HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 06.08.2022Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
June 8, 2022 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 O n a subject not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future B oard agenda by filing a
written request with the S taff L iaison no later than one week prior to the B oard meeting. T he request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. F or B oard L iaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
At the ti me of posti ng, no persons had si gned up to speak on i tems not on the agenda.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2022 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advis ory C ommittee -- S tephanie Mc Nickle, P lanning S pec ialis t
C Dis cus s ion on 2022 Annual R eview, inc luding review and potential updates to UDC C hapter 7 regarding
Non-R esidential Building R equirements – S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director, Travis Baird, As s t. P lanning
Director and C olleen R us s ell, P rinc ipal P lanner
D Discussion Items:
Updates and Announcements (S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor)
Update from other Board and C ommission meetings
Q uestions or c o mments from Alternate Memb ers about the actio ns and matters c o nsidered on this
agenda.
Page 1 of 31
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 _________________, 2022, 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 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
June 8, 2022
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes of the Marc h 9, 2022 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee -- S tephanie Mc Nic kle, P lanning S pecialist
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.NA
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Cover Memo
Page 3 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 1
March 9, 2022
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 3:30 P.M.
City Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr St, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: P.J. Stevens; Philip Wanke; Jordan Maddox; Josh Baran and Scott
Allen
Committee Member(s) Absent: Brian Robinson, and Jen Henderson
Staff Present: Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director; Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner and Stephanie
McNickle, Planning Specialist.
Meeting called to order at 3:33 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. 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/.
At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to speak on items not on the agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Nomination and selection of Vice-chair and Secretary for the 2022/23 UDC Advisory Committee --
Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director, Current Planning
Motion by Committee Member Maddox to nominate Committee Member Baran to serve as 2022-
2023 Vice-chair. Second by Committee Member Wanke. Approved. (5-0)
Motion by Committee Chair Stevens to nominate Committee Member Wanke to serve as 2022-2023
Secretary. Second by Committee Member Maddox. Approved. (5-0)
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2021 regular
meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee – Stephanie McNickle, Planning
Page 4 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 2
March 9, 2022
Specialist
Motion by Committee Member Wanke to approve the December 8, 2021 minutes. Second by
Committee Member Maddox. Approved.
D. Discussion on 2022 Annual Review, including review and potential updates to UDC Chapter 7
regarding Non-Residential Building Requirements– Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, Travis Baird,
Asst. Planning Director; Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner
Staff reviewed concerns with the industrial developments and with large building developments. It
was stated the city codes is not really set up to deal with it. Staff stated when reviewing the code
and when they were last updated, it just wasn't something that was relevant in our market, nor was
it relevant in the wider market the way we're seeing it today. Therefore, the purpose of what we're
going to do today is we're going to discuss those issues that are related to building design. We're
going to share with you all some of the potential solutions that that we've come across as we've
been working through these over the last couple of years.
Staff reviewed over the history and stated the current trend has shifted for industrial developments
and with large building developments.
Staff stated The City of Georgetown has seen significant growth and change during 2021. This has
led to lessons learned, and there are opportunities for improvement of the UDC with the 2022
Annual Update. In the December meeting, these opportunities were discussed and The UDC
Advisory Committee elected to review certain requirements for building design within Chapter 7 of
the UDC.
Staff stated the city is seeing a lot of developments that are coming in now where it’s 200,000 -
300,000 plus feet undercover. Staff stated 43,000 feet, roughly is an acre. Therefore, multiple acres of
land under one roof creates a different reality for construction and that is what staff is currently
reviewing.
Staff stated there are multiple elements that are reviewed in these larger buildings, but are finding
the bigger building, the application shows a flat roof as opposed to having some sort of sloping.
Staff and Committee discussed the industrial areas withing the city and surrounding areas
including major roads and highways. Staff stated the City of Georgetown is capturing traffic and
interest from people and companies who are looking to move products into the area and then from
here disperse it through smaller vehicular movement throughout that area.
