HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 07.07.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
July 7, 2015 at 3:00 PM
at Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Ave.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four
(4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized
by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
B Introduction and remarks from David Morgan, City Manager.
C Consideration of the minutes of the June 2, 2015 meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory
Committee.
D Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the basic review requirements of a
Planned Unit Development zoning district (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 4). (Jordan Maddox)
E Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to revisions to the current Site Plan
provisions of Section 3.09 (UDC General Amendment List Item 9). (Valerie Kreger)
F Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to vehicular access limitations for certain
Civic Uses identified in Section 5.03 (UDC General Amendment List Item 20). (Valerie Kreger)
G Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to Council approval of the location and
minimum development standards of outdoor and indoor self-storage facilities in the C-3 zoning district.
(2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 20). (Valerie Kreger and Jordan Maddox)
H Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related the applicability of the nonresidential
building design requirements of UDC Section 7.04 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 29). (Valerie
Kreger)
I Discussion regarding next steps to finish out the 2014-2015 UDC amendment review period and begin the
2015-2016 review period. (Valerie Kreger)
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times,
on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72
continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Page 1 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the minutes of the June 2, 2015 meeting of the Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
June 2, 2015 - Draft Minutes Cover Memo
Page 2 of 27
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / June 2, 2015 Page 1 of 2
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM
Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex
300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626
Committee: P.J. Stevens, Chair; Tim Bargainer, Vice-chair; Philip Wanke, Secretary, Henry C. Boecker,
Bruce Barton and John Philpott.
Committee Member(s) Absent: Brenda Searle-Sung
Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator;
Tamera Baird, Building Plans Examiner and Stephanie McNickle; Recording Secretary.
A. Call to order.
B. Consideration of the minutes of the March 3, 2015 and the May 5, 2015 meeting of the Unified
Development Code Advisory Committee. Motion by Committee Member Barton to approve the
minutes from the March 3, 2015 and the May 5, 2015 meeting of the Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee. Second by Committee Member Boecker. Approved. (6-0)
C. Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the established process for
wastewater extension waivers (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 58). Jordan Maddox,
Principal Planner
This item removes the code provision that the Georgetown Utility System (GUS) act as a
recommending body for the City Council when someone is requesting a waiver to the wastewater
requirement. Discussion between staff and Committee. Committee agrees with staff.
D. Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to updates to the signage
regulations of Chapter 10 (2014 UDC General Amendment List Items 42, 43, 45, and 46). Tamera
Baird, Chief Plans Examiner, and Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner.
This item addresses signage including the roadway types on which high profile monument signs may
be located, application of maximum sign area, subdivision entry sign size and height, and attention
seeking devices. Discussion between staff and Committee. Committee suggested to better define
Billboard and to look into TxDOT’s height restrictions.
E. Discussion regarding Chapter 14 of the UDC related to nonconformities and the abandonment of
nonconforming situations. (2014 UDC General Amendment List Items 61-63). Valerie Kreger,
Principal Planner, and Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator
During the May 5, 2015 meeting, the Committee reflected some overall concern about classifying
building, uses, or site nonconforming and/or abandoned. Staff is bringing Chapter 14,
Nonconformities, to the Committee to discuss in general to better understand the direction to
proceed with the listed UDC amendments. After much discussion between staff and the Committee;
the Committee asked staff for additional research and will be brought back to the Committee at a
later date.
Adjourned at 5:07pm
_____________________________________ __________________________________
P.J. Stevens, Chair Phillip Wanke Secretary
Page 3 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to the basic review
requirements of a Planned Unit Development zoning district (2014 UDC General Amendment List
Item 4). (Jordan Maddox)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning is fairly common in Georgetown, particularly for larger,
master-planned developments. PUDs can be necessary to facilitate special design characteristics
that may not fit neatly into the base zoning development standards. A PUD functions as an overlay
zoning district that offers additional design criteria or specified land uses for a particular project,
and sometimes offers relief of minimum standards from the code.
Since every development is unique and every PUD varies in size and scope, creating minimum
submittal requirements and standard review criteria can be a challenge. Staff has proposed
language that moves away from strict, one-size-fits-all requirements and allows for more latitude
for both staff and the applicant to determine the contents of the PUD Development Plan document.
It is important to remember that the PUD vehicle is intended to ensure a superior product so the
justification and supporting language/exhibits should adequately reflect the development that is
desired. The applicant retains the burden of providing the necessary information and the Director
has the discretion to ensure that the appropriate materials and development plan language are
presented for the public process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddox, AICP, Acting Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Proposed langauge - clean Backup Material
Proposed language - redline Backup Material
Page 4 of 27
Section 4.06 Planned Unit Development District
….
D. Development Plan
1. Development requirements for the PUD District shall be set forth in the
Development Plan and meet the approval criteria detailed in Section 3.06.040. The
Development Plan is intended to capture how and why the particular project is of
exceptional quality and cannot be met by base zoning district requirements. At a
minimum, the Development Plan shall explain the purpose and intent of the PUD,
detailed description of the project, and a specific development design plan, in
addition to how the PUD may deviate from the minimum standards set forth in this
Code.
2. The PUD zoning application shall include written justification as to why any such
Code deviations listed in the Development Plan are necessary because of the unique
characteristics of the site, the needs of the proposed project, or other exceptional
circumstances. Such deviations should be intended to provide an unconventional,
cohesive, and well‐planned layout design scheme, and should not be proposed to
simply avoid the requirements of this Code.
3. Developments with PUD zoning may vary in size and scope and the Development
Plan should reflect the scale and detail desired in the district. A Development Plan
should generally include allowed and/or prohibited land uses, parks/open
space/natural features, density, traffic circulation/streets/access, building and site
design standards and/or schematics, and other pertinent information. A full or
partial traffic impact analysis may be required depending on the impact to the
public roadway system. The Planning Director retains full discretion to require the
necessary detail and information needed to justify the proposed PUD development
plan.
