Plan, Schedule and Next Steps. Andreina Dávila-
Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Page 9 of 21
UDC Advisory Committee 4
April 10, 2019
Dávila-Quintero presented an update on the items listed in the 2018/19 UDC Annual Review cycle,
including upcoming amendments and next steps.
No action was taken.
Adjournment
Motion by Garner to adjourn the meeting. Second by Philpott. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Jason Wirth
Page 10 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on proposed amendments to C hapter 7, Non-residential Development
S tandards and C hapter 8 Tree P reservation, Landsc aping, and F enc ing of the Unified Development C ode
relative to setbacks and bufferyards when non-res idential development is located adjac ent to single family
development in the ET J -- S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Direc tor
IT E M S UMMARY:
O n F ebruary 26, 2019, the C ity C ouncil directed staff to review the minimum s etbac k and bufferyard
requirements when non-res idential development is adjacent to res idential development in the extraterritorial
jurisdic tion (ET J) as part of the current UDC Annual R eview process. T he purpose of this amendment is
to provide the same level of separation, buffering and sc reening to s ingle-family homes in the ET J when
non-res idential development is adjacent to res idential in the city limits.
Proposed Amendments:
T he proposed amendments to the UDC inc lude (Exhibit A):
Increase the minimum s ide and rear s etbac ks when adjacent to res idential development for
commerc ial, office, c ivic and industrial zoning districts .
P rovide a low, medium or high level bufferyard, as applic able, when multi-family and non-res idential
development is adjac ent to single-family homes in the ET J.
S taff's Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the propos ed amendments in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ).
S taff has determined that the propos ed amendments meet the criteria establis hed in UDC S ec tion 3.05.050
for a Text Amendment. P artic ularly, staff finds :
1. T he proposed amendments promote the health, s afety or general welfare o f the C ity and the s afe,
orderly, and healthful development of the C ity by continuing to ensure adequate s eparation between
buildings within the d evelopment and adjac ent residential develo p ment in the c ity limits and
extraterritorial juris diction (ET J);
2. T he p ro p o s ed amend ments are cons is tent with the C omprehens ive P lan as the revis ed standards
further implement the p o lic ies and recommend ations related to trans itio ns b etween rural and urban
development;
3. T he p ro p o s ed amendments are necessary to address c o nditio ns that have changed in the C ity due to
an inc reas e in reques t fo r higher dens ity and intensity develo p ment next to small p o rtions o f ET J
property that are s urrounded by city limits;
4. T he proposed amendments wo uld p o s itively impac t the community and environment by providing
adequate s pacing and des ign s tandards to mitigate the impact of non-res idential uses to adjacent
res idential us es and surrounding area; and
5. T he proposed amendments are in c onformance with other applic able S ec tions of the C ity C ode.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), a legal notice advertis ing the public hearing was
Page 11 of 21
placed in the S un Newspaper (April 21, 2019). As of the publication date of this report, staff has not
received c omments on the request.
Next S teps:
T he proposed amendments will be c onsidered on the following dates :
May 8, 2019 - C onsideration and recommendation by the UDC Advisory C ommittee
May 21, 2019 - C ons ideration and rec ommendation by the P lanning and Zoning C ommis s ion
May 28, 2019 - C ons ideration by the C ity C ounc il
June 11, 2019 - C onsideration and F inal Ac tion by the C ity C ounc il
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None s tudied at this time.
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
Exhibit A - Proposed Amendments to Chs. 7 and 8 Exhibit
Page 12 of 21
Non-Residential Standards *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. Printed on May. 1, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 7
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 7 - NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
***
SECTION 7.02. - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
***
Sec. 7.02.020. - Non-Residential Lot and Dimensional Standards.
The lot and dimensional standards provided in Table 7.02.020 are in addition to the
interpretations and exceptions in Section 7.02.030. Table 7.02.020 contains cross-references and
notes to specific sections or chapters of this Code when additional requirements or explanations
may apply.
Table 7.02.020: Non-Residential Lot and Dimensional Standards
Non-Residential Zoning Districts
Dimension CN C-1 C-3 OF BP IN PF MU-
DT MU
District size, min. acreage — — — — 5 — — — 5
Lot width, minimum feet 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25
For MU Lot and
Dimensional
Standards, See
Section 4.114.09
Front/street setback, min. feet 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 0
Front setback, build-to option
0 0 — 0 — — 0 —
Refer to Section 7.02.030.B for the Build-
to Option
Front setback, Downtown Gateway
Overlay
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —
Refer to Section 4.13.040 for Downtown
Gateway
Setbacks
Side setback, min. feet 5 10 10 10 10 10 5 0
Side setback to residential district or an
existing single family home in the ETJ
that is platted or planned for residential
use on the Future Land Use Map, min.
feet
10 15 15 15 20 25 15 0
Rear setback, min. feet 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0
Rear setback to residential district or an
existing single family home in the ETJ
that is platted or planned for residential
20 25 25 25 25 35 25 0
Exhibit A
Page 13 of 21
Non-Residential Standards *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. Printed on May. 1, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 7
Deleted language is strikethrough
use on the Future Land Use Map, min.
feet
Building height, max. feet 30 35 60 45 60 60 45 40
Bufferyards Refer to Section 8.04 for Bufferyard
Requirements
Landscaping
Refer to Chapter 8 for Minimum
Landscape
Requirements
Impervious coverage
Refer to Section 11.02 for Impervious
Coverage
Requirements
A. For properties located in an Overlay Zoning District, additional or alternative
provisions may apply. See Chapter 4 for all applicable Overlay Districts.