No review and significant changes have been made to Chapter 7 in several years. In that time the
market has realized a significant shift with demand for industrial type developments, particularly
logistical uses, increasing drastically. These types of developments often have trouble complying
with building design standards within the UDC given their use, placement in the area, and typical
construction methods. This has led to a significant increase in requests for administrative
exceptions and increased difficulty in the development process experienced by both City Staff and
applicants.
Page 5 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 3
March 9, 2022
Staff has identified 3 components of building design with create the greatest opportunity.
1. Roof Styles
2. Building Articulations
3. Architectural Features
Staff stated that within these components there exist several subsets, such as vertical and horizontal
articulation, roof pitch, etc. for which the targets of the current UDC have not particularly
accounted for the types of construction prevalent among contemporary industrial developments.
Staff provided a copy of Building Design Standards from area cities including Round Rock, Cedar
Park, Pflugerville, Buda, Kyle and San Marcus.
Discussion regarding issues related to Building Designs and potential solutions.
Discussion between Staff and Committee regarding Roof Treatments (Parapets) and Roof
Treatments (Screening), Entryways and Entrance Treatments, Building Articulation and
Architectural Features Applicability, Horizontal Articulation (Footprint), Vertical Articulation
(Elevation) and Architectural Features.
Staff stated Administrative Exception and Planned Unit Development applications have increased
31% from 2019 to 2021 due to the significant increase in demand for industrial development.
Staff gave a powerpoint presentation and reviewed over the key terms and provided
examples/slides for committee to view.
• Height - The vertical distance from grade to the average height of the highest roof structure.
• Slope - The vertical change in grade divided by the horizontal distance over which that
vertical change occurred. The slope is usually given as a percentage.
• Architectural Feature - An architectural element attached to, contiguous to or otherwise
related to a building, structure, or property including, but not limited to, awnings, pillars,
posts, windows, doors, lights, overlays, moldings and other fixtures.
• Gross Floor Area (GFA) - Gross Floor Area. The square feet of floor space within all exterior
walls and including all floors of a building. Gross Floor Area (often referred to as GFA) does
not include porches, garages or space in a basement or cellar not used for dwelling
purposes.
• Articulation - An interruption/differentiation of the building wall plane with either a recess
(concavity) or an offset (convexity) that projects away from the building wall plane by a
measurable distance or a differentiation in the height of the wall surface.
• Tilt Wall Construction – construction method in which slabs of concrete are cast, then set
upright to create walls.
• Curtain Wall – a type of wall typically made of a metal framework supporting a glass
panels.
The Committee asked it the Administrative Exceptions applications are similar or are they a
“mixed-bag”. Staff stated there are few applications that vary but seeing some very specific ones
over and over again like roof treatments and articulation on buildings.
Discussion regarding design guidelines surrounding the roof treatments, slope articulation, and the
requirements for parapets. It was stated one example was a requirement for parapet insulation on a
Page 6 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 4
March 9, 2022
large industrial building and trying to shed rainwater off the roof and the typical design would be
to run gutters along the roofline, pick that water up, move it away. Staff stated now you must cut
holes into this parapet needing to be installed, but when you cut holes into things, it creates a design
issue.
Clean lines, clean slopes, low slope roofs, even flat roofs with no parapet gets in the way of a lot of
creative work.
Discussion on ways to hide equipment without having a parapet wall up and only around the
equipment on top of the roof. Discussions regarding some commercial properties around
Georgetown and how parapets are being used.
Staff presented a visual of different styles of roofs and treatments. (flat, shed, hip, gable, mansard,
gambrel) Staff stated flat roofs and roofs with a pitch less that 2:12 must provide a parapet. Staff
stated parapets must be at least 2 feet tall, have a cornice detailing and conceal equipment on flat
roofs. Staff also stated there may be different roof styles combined in different settings like an
apartment complex.
Staff explained the calculation of the Horizontal and Vertical Articulation. Staff gave a PowerPoint
presentation on architectural features. Staff stated the code would say that every building has a
have at least three features.
Staff discussed alternative building design and informed the Committee is an Administrative
Exception application, explained the process and ways they work with the applicants.
Staff stated Georgetown currently have requirements than other communities in the surrounding
areas do not address. Staff reviewed those requirements with the committee.