4. Revisions to the adopted Development Plan shall require an amendment to the
PUD ordinance to be processed pursuant to this Code. If the Director determines
that a proposed revision is a minor revision, the Director may consider such a
revision in connection with approval of a Plat or Site Plan pursuant to this Code.
Page 5 of 27
Section 4.06 Planned Unit Development District
….
D. Development Plan
1. Development requirements for the PUD District shall be set forth in the
Development Plan and meet the approval criteria detailed in Section 3.06.040. /or
the approving ordinance The Development Plan is intended to capture how and
why the particular project is of exceptional quality and cannot be met by base
zoning district requirements. At a minimum, the Development Plan shall explain
theand shall include, at a minimum, the purpose and intent of the PUD, uses,
density, detailed description of the project, and a specific development design plan,
in addition to how the PUD may deviate from the minimum standards set forth in
this Code. building height, building setbacks, limits of construction, building
elevations, parking, vehicular and pedestrian access, streets and circulation,
screening, landscaping, environmental protection, signage, lighting, phasing or
scheduling or any other requirements of the Development Manual or as the City
Council may deem appropriate.
2. The PUD zoning application shall include written justification as to why any such
Code deviations listed in the Development Plan are necessary because of thespecify
the extent to which deviation from otherwise applicable Code requirements is
justified by unique characteristics of the site, the needs of the proposed project, or
other exceptional circumstances. Such deviations should be intended to provide an
unconventional, cohesive, and well‐planned layout design scheme, and should not
be proposed to simply avoid the requirements of this Code.
3. 2. Developments with PUD zoning may vary in size and scope and the
Development Plan should reflect the scale and detail desired in the district. A
Development Plan should generally includeT allowed and/or prohibited land uses,
parks/open space/natural features, density, traffic circulation/streets/access,
building and site design standards and/or schematics, and other pertinent
information. A full or partial traffic impact analysis may be required depending on
the impact to the public roadway system. The Planning Director retains full
discretion to require the necessary detail and information needed to justify the
proposed PUD development plan.
he following information shall be shown on the Development Plan in a schematic
form and at a scale satisfactory to the Director with a reduced reproducible print of
the approved drawing suitable for duplication as an exhibit to the PUD ordinance:
a. Proposed land uses including uses to be prohibited per base district.
b. Existing natural features such as bluffs, sink holes, drainage ways, one‐hundred
year floodplain (if applicable), and existing topography at two‐foot contour
intervals.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging:
0.31"
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Tahoma, 10.5 pt,
Font color: Custom Color(RGB(35,31,32))
Page 6 of 27
d. A tabulation of proposed dwelling unit density in residential areas.
c. Location of proposed buildings, building envelopes or building setbacks.
d. A tabulation of proposed dwelling unit density in residential areas.
e. A tabulation of proposed floor area ratios and maximum heights of proposed
buildings.
f. Proposed circulation systems, including preliminary street cross‐sections.
g. Proposed public parks, greenbelts, and other open space.
h. Proposed public facilities, i.e. school sites, fire station, etc.
i. Location and type of proposed landscaping including existing landscaping.
j. Full compliance with Chapters 8, 11 and 12, Tree Preservation, Landscaping and
Fencing and Environmental Protection and Roadway Adequacy shall also be
demonstrated, except as follows:
i. If the application is for a development smaller than 25 acres, would
contain fewer than 5,000 vehicle trips per day, or fewer than 500 dwelling
units.
ii. If the application does not include or request any changes to the
provisions in Chapters 8, 11 and 12 and nothing in the application would
indirectly affect the provisions in these chapters.
34. Revisions to the adopted Development Plan shall require an amendment to the
PUD ordinance to be processed pursuant to Section 3.06 of this Code. If the Director
determines that a proposed revision is a minor revision, the Director may consider
such a revision in connection with approval of a Plat or Site Plan pursuant to
Section 3.09.this Code.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81", Tab stops:
1.43", Left + Not at 1.4"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81", Tab stops:
1.43", Left + Not at 1.4"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81", Tab stops:
1.43", Left + Not at 1.18"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.81", Tab stops:
1.43", Left
Page 7 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to revisions to the current Site
Plan provisions of Section 3.09 (UDC General Amendment List Item 9). (Valerie Kreger)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Over the last couple of years the Planning Department has reviewed several processes, including
the Site Plan and Construction Plan application processes. Currently, each of these components
may be submitted as separate applications which requires additional staff review and has presented
issues with the consistency of the two plans at times. The determination was made to combine
both of these reviews which would eliminate the additional application and review of the
Construction Plan and will therefore keep the construction review of the site consistent with the
site layout, tree preservation, and landscaping review. Additionally, Site Plan is often used as a
very generic term and has on occasion caused confusion as to what is actually being required,
requested or presented, so staff is proposing to update the name of the application, that will now
require inclusion of the construction aspects of the site improvements, to Site Development Plan.
Staff has also proposed language that expands the situations in which a Minor Site Plan may be
utilized, establishing a 1,000 square foot limit for new buildings, changing the additions limitation
from 500 square feet to 20% of the existing building size, and increasing the threshold for parking
from 4 spaces to 6 spaces. Finally, slight changes were proposed that remove the confusing
reference to minor modifications related to Site Plan revisions and provide clarification that any
changes that do not otherwise meet the described situations shall be processed as a new
application.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
-
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Site Plan Amendment Language Exhibit
Page 8 of 27
Chapter 3 Applications and Permits
Section 3.01 General
3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures
The following Table shows which review procedures, applications and permits apply in the City and
its extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Table 3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures
City Limits Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Prior to Subdivision, Platting and any Development
Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X
UDC Text Amendment X X
Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X
Historic District Designation X
Special Use Permit X
Development Agreement X X
Access Point Connection Exemption X X
Subdivision & Platting of Land
Recording Plats X X
Preliminary Plat X X
Construction Plans X X
Plat Vacation X X
Plat Waiver X X
Development Application Process
Site Development Plan X
Construction Plans X
Zoning Verification Letter X
Legal Lot Verification Letter X X
Temporary Use Permit X
Master Sign Plan X X
Certificate of Design Compliance X
Appeal of an Administrative Decision X X
License to Encroach X X
Variance X
Administrative Exception X
Special Exception X
Stormwater Permit X X
Driveway Permit X X
Sign Permit X X
Courthouse View Height Determination X
3.01.030 Simultaneous Submission of Related Applications
A. Submission of different applications related to the same development may be made
simultaneously, although consideration of applications must remain in the following sequence:
1. Comprehensive Plan;
Page 9 of 27
2. Zoning;
3. Subdivision and Plat;
4. Certificate of Design Compliance; then
5. Site Development Plan.
B. Any application submitted simultaneously is subject to approval of all other related
applications. Denial or disapproval of any concurrently submitted application shall stop
consideration of any related applications.
C. An applicant may withdraw any individual application from a group of simultaneously
submitted applications.
Section 3.07 Special Use Permit
3.07.010 Applicability
Special Use Permits allow for City Council approval of uses with unique or widely varying operating
characteristics or unusual site development features, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
this Code. Special Use Permits may be issued only for uses that are generally compatible with other
uses permitted in a Zoning District, but that require individual review of their location, design,
intensity, etc. These uses and the Districts where they may be located are listed in Chapter 5. These
uses may be located in Districts as indicated with conditions described in a Special Use Permit
recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council. No such
use shall commence without prior approval of a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit includes a
conceptual site layout that, after approval, serves as the conceptual site layout necessary for the basis
of the final Site Development Plan, which, if necessary, shall be required prior to obtaining any
additional permits. An approved Special Use Permit is maintained with the property, and not the
property owner, renter, or lessee, and shall be valid per the terms of Section 3.07.050. The provisions
of this Section related to Special Use Permits are adopted pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
Chapter 211 and the City Charter.
3.07.050 Expiration
A Special Use Permit shall expire 24 months from the date of Council approval, unless:
A. A Site Development Plan application, if necessary, has been submitted.
B. A Building Permit application has been approved or, if no Building Permit is required, a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
C. In the case of projects where more than one building or phase is to be built, the applicant may
submit a series of Building Permit applications. The first application must be approved within
24 months from the date conceptual site layout approval is granted. Each subsequent
application must be submitted within 24 months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, or equivalent, by the Building Official for the previous phase of the development.
D. A lapse of a period greater than the periods set forth above causes the related approvals or
permits to expire and be of no further force and effect. The Director has the authority to
consider a 6 month extension of the above deadlines based on extenuating circumstances. Any
further action shall require a new application and approval.
Page 10 of 27
E. The Council’s approval of the Special Use Permit specified an expiration date.
Section 3.09 Site Development Plan
3.09.010 Applicability
A. An approved, valid Site Development Plan is required prior to the construction, expansion, or
removal of any improvements to a property, as defined in Section 16.2 of this Code and
including driveways, sidewalks, drainage structures and utility improvements, within the
City’s limits, except as follows:
1. Single-family and Two-family structures, accessory structures, and fences on individually
platted lots; and
2. Agricultural buildings for the purposes of farming, ranching or sheltering of animals.
B. All improvements reflected on approved Site Development Plans must be constructed at the
time of development. All terms and conditions of Site Development Plan approval must be met
at the time of development.
C. The Site Development Plan may not be approved unless the lot on which the improvements are
proposed is legally platted or the subject tract is determined to be exempt from the platting
requirements of Section 3.08.
D. Where site Site Development plan Plan approval is required, no Building Permit approval shall
be issued for any development of land and no site construction may commence until such
property has received final site Site Development plan Plan approval and is in conformity with
the provision of this Code.
E. The provisions of this Section relating to Site Development Plans are adopted in accordance
with the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 and the City Charter.
3.09.020 Review Process
Review of a Site Development Plan shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 3.03.040 for
administrative review and shall be processed as follows:
A. Application Completeness
1. The applicant shall submit all of the information required in the UDC Development Manual
as specified on the Site Development Plan application checklist.
2. The Director shall determine that a complete application has been submitted with all
material necessary to review the Site Development Plan’s conformance with applicable
criteria for approval.
B. Staff Review
1. The Director shall review the application, considering any applicable criteria for approval,
and notify the applicant of any necessary corrections.
2. The Director may establish procedures for administrative review necessary to ensure
compliance with this Code and state statutes.
3. The Director may assign staff to review the application.
Page 11 of 27
C. Responsibility for Final Action
The Director is responsible for final action on Site Development Plans.
3.09.030 Criteria for Approval
A Site Development Plan shall be approved if it is in compliance with the following criteria:
A. A complete application and fee have been submitted.
B. The application and content of the application are consistent with the provisions of this Unified
Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other applicable City regulations.
C. The application and content of the application are consistent with the UDC Development
Manual, City’s Construction Specifications and Standards Manual, this Code and any written
interpretations of this Code.
D. Compliance with any approved plat, Development Agreement or other agreement or ordinance
governing the parcel of land to which the Site Development Plan is related.
E. Compliance with any additional Site Development Plan approval criteria required for Overlay
Districts or any Site Development Plan approval criteria adopted as part of a Special Area Plan.
F. Prior to final approval of any plan within the City Limits, the applicant must certify to the
Drainage Engineer that all City Drainage Manual requirements for a Stormwater Permit are met
by the Site Development Plan. Approval of the Site Development Plan constitutes approval of
the Stormwater Permit.
G. The Site Development Plan shall conform to standard engineering practices and must be sealed
by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Texas, except as otherwise provided for in
this Section.