B. For Non-Residential development in a Conservation Subdivision, see Section 11.06 for
alternative development standards.
C. Additional design limitations may be required for specific uses in Chapter 5 of this
Code. When in conflict, the stricter provision shall apply.
***
***
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 21
Non-Residential Standards *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. Printed on May. 2, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 8
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 8 - TREE PRESERVATION, LANDSCAPING AND FENCING
***
SECTION 8.04. - NON-RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
***
Sec. 8.04.060. - Bufferyards.
***
B. Bufferyard Required.
1. Table 8.04.060 indicates the level of bufferyard required between each zoning district or
land use. Letters "a" to "e" correspond with the information below Table 8.04.060 and
identify the type of bufferyard required and the specific situations in which the
bufferyard is required. A box with a "—" indicates that a bufferyard is not required
between those development types. The planting requirements of each type of bufferyard
can be found in Subsection C. below.
Table 8.04.060: Bufferyard Level Required
Adjacent District
ETJ* AG RE RL RS TF MH TH MF1 MF2 CN C-
1
C-
3 OF PF BP IN MU-
DT
Bufferyard
Required
AG c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
MH a a a a a — — — — — — — — — — — — a
TH a a a a a b — — — — — — — — — — — a
MF1 a c c c c c — — — — — — — — — — — c
MF2 a c c c c c — — — — — — — — — — — c
CN a a a a a a a a a — — — — — — — — a
C1 c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
C3 c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
OF c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
PF c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
BP c c c c c c c c c — — — — — — — — c
IN e e e e e e e e e d d d d d — — d e
MU-
DT a a a a a a — — — — — — — — — — — a
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 21
Non-Residential Standards *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. Printed on May. 2, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 8
Deleted language is strikethrough
* Shall only apply in the case of one or more single-family homes that are platted or planned for
residential use on the Future Land Use Map in the ETJ.
a. A low level bufferyard is required when non-residential development, as defined in Section
8.01.040, is proposed adjacent to residential development.
b. A low level bufferyard is required when a single-lot development is proposed in a TH
District adjacent to an individual lot development in the MH District or when non-residential
development, as defined in Section 8.01.040, is proposed adjacent to residential development.
c. A medium level bufferyard is required when non-residential development, as defined in
Section 8.01.040, is proposed adjacent to residential development.
d. A medium level bufferyard is required when a property zoned IN District develops adjacent
to a C-1, C-3, OF, PF, or MU-DT District.
e. A high level bufferyard is required when a property zoned IN District develops adjacent to a
RE, RL, RS, TF, TH, MF-1, or MF-2 District, or when adjacent to an existing single-family home
in the AG District, or ETJ.
***
D. Development Adjacent to the ETJ Reserved.
A low level bufferyard is required when a non-residential development is proposed in the
City limits that is adjacent to an existing single-family home in the ETJ that is platted and
planned for residential use on the Future Land Use Map.
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible direc tion on amendments to C hapter 5, Zoning Use R egulations , of the Unified
Development C ode (UDC ) -- 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 zoning us e regulations as a part of
the 2018/19 UDC Annual R eview process (Amendment No. 12 and 13). T he purpose of this amendment
is to review s pecific us es for each zoning district to see where they may be permitted by right, permitted
with limitations, permitted with approval of a s pecial use permit, or not allowed.
S pecific us es that have been identified for cons ideration include, but are not limited to:
S elf-s ervic e mac hines (i.e. ice machines)
S torage yards
C ontractor services (limited and general)
O ffic e Warehous e
O ffic e
Us es in a G ateway O verlay District
T he purpos e of this item is to initiate dis cus s ion with the UDC Advis ory C ommittee on spec ific uses that
need further review and c onsideration. T he Zoning Us e R egulations may be viewed and downloaded at
https://library.municode.com/tx/georgetown/c odes /unified_development_code?
nodeId=UNI F I ED_DEVELO P MENT _C O DE_C H5ZO US R E.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None s tudied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 17 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible direc tion on potential future c hanges to S ection 8.07, F enc e S tandards, of the
Unified Development C ode -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager.
IT E M S UMMARY:
At the April 10, 2019 regular meeting, the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) Advisory C ommittee heard
concerns from a property owner regarding the C ity's c urrent fenc e standards. S pec ifically, the lack of
requirements for flat top fencing for new cons truction, spec ially in high traffic areas.
Within the c ity limits , allowed fenc e materials include wood, s tone, rock, brick, fenc ecrete, decorative
wrought iron, c hain link, welded wire or other similar materials of c omparable aesthetic and durability. T he
Director or Building O fficial may cons ider other materials during permit review such as vinyl, P VC , or
other rot resistant alternatives. Allowed materials may be restricted in c ertain c ircums tances, per the
provisions of the UDC , and are allowed by right in all other instanc es . Materials such as barbed wire, razor
wire and electric fenc ing are only allowed with the limitations s pecified in the UDC . P rohibited materials
inc lude produc ts manufactured for other uses and not originally intended to be permanent fenc ing are
prohibited. S ome examples of prohibited material include but are not limited to: plywood, paper, plastic,
fiberglass panels, c hic ken wire, fabric, or s heet, roll or corrugated metals .
O ther fenc e standards inc lude height and loc ation limitations , which vary on the us e of the property
(res idential and non-residential). T he F enc e S tandards may be viewed and downloaded at
https://library.municode.com/tx/georgetown/c odes /unified_development_code?
nodeId=UNI F I ED_DEVELO P MENT _C O DE_C H8T R P R LAF E_S 8.07F ES T .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None s tudied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 18 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
May 8, 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 19 of 21
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 20 of 21
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 21 of 21