Staff and Committee discussed desired outcomes and deficiencies in the current code. Staff will
collect and analyze information from this discussion.
Staff reviewed roof treatment and types:
Problem:
1. Current code requirements create significant design issues with industrial construction
2. Building design requirements for IN buildings are unclear on Arterial level roadways
3. Contemporary designs tend to avoid steep roof slopes and parapets
Impact on Building Design:
1. AE process to allow slopes or find alternatives to parapets when construction type is prohibitive
or results in a poor-quality design
2. AE to determine where exactly the design is required to comply as viewed from the roadway
3. Buildings in all districts require an AE to determine the conditions in which the low slope
Potential Solutions:
1. Clarify the extent to which parapet coverage must be provided on buildings in IN subject to
7.03, for example:
A. On arterial roads does requirements must be met on the side facing the road
B. Must be provided if the wall faces public streets, parks, residential districts
C. Parapets must be provided if needed to screen rooftop equipment
Page 7 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 5
March 9, 2022
2. Scale requirements for building design based on building size?
A. Some roof treatment may be acceptable on some buildings but not
others
B. Some roof treatments may be acceptable in certain zoning districts but not others
C. On large buildings, additional features can be substituted for full parapet coverage
3. Scale requirements for roof treatment based on building type or zoning district
A. Some roof treatments acceptable in certain zoning districts but not others
Discussion on the reason for a parapet on a building and asked if items like the HVAC can be
placed on the ground behind the building, so they are out of view of the public and highways. Staff
stated that works just fine but a sometimes applicants may also want skylights on the roof to help
the interior. Discussion regarding hiding only the equipment on the roof of these large buildings.
Staff stated the parapet code has been in place since the UDC was written in 2003.
Discussion regarding the possibility of a parapet not being needed if the only reason is to hide
something you can’t necessarily see.
Committee member felt they should be backing off the parapet language and just leaving the
mechanical screening in place. They can use the parapet for mechanical screening and give them
design options to do it. Possibly for all zonings, not just industrials.
Staff presented Power point slides for Committee to view regarding different roofs.
Discussion and Powerpoint presentation regarding Articulations:
Committee member asked and Staff stated applicability of building design requirements in
industrial is very general, but the terms for articulation are very specific that if the wall faces a
street residential district or park.
Committee member asked and staff stated changes cannot be made for materials. Staff stated before
the law existed in 2018, we said that if you provided a change in materials, that we could count that
as an architectural feature or we could consider that. After 2019, the state legislature said that cities
can no longer regulate building materials if it's allowed by the building code. Additional discussion
on material changes by staff and committee.
Discussion on zonings. Committee member stated the code and professional business offices are
completely permitted in industrial. So, what you're going to find is that there will be people that go,
I don't want to do any of this, I just want to go get an industrial zoning. The city may or may not
know why they are getting the zoning and then forcing these zoning cases that really don't make
sense for the area, but they're still forcing them through the system, and it gets to where city council
just like with the fueling stations want to go in and change the permitted use chart again. It's this
overreaction of things that didn't need to be reacted to. So, in general, I'm always going to lean
away from saying it's only applicable in industrial rather than any size ability or scalability type
situation.
Discussion regarding San Marcus codes and menus. It was stated San Marcus seems to give people
design options on how to achieve somethings. Staff stated they can look at San Marcus codes.
Page 8 of 31
UDC Advisory Committee 6
March 9, 2022
Discussion regarding lighting on industrial buildings. PowerPoint presentation continues showing
large industrial building features.
Problem:
• Extra large buildings have huge wall surfaces
• large expanses that require carefully planned features that repeat or create
patterns
Impact on Building Design:
• 5 features does not adequately break up the wall or address impacts to buildings this
large… difficult to scale to wall space
• Features requirements provide no clear expectation for how these 5 features are to be
used
• Negotiate for fewer number of features, but use them to create repeating elements to
break up façade horizontally and vertically
Potential Solutions:
1. Scale up feature requirements with wall size
1. Require additional features as walls get larger
2. Consider the number of times the feature has to be used
2. Require standard features, but add additional options to default list or guidance on how to use
them on larger walls
1. E.g. reveals & patterns created by them
3. Elaborate on entry design standards for specific uses or buildings of a certain size.
1. Use of features like glazing, offsets, shade structures
2. Variation in roof planes
Committee member suggested adding options or guidance for people. Possibly create some
graphics to add into the code to give people a little nudge to use this feature and achieve the intent.