H. The materials, embedment, and testing of all private main utility lines 6 inches and above in
diameter shall meet the requirements of the City’s Construction Specifications and Standards
Manual and/or the approved City Building Codes.
3.09.040 Components of a Site Development Plan
All Site Development Plans shall include the following components demonstrating compliance with
the provisions of this Code and the UDC Development Manual, unless otherwise provided for within
this Section:
A. Cover Sheet;
B. Dimensional Site Plan;
C. Architectural Plan;
D. Lighting Plan;
E. Landscape Plan;
F. Tree Preservation Plan;
G. Utility Plan;
H. Grading Plan; and
I. Drainage Plan.
Page 12 of 27
3.09.050 Site Development Plan Area of Development
A Site Development Plan shall include the entire area within the legal boundaries of the tract for
which it is proposed; however, the area included in a Site Development Plan may be reduced to
reflect the actual area of development in the situations listed below. The new artificial boundary
shall be the same used for all components of the Site Development Plan and shall be scaled such that
all requirements applicable to the Site Development Plan can be met within that boundary.
A. The area of development is part of a much larger tract whereby the area encompasses less than
50% of the total tract;
B. The proposed improvements are part of a larger campus where the areas are designed to
function relatively independent of each other;
C. The excluded area is to remain undeveloped and in its natural state;
D. The improvements are proposed to be added to an existing site, provided:
1. No improvements are proposed to the excluded area;
1. Review of the excluded area is not necessary for review of the area of development;
2. The improvements proposed within the area of development are not dependent on
improvements located within the excluded area; and
3. No retrofitting of existing site improvements is required pursuant to the provisions
applicable to the expansion of a nonconforming structure or site in Chapter 14; and
E. Other similar circumstances as determined by the Director.
3.09.060 Site Development Plan Phasing
When development is proposed for a larger site with multiple buildings, an applicant may choose to
partition the site and construct the improvements in a series of phases as follows:
A. The Site Development Plan submittal shall include a Phasing Plan indicating the boundaries of
each phase and the order of construction of associated site improvements.
B. No Phasing Plan shall propose more than 5 phases or exceed a period of 10 years. The Director
may approve phasing in excess of this number if the applicant can provide justification for such.
C. The proposed order of phasing shall follow a logical progression and, in the event subsequent
phases are not built, must meet the minimum requirements of this Code, including, but not
limited to, parking, landscaping, tree mitigation, fire access and stormwater management.
D. Changes to a Phasing Plan shall meet the requirements of this Section and follow the
procedures established for revisions of Site Development Plans.
3.09.070 Minor Site Development Plan
Where the scope of required or proposed site improvements is limited, as herein defined, a Minor
Site Development Plan review process may be utilized subject to the provisions below.
A. Determination of Minor Site Development Plan Review
1. A Minor Site Development Plan submittal may be considered when the extent, type or size
of the site improvements is so minimalsuch that review of all standard Site Development
Page 13 of 27
Plan components, as identified in Section 3.09.040, is not necessary, as determined by the
Director. Typical situations qualifying for Minor Site Development Plan review may
include, but not be limited to, improvements required by Chapter 14 due to a change in use,
a small addition to a building over existing impervious coverage, installing parking lot
striping on an existing unmarked parking lot, or replacement of a site’s existing
landscaping, or where only one component of a Site Development Plan, as outlined in
Section 3.09.040, is required.
2. A Minor Site Development Plan review shall not be utilized when:
a. Site improvements are proposed to a property where no development has otherwise
occurred, except in unique situations as determined by the Director;
b. The proposed project requires preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA);
c. The proposed project requires preparation of a stormwater drainage study, although
some drainage information may be reviewed as part of a Minor Site Plan;
d. Impervious coverage in excess of 1,500 square feet is proposed;
e.d. A new building(s) in excess of 1,000 square feet or a building addition in excess of 500
square feet20% of the existing building square footage is proposed;
f.e. The intended project requires or proposes more than 4 6 parking spaces; or
g.f. Similar situations are proposed as determined by the Director.
B. Components of a Minor Site Development Plan
The components required with a Minor Site Development Plan application shall be those
determined by the Director to be applicable to the particular situation and necessary to verify
the conformance of the proposed site improvements with the provisions of this Code. The
Director may determine an engineer is not required to prepare the plans under the Minor Site
Development Plan provisions if the proposed improvements do not warrant such.
3.09.080 Revisions to Approved Site Development Plans
Any modifications to an approved Site Development Plan must be resubmitted to the Director for
consideration as follows:
A. Modifications to an approved Site Development Plan which do not substantially change the
design or nature of the original Site Development Plan and have no significant adverse impact
upon neighboring properties, the public or persons who will occupy or use the proposed
development may be processed as a Site Development Plan Amendment. An application for
Site Development Plan Amendment following the requirements of the UDC Development
Manual shall be submitted to the Planning Department which identifying the requested
revisions and / or modifications. Any changes approved by the Director shall be shown on the
revised Site Development Plan.
B. The Director may determine a correction or a modification is so minuscule or insignificant that
it does not warrant review of a Site Development Plan Amendment and cause the change to be
directly updated and included in the original file.
C. All other revisions and / or modifications not defined as “minor”to an existing Site
Development Plan that do not meet the provisions of Sections 3.09.080.A or 3.09.080.B above
shall be processed as a new application.
Page 14 of 27
C.D. Approval of a
modifieda new or revised Site Development Plan application, processed as a new application,
shall void the previously approved Site Development Plan.
3.09.060 Expiration
A. A Site Development Plan shall expire 24 months after the date that the Site Development Plan
was approved, unless:
1. A Building Permit application has been approved or, if no Building Permit is required, a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
2. In case of projects where more than one building or phase is to be built, the applicant may
submit a series of Building Permit applications. The first application must be approved
within 24 months from the date Site Development Plan approval is granted. Each
subsequent application must be approved within 24 months from the date of issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, conditional or otherwise, by the Building Official for the previous
phase of the development.
3. Except as provided for within this Section, a lapse of a period greater than those set forth
above causes the related approvals or permits to expire and be of no further force and effect.
Any further action shall require a new application and approval.
B. Site Development Plan Extension
Prior to expiration of an approved Site Development Plan, an applicant may request a one-time
extension of the Site Development Plan approval for a period of 24 months if the Director
determines such extension will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area and would
not be contrary to the public interest. A request for Site Development Plan extension shall
follow the procedures set forth for such in the UDC Development Manual.
C. Site Development Plan Reinstatement
In the event a Site Development Plan approval expires, an applicant may seek a one-time
reinstatement of the approved Site Development Plan, without modification, subject to the
provisions below. Such reinstatement may be granted by the Director for a period not to exceed
24 months. A request for Site Development Plan reinstatement shall follow the procedures set
forth for such in the UDC Development Manual.
1. The reinstatement must be requested within 24 months of the expiration date of the
approved Site Development Plan.
2. The regulations applicable to the project per the Code currently in effect may not be
determined to be significantly different from those applied to the original approval of the
Site Development Plan, such that a new application for the same plan would be
substantially the same.
3. The circumstances of the adjacent properties, roadways and subject property shall have
remained the same, so as to not change the requirements applicable to the property. Such
circumstances could include, but not be limited to, a change of zoning in the subject or
adjacent properties, a change in the boundary of the subject property, a change in
classification of the adjacent roadway or neighboring construction affecting landscape
buffers.
Page 15 of 27
D. The Director shall have the authority to determine if a Site Development Plan Extension or
Reinstatement meets the criteria for processing and approval.
3.09.070 Site Related Construction Plans
Where a Site Plan entails site construction, Construction Plans shall be required and must be
approved by the Development Engineer prior to any site construction. The plans shall be submitted
for all existing and proposed private and public parking, driveways, sidewalks, drainage, and utility
improvements. Review of site related Construction Plans shall follow the procedure set forth in
Section 3.03.040. The site related Construction Plans may be included as part of the Site Plan, subject
to the requirements in the Development Manual.
Site related Construction Plans must be consistent with the approved site plan.
A. For all public improvements the plans shall conform to the City’s Construction Specifications
and Standards Manual and this Code.
A. For all private improvements, the plans shall conform to standard engineering practices and
must be sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Texas.
A. The materials, embedment, and testing of all private main utility lines 6 inches and above in
diameter shall meet the requirements of the City’s Construction Specifications and Standards
Manual and/or the approved City Building Codes.
A. The site construction plans shall meet the requirements of the City Drainage Manual.
Section 3.12 Master Sign Plan
3.12.050 Expiration
A Master Sign Plan shall expire 24 months after the date that the Master Sign Plan was approved
unless:
A. A Building Permit application has been approved or, if no Building Permit is required, a
Certificate of Occupancy, or equivalent, has been issued.
B. In case of projects where more than one building or phase is to be built, the applicant may
submit a series of Building Permit applications. The first application must be approved within
12 months from the date Site Development Plan approval is granted. Each subsequent
application must be submitted within 24 months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy by the Building Official for the previous phase of the development.
Section 3.17 Stormwater Permit
3.17.010 Applicability
A Stormwater Permit is required prior to any land disturbance, as defined in Section 16.02, within the
City limits or the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction to ensure conformance to the stormwater
management provisions and other applicable requirements of this Unified Development Code.
Approval of a Site Development Plan within the City Limits constitutes approval of a Stormwater
Permit for that specific development. The provisions of this Section related to Stormwater
Permitting are adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Page 16 of 27
Agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, The Texas Local Government Code
Chapters 211 and 212, and the City Charter.
Section 3.23 Heritage Tree Removal Permit
3.23.060 Submission Requirements
A. Statement of Justification for tree removal.
B. Copy of companion plat, Site Development Plan or concept plan for the permit or authorization
that required compliance with this Section.
C. Copy of Tree Survey, if applicable. If no Tree Survey exists, location of tree identified, tree type,
size, condition, etc.
D. A photo of the tree’s canopy and trunk, labeled with the corresponding tree number on the
companion Tree Survey, shall be submitted with the application for a Heritage Tree Removal
Permit.
Section 3.24 Heritage Tree Pruning Permit
3.24.050 Submission Requirements
A. Statement of Justification for tree pruning.
B. Copy of companion plat, Site Development Plan or concept plan for the permit or authorization
that required compliance with this Section.
C. A photo (digital or hardcopy) of the tree, labeled with the tree number on the Tree Survey,
DBH, species, and contractor’s ISA certification number, shall be submitted with the application
for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit.
Page 17 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to vehicular access limitations
for certain Civic Uses identified in Section 5.03 (UDC General Amendment List Item 20).
(Valerie Kreger)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The UDC currently attaches limitations to the majority of the civic land uses, including schools
and churches, that requires the principal vehicular entrance and exit from the site to be taken from
a collector level street or higher. There have been instances where the better point of primary
access would have actually been on a local level roadway, but the UDC limitation prevented this.
This amendment simply adds in the ability of the Development Engineer to approve primary
access from a local roadway when determined appropriate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
-
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Civic Land Use Limitations Amendment Language Exhibit
Page 18 of 27
Chapter 5 Zoning Use Regulations
Section 5.03 Civic Uses
5.03.020 Civic Use Limitations
All civic uses shall meet any applicable provisions of the City Code of Ordinances, in addition
to the following limitations. Outdoor display and storage requirements, if applicable, shall be
met in accordance with Section 5.09.
A. All Civic Uses
All Civic Uses, except Day Care, shall meet the following provisions, where applicable
per Table 5.03.010. Uses that require a Special Use Permit, in accordance with Table
5.03.010, shall meet the following criteria in addition to securing said permit.