Staff stated they will bring back updates from this meeting to the next scheduled meeting.
Staff announce Ethan Harwell is leaving the City of Georgetown. The Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee thanked Ethan for his dedication and hard work for the city.
Chair Stevens welcomed newest members Scott Allen and Joshua Baran to the Committee.
Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 5:37 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Phillip Wanke, Secretary
Page 9 of 31
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
June 8, 2022
S UB J E C T:
Disc ussion on 2022 Annual R eview, including review and potential updates to UDC C hapter 7 regarding
Non-R es idential Building R equirements– S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor, Travis Baird, Asst. P lanning
Direc tor and C olleen R ussell, P rincipal P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ity of G eorgetown has s een s ignificant growth and c hange during 2021-pres ent. T his has led to
lessons learned, and there are opportunities for improvement of the UDC with the 2022 Annual Update.
In the Dec ember meeting, thes e opportunities were dis cus s ed and T he UDC Advis ory C ommittee elec ted
to review certain requirements for building design within C hapter 7 of the UDC . T his meeting will be the
sec ond s inc e that Dec ember meeting, with January and F ebruary meetings having been previous ly
c anc eled and in March the challenges were disc ussed as a precurs or for todays to disc uss pos s ible
solutions .
B uilding Desig n Recap:
No review and signific ant c hanges have been made to C hapter 7 in several s. In that time the market has
realized a signific ant shift with demand for industrial type developments, particularly logistical uses,
increasing dras tic ally. T hes e types of developments often experience difficulty c omplying with building
design s tandards within the UDC given their us e, placement in the area, and typic al c onstruc tion
methods. T his has led to a s ignificant inc reas e in reques ts for adminis trative exc eptions and increased
diffic ulty in the development proc es s experienc ed by both C ity S taff and applic ants .
C urrent B uilding D esign
S taff has identified 3 partic ular components of building des ign whic h create the greates t opportunity for
fruitful review. T hes e are:
1. R oof S tyles & Treatments
2. Building Articulation
3. Architec tural F eatures
Within these components there exist s everal subs ets, such as vertical and horizontal artic ulation, roof
pitch, etc . for whic h the targets of the c urrent UDC have not specifically ac counted for the types of
c onstruc tion prevalent among contemporary industrial developments . T hes e subs ets s hall be addressed
with options as to roof s tyles and equipment sc reening tec hniques. T he means of obtaining various
articulations and omitting the formula and reques ting changes at least every 30 feet vertic ally and every 50
feet horizontally which is the norm with many larger urban c ities.
R eview of these elements and the assoc iated diffic ulties is focus ed on identifying thos e instanc es
in which UDC requirements have aligned to c reate the expected outc ome only with additional
intens ive interpretation and additional applic ations . T he resolve is to reduc e the number of
Adminis trative Exc eptions (AE) and instanc es in whic h multiple AEs have been issued to address the
s ame or s ubstantially s imilar issues . In addition to clarifying and spec ifying reas onable alternatives to
these challenges , s o that the original, s ubmitted des igns will already ac count for thes e c omponents and
Page 10 of 31
design tec hniques.