1. Any outdoor recreational playing field shall be set back 50 feet from any property
line.
2. The principal vehicular entrance and exit shall be located on a collector-level street
or higher, except as otherwise approved by the Development Engineer.
Page 19 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related to Council approval of the
location and minimum development standards of outdoor and indoor self-storage facilities in the
C-3 zoning district. (2014 UDC General Amendment List Item 20). (Valerie Kreger and Jordan
Maddox)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Self-storage is becoming a major industry and Georgetown is seeing dozens of proposals for
storage projects along major roadways and in prime commercial locations. There is certainly a
need for these facilities in the community and the activity that staff is seeing is indicative of the
market demand. Self-storage needs to be relatively convenient for people, but is typically not a
daily need and location of these facilities need to be balanced throughout the community with
other personal services and retail establishments.
The UDC currently allows self-storage with site design conditions in both the C-3 and IN
Districts, with indoor storage allowed by-right in IN. These conditions include a combination of
screening, aesthetic considerations, and access. If the conditions are met, the storage facility may
locate anywhere in the C-3 and IN Districts.
Staff is proposing to add further Council consideration regarding the locations of these facilities in
the C-3 District through a Special Use Permit (SUP). This will provide additional discretion when
an outdoor or indoor storage unit is seeking to locate on a retail corridor or adjacent to
incompatible uses. The text amendment proposal also includes modernizing the site conditions on
storage facilities that will help ensure a high-quality appearance from the outside of the facilities
and further sustain property values. The use conditions would also apply in the IN District, but the
SUP would only apply in the C-3 District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddox, AICP, Acting Planning Director
Page 20 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding proposed UDC amendment language related the applicability of the
nonresidential building design requirements of UDC Section 7.04 (2014 UDC General
Amendment List Item 29). (Valerie Kreger)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Since adoption of the nonresidential building design requirements of the UDC in 2003, staff has
experienced situations in which application of the requirements is not practical and exemptions
from the requirements for certain situations is appropriate. The first is related to agricultural
buildings used for farming, ranching, or sheltering of animals. The second is related to temporary
buildings associated with approval of a Temporary Use Permit. Staff found that it would seem
logical in both situations to not require articulation, etc., but the UDC does not specifically exempt
these buildings from the design requirements. Additionally, one of the existing exemptions needed
revision. The current UDC exemption provides relief for industrial uses that are located in and
only allowed in Industrial districts. However, over time the use of the building may change, not
providing for the same exemption that was previously applied. So, this section has been updated to
indicate that it applies to any buildings in an Industrial district, except where the building is
adjacent to a public park, Residential district, or a minor or freeway level roadway.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
-
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Nonresidential Building Design Exemption Amendment
Language
Exhibit
Page 21 of 27
Chapter 7 Non-Residential Zoning Districts: Lot,
Dimensional, and Design Standards
Section 7.04 Building Design Standards
7.04.010 Applicability
New buildings and expansions to existing buildings that are adjacent to or front a public
street, public park or Residential District shall comply with the standards of Section 7.04, with
the exception of those described in Section 7.04.020 below.
7.04.020 Structures Exempt from Building Design Standards
A. New buildings of less than 250 square feet and 15 feet in height are exempt from all
requirements of Section 7.04.
B. New buildings and expansions to existing buildings located in an Industrial District are
exempt from the requirements of Section 7.04, with the exception of Section 7.04.030;
however, all requirement of Section 7.04 shall be applicable when those buildings are
adjacent to a public park, Residential District, or minor or freeway level roadway as
identified in the Thoroughfare PlanThe following are exempt from all requirements of
Section 7.04, with the exception of Section 7.04.030:
1. Industrial Uses that are located in, and only allowed in, the Industrial District. However,
all building walls facing a Gateway roadway, established in Section 4.13, shall meet the
standards of Section 7.04.
2C. Where building expansions are less than 20% of the existing building’s square footage,
an applicant may request an Administrative Exception to the those requirements of
Section 7.04 that are not met by the original structure, using the process established in
Sections 7.04.070 and 3.16.
D. Agricultural buildings used for the purposes of farming, ranching or sheltering of
animals are exempt from the requirements of Section 7.04.
E. Temporary buildings used for Temporary Uses, as identified in Section 5.08, are exempt
from the requirements of Section 7.04.
Page 22 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
July 7, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding next steps to finish out the 2014-2015 UDC amendment review period and
begin the 2015-2016 review period. (Valerie Kreger)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The UDC amendment process sets out that the General Amendments List will be reviewed and
adopted by City Council each year, after review and consideration by the UDC Advisory
Committee. The primary responsibility of the Committee is to review and make recommendations
regarding UDC amendments included as part of the General Amendments List.
The 2014-2015 UDC General Amendment List started out with 69 proposed amendment items that
were originally expected to be reviewed over a two year period. The time period was revised to a
one year review cycle and as such, not all of the items on the initial list were able to be completed
in one year. The Committee has reviewed and provided comment on 22 of the items on the list, as
of this meeting. These items will be brought before the Committee again for public hearing and
Committee action (recommendation) at the next meeting. The items and the Committee's
recommendation will then be brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
recommendation, and then the City Council for final action.
The completed items will be removed from the list and the Committee will then begin discussions
to update the existing list and consider new items to add to the list that the Committee will work
from over the year. After further review, staff has proposed to remove 10 items from the 2014 list
that were not completed. The remaining items (40) will carry over into the next review cycle.
Some of the items have already been identified to be completed as a group that staff anticipates
will come before the Committee and City Council separately from the others the beginning of
2016 and the remaining items will most likely be completed and brought to the Committee and
City Council at the end of the annual review cycle.
Staff is currently in the process of reviewing any issues that have arisen over the past year to
determine if they warrant update to the UDC and therefore addition to the list and are seeking
input from the Committee regarding any aspects of the UDC it feels may need consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
-
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Amendment List Backup Material
Page 23 of 27
Requested General Amendments for the 2014 Review Period
General
Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section
1 Update the requirements of the Pre-application
Process to reflect updates in current practice.Update the requirements of the Pre-application Process to reflect updates in current practice. 3.02.010
2 Update the provisions related to the Development
Manual process to reflect updates in current practice.
Update the provisions related to the Development Manual process to reflect updates in current
practice.1.11
4 Review the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Development Plan requirements for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included in the Development Plan required for consideration
of a PUD. Not all of these details are always needed or applicable. Staff proposes we look at this list
and consider whether all are needed or appropriate.
3.06 & 4.06
7 Create a UDC section acknowledging the city’s current
annexation process.Formalize existing process, in keeping with State Law and the City Charter. Chapter 3
13 Reconsider the current three acre minimum PUD size
requirement.
Consider smaller PUDs in certain circumstances or consider various levels of requirements and/or
scrutiny based on size.Chapter 4
22 Review the current accessory dwelling unit regulations
regarding garage apartment rental.
Accessory dwelling units have become more and more popular and accepted in other cities around the
area and country. Staff has been approached many times by citizens interested in having a garage
apartment either for personal reasons such as elder care or for rental purposes. Clarification is
needed regarding what may constitute rental as well as a fresh look at the concerns or challenges of
the rental of accessory dwelling units.
5.02.020.B
26
Review the list of features currently allowed within the
setbacks on residentially zoned properties to
determine if additional features should be allowed.
Reconsider setback features, including certain patios in front yards which many homeowners are
seeking. Also, consider features in light of water conservation requirements. Clarification of driveway
placement in setbacks, including circular drives.
6.05
39
Reconsider the residential fence street setback
requirements and/or consider grandfathering
allowances for replacement of existing fences.
The street setback requirement for residential fences has created issues in existing neighborhoods
where fence lines are not consistent and locational conflicts when replacing existing fences.8.07
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
40 Consider additional alternative parking space design
options.
Consider updating the parking space design options to allow for alternative designs that have been
considered since the last update to this section.9.03.020
42 Consider expanding the roadway types on which high
profile monument signs may be located.
High Profile Monument signs are currently allowed only on I-35, 195 and 130. Other regional roadways
that will be high-speed with expanded rights-of-way (e.g. 29 west, 1460, Bypass/Sam Houston) may
also warrant taller, architecturally sound identification signage.
10.06
43 Clarify application of maximum sign area in Table
10.06.010.
The current language in Table 10.06.010 has caused some applicants to believe the maximum sign
area is per sign, with no limit on the number of signs.10.06.010
45 Consider increasing Subdivision Entry Sign size and
height on major thoroughfares.
The City’s subdivision entry sign regulations require small entry signs. On high-speed major
thoroughfares (SH 29, 2243, 195, etc.) large residential subdivisions are asking for taller and larger
signage for identification.
10.06
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
58 Remove the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
from the approval process for allowing septic systems.
Currently, a request to utilize a septic system in lieu of tying on to a public wastewater system must go
to the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board for recommendation prior to City Council
consideration. This amendment would remove this recommendation step and instead send these
requests directly to City Council.
13.06.030.A.4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
&
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Based on experience applying certain limitations listed within Chapter 5, some need further
clarification or need to be reconsidered. These include civic use street access restrictions and building
size limitations for retail and medical uses.
Reconsider some of the limitations applied to specific
uses.20
La
n
d
U
s
e
s
Review required setbacks for nonresidential districts to determine if they are still appropriate in all
cases, particularly when adjacent to other nonresidential districts or within the same development.
Also consider expanding what features may be allowed in the setbacks and when, particularly
regarding parking.
Si
g
n
s
46
Consider updates to address whether various
attention seeking devices or structures are signage,
including subdivision entry features.
Provide some clarification as to when certain features or devices should be considered signage and to
what extent. More and more residential subdivisions (and some non-residential) are seeking to
identify their development through architectural features and monuments (e.g. stone towers,
windmills, cisterns, walls, etc.). Additionally, there are regularly new methods of attracting attention to
a location that have been presented to staff that need clarification within the code as to whether it is
signage or not.
10.03
38
Consider additional exceptions to fence height and
assign Administrative Exception action to the Building
Official.
Expand the built-in exceptions for fence height to additional circumstances to allow more flexibility for
residential fences. Additionally, the Building Official should be authority on further exceptions to fence
standards as permits for fences are handled directly through the Inspections Department.
8.07
Fe
n
c
e
s
6.07.020
30
Review required setbacks for districts and consider
expanding what may be allowed in the setbacks,
particularly regarding parking.
Chapter 7
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
27 Revise Housing Diversity standards and separate
attainability (affordability) separate from diversity.
Allow development standard alternatives that will incentivize work force housing without requiring a
variety of housing types and expand incentives to include multifamily housing.
Staff has run into some challenges applying and interpreting the residential accessory structure
requirements, particularly with regard to the height and size limitations.6.06.010
7.03
25 Review the current accessory structure requirements
for clarity and consider adding exceptions.
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
16
Consider whether the minimum acreage size for
Industrial and Business Park zoning should be
lessened.
The existing minimum acreage sizes for Industrial and Business Park present challenges in certain
areas where the zoning would be appropriate. Reconsider when and if the minimum size is
appropriate.
7.04
Anticipated Completion August 2015
Chapter 5
29 Clarify applicability of and consider expanding
exemptions to building design standards.
Review the applicability of the nonresidential building design requirements for clarity and reconsider
exemptions to the section, including revising the exemption related to industrial uses in the Industrial
District.
9
Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity
regarding revisions and to reflect updates in the
process.
Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity regarding revisions, as there is some confusion
regarding when something should be handled as an Amendment to a Site Plan or a Minor Site Plan,
and to reflect updates in the process including Site Plans incorporating Construction Plans.