2 02 2 U D C Annual Review Timeline:
T he existing timeline, since the disc ussed in the Dec ember 2021 meeting, has been updated to ensure
expectations are being met; and, timelines are being trac ked, due to unforeseen delays .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None studied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C olleen R ussell, P rincipal P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 11 of 31
UDCAC
2022 Annual Review
Discussion
1
UDC Advisory Committee
June 8,2022
Page 12 of 31
Recap why this analysis occurred -
2
❑Planning Staff wanted to reduce AE
particularly for industrial buildings*
❑Provide some options to the
challenges for the UDCA to consider
❑State where the ordinance addresses
these challenges presently/not
❑Say where the updates will be added
to the UDC and cross references
Roof Pitch
Articulation
Building
Features
Articulation
2019 0%
2020 15%
2021 21/50 –42%
Jan-
April
2022
13/27 –48%
Page 13 of 31
Purpose
3
Discuss options related to Building Design challenges ( with a focus on industrial buildings off the highway/publicly
viewed) :
Challenge 1-Roof Type and construction “in-place”/tilt/panel walls
-Arterial view of the sites
-steep sloping roofs and parapets
Challenge 2-Articulation
-Size building (previously, considered was 150K as the initial point for industrial codes) -
50,000 ft² is now to be considered. However, hospitals, hotels and multifamily structures
also will match this lot coverage can’t be ignored as commercial structures also requiring
these details as well
-Length horizontally and height vertically for these changes(a formula was previously
presented). However, 50 feet horizontally and 30 feet vertically are fair measures for variated
designs
-loading bays are typically to the back of the building and have no articulation (entire
screening is a must)
-one feature of articulation frequently used are windows. Windows of various styles and size
allow for a contrast of the use and special differentiation. The previous discussion was on
glazed or double-glazed windows
Challenge 3-These huge walls should have features that repeat or create patterns (Architectural
Design?)
What does the City want –windows, glazed glass features, awnings, designs, exaggerated
walls, off-set patios/ walkways and doorways, usual Greek /roman pillars and designed
columns, bolsters and stairs.Page 14 of 31
Key Terms
4
•Height -The vertical distance from grade to the average height of the highest roof structure.
•Slope -The vertical change in grade divided by the horizontal distance over which that vertical change occurred .The slope is usually
given as a percentage .
•Architectural Feature -An architectural element attached to, contiguous to or otherwise related to a building,structure,or property
including,but not limited to,awnings,pillars,posts, windows,doors,lights,overlays,moldings and other fixtures.
•Tilt Wall Construction –construction method in which slabs of concrete are cast, then set upright to create walls.
•Curtain Wall –a type of wall typically made of a metal framework supporting a glass panels
•(monotonous facade-wherein floors and sections of the structure are not readily distinguished
•Gross Floor Area (GFA) -Gross Floor Area. The square feet of floor space within all exterior walls and including all floors of a building. Gross Floor Area (often referred to as GFA) does not include porches, garages or space in a basement or cellar not used for dwelling purposes. * (Impervious surface)
•Articulation -An interruption/differentiation of the building wall plane with either a recess (concavity) or an offset (convexity)that
projects away from the building wall plane by a measurable distance or a differentiation in the height ofthe wall surface.
Page 15 of 31
Why we review building style and form ?
Page 16 of 31
Alternative Building Design (7.03.070)
6
•Planning Director may modify articulation, architectural feature, building elements, and compatibly requirements
•Planning Director must consider:
•Design would meet the intent of the UDC
•Product would be aesthetically pleasing and comparable to designs following the UDC
•Alternative Materials
•Location of the building in relations to interior/exterior public
streets
•Screening by landscaping, fencing, natural features
•Variety of elements, design techniques,etc.Page 17 of 31
The City follows its own codes
Page 18 of 31
Issue 1 –Roof Types
Potential Solutions:1.Parapets will be prohibited. Clarify with graphics roof types expected
on commercial and industrial buildings in Sec 7.03 of the UDC
2. On arterial roads does requirements comply with public viewing
3. Roof shall drain so as not to be a nuisance or cause flooding; and
use as is applicable, to flourish the water table and aquifer
Scale requirements for building design based on building size?
A.Some roof treatment may be acceptable on some buildings but notothers
B.Some roof treatments may be acceptable in certain zoning districtsbut not others
C.Roof treatment shall be based on building type or zoning district
D..Some roof treatments area acceptable in certain zoning districtsandnot in others, due the appropriateness of the feature to the buildings. This is especially the case in the Historic District
8
Page 19 of 31
Roof Styles &Treatment•Roofs with pitch 2:12 and greater
•For utilities and other storage
•Be at least 2-feet tall
•Have cornice detailing
•Conceal equipment on flat roofs
9
Page 20 of 31
Possibilities as to roof form and design
Page 21 of 31
Decisions on the pitch and acceptance of designs-
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+building+roof+pitch&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1000US1000&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=k79vkciIvTCI
Page 22 of 31
Issue 2 –Articulation Potential Solutions:
1.Clarify the extent to which articulation must be provided on
Buildings in IN and commercial districts subject 7.03
A.It shall apply to buildings facing all major and minor arterial roads and
collectors. In addition to corner commercial and industrial erected business by
residential neighborhoods. All buildings 50, 000 sq ft or larger described industrial , but
also buildings in the IN and commercial districts 250 sq ft –to 49,999 will also be
regulated. Three tiers-of sq. ft. will be noted -250-9999, 10 K-49,999 and 50K and
greater
B.Criteria applying to walls facing public streets, parks,residential
districts?2.Scale articulation requirements for commercial and industrial scale buildings. The City will require a
variation in façade at least every 50-feet horizontally and every thirty feet vertically. Most of our
buildings is a maximum of 60ft.high. Corporation designs schemes may fit in as is applicable; and or
they can exceed these requirements. 3.Request articulation for all industrial buildings
A.Provide entrances with certain features such as glazing glass features,
awnings, undulating doorway porticos or window hoods, framed windows,
various size and style; and
B.Consider repeating elements such as clerestory windows,awnings, decorative lightning,
pilasters, changes in panel texture or perpendicular walls, planters on the
ground or seating and horizontal or vertical walk-ways no less than four feet
wide.12
Page 23 of 31
Articulation
Designs
Don’ts
Page 24 of 31
Articulation
Possibilities
Page 25 of 31
Poor
Screening vs.
some best
management
practices as
to areas
requiring this
Page 26 of 31
Failings of chain-link and vegetational screening
Page 27 of 31
Difficulty of spatial lay-out for parking,
screening and buffers will need to be
addressed, regarding definitions for front,
side-loading , back and public-view.
Difficulty of spatial lay-out for parking, screening and buffers will need
to be addressed, regarding definitions for front, side -loading , back
and public-view.
Page 28 of 31
Means of Concealing Building Equipment
Equipment Screens & Other Rooftop Products | RoofScreen Mfg
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=roof+equipment+screen
Page 29 of 31
The intent of updating Section 7.03 of the UDC
Over 3 years ago April 30, HB 2439 Update on House Bill 2439 | City of Leander Texas limited cities from
regulating building materials. Therefore, to conform to the Bill and still enforce –sustainability-standards
(energy efficiency ratings, the code, environmental and scenic integrity principles), the UDC is being
updated to sanction, viable requirements for commercial and industrial buildings. The focus is especially
on buildings over an acre in size. Addressing these challenges will correspond to the Comp-Plan
seeking compliance along the Gateway Overlay District, the Scenic and Downtown Corridor,
categorized as image corridors
Secondly, the growing number of householders enter their communities off highways, so many are
exposed to the bulky structures, landscape, signage, parking lots and lighting which are adjacent or
abutting their own properties. Hence the call for insuring The City’s small-town charm, and preserving
the natural and picturesque character of our entryways to our communities.
Thirdly , these factors influence –property values, curb appeal and the City’s social capital. Therefore,
due to these reasons, the UDCAC is bounded to protect the City’s social and economic values. And
options shall be given to the developers to avoid requesting for administrative exceptions and increase
the developers’ ability to design sustainable structures, with the proper drainage and more marketability
for reuse.
Page 30 of 31
2022 UDC Annual Review Process
UDCAC discuss
potential list of
amendments
In depth
UDCAC
review of
selected
Items and
options
Coding/
Draf ting
work
Public
Outreach
A & Es,
Developers,
P & Z and
HOA
Presidents
UDCAC and P & Z
final review and
recommendations Council
Approval
20
UDCAC
proposal
forwarded to
Council for
Review
Page 31 of 31