3.09
Page 1 of 8Page 24 of 27
General
Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section
3 Create a process to address requests for vesting
determinations.
Vesting claims have been presented to the city occasionally over the past few years, but with no
defined procedures for addressing. These requests will likely increase over the next few years as the
city has adopted new regulations that will apply to some existing developments.
Chapter 3
15 Reconsider how the current Gateway Overlay districts
are being used.
Currently, the Gateway Overlay districts only provide for additional landscaping along the frontages of
these roads. Staff would like to explore utilizing these districts to address other issues that have
presented over the last couple of years such as land uses or design.
4.13
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited", "Contractor Services General", and "Office
Warehouse" Specific Uses in the C-3 zoning district.Chapter 5
21 Acknowledge mobile food trailers as a use within the
UDC and outline appropriate regulations governing.
Mobile food trailers have increased in popularity and the city’s codes should be updated to address
them.3.11 & 5.08
23
Review provisions and definitions related to Sexually
Oriented Businesses (SOB) for consistency with the
City’s Code of Ordinances.
The City Code of Ordinances has provisions governing SOBs in addition to the UDC’s provisions. Some
of the regulations within each document are inconsistent with each other and need clarification and
revision.
5.04 & 16.04
24
Provide better clarification regarding when a use is
considered an accessory use and when it is
considered an additional primary use.
There has been some question in the past when more than one use is proposed on the same property
or with the same business as to whether the use should be treated as an accessory use to the primary
use or whether it should be handled as another primary use on the property. Also, clarity with regards
to the standards that the accessory use must adhere to should be provided as well.
5.01.020
26
Review the list of features currently allowed within the
setbacks on residentially zoned properties to
determine if additional features should be allowed.
Reconsider setback features, including certain patios in front yards which many homeowners are
seeking. Also, consider features in light of water conservation requirements. Clarification of driveway
placement in setbacks, including circular drives.
6.05
28 Review and update Conservation Subdivision
standards to encourage usage.
Update conservation subdivision section to relax restrictions and incentivize its use. Consider in light of
salamander listing and water conservation ordinance standards.11.06
31 Address pedestrian connectivity between building
entry and public sidewalk.
Ensure that buildings that are open to the public have reasonable, direct pedestrian access from the
street / sidewalk.7.04.040.E
32 Clarify how setbacks are applied when right-of-way is
dedicated or reserved.
Review setback provisions to ensure the requirements are clear as to where the setback is measured
from when right-of-way is to be dedicated or reserved with a new development.7.03.030.B
33 Provide more alternative site design options through
the Administrative Exception process.
The Administrative Exception process has successfully provided opportunities for alternative flexibility
in certain aspects of the development process. Consider if there are additional provisions that could
fall under the Administrative Exception purvue to allow for more flexible solutions.
Chapter 7
35 Review current requirements for screening of
mechanical equipment for options or exceptions.
There are difficulties in applying the screening requirements in every situation. More exemptions or
options are needed.8.04.070.C
36 Clarify application and calculation of landscaping
requirements.
Based on experience with the provisions, staff has recognized the need to clarify the application of the
street yard landscaping requirements to projects located a great distance from the street as well as
phased projects since, as written street yard landscaping applies to yards defined by buildings, not
areas. Additionally, clarification is needed regarding what areas are to be included or not included in
various landscape calculations.
8.04.030
Si
g
n
s
47 Reconsider maximum height for monument signs
when landscaping is incorporated.
Consider allowing an increase in maximum height permitted for monument signs when landscaping is
incorporated at the base.10.06
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
&
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
/
P
l
a
t
t
i
n
g
La
n
d
U
s
e
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
8.0437
Review current nonresidential landscaping
requirements with regard to the city’s water
conservation efforts.
Consider updates to the nonresidential landscaping requirements to address the ongoing drought
conditions and incorporate provisions to address water conservation efforts.
Chapter 5
34 Provide more specification regarding current lighting
requirements.
Portions of the section regarding lighting requirements for nonresidential developments are subjective
or vague. Additional clarity is needed.7.05.010
19 Add or amend standard conditions of approval for
Special Use Permits required for specific uses.
Staff proposes adding standard conditions of approval to Special Use Permits that currently do not
have any and possibly refining some of the conditions for those that do in order to provide better
direction to applicants.
18 Consider changes to the zoning districts various
Specific Uses may be permitted in.
Staff is regularly presented with questions regarding the possibility of allowing different uses in
districts they are not otherwise allowed in and would like to address some of these through the public
process in the next round of updates to the UDC. Examples include allowing stand-alone medical
offices in the Industrial district and whether recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as primary
quarters in the Agriculture district.
Chapter 5
4.12
17 Consider updating the list of Specific Uses in Chapter
5 to include various uses that are not currently listed.
Over time new uses are presented to staff that are not specifically addressed in the UDC. Examples
include self-service machines (ice) and storage yards.Chapter 5
Zo
n
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
14 Review Courthouse View Protection Overlay district
requirements for clarity and completeness.
The Courthouse View Overlay provisions should be reviewed to make sure they are complete, that
there are no missing steps, and that the specifics of how to apply this overlay are clear.
3.07
11 Review current exemptions to platting requirements
for clarity.
Update subdivision language to reflect case law, attorney general opinions and correct confusion
between 3.08.020 and 3.08.010 E relative to division of land for the purposes sale versus division of
land for development.
3.08.020
Incomplete Items for 2015 List
5 Review the Special Use Permit (SUP) Conceptual Site
Plan requirements for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included on the Conceptual Site Plan required for
consideration of an SUP. Not all of these details are needed or applicable to all types of SUPs. Staff
proposes we look at this list and consider whether all are needed or appropriate.
12 Review and update Preliminary Plat phasing provisions
based on experience.
For larger tracts, consider a preliminary process such as a concept plan that creates long-term
expectations for utilities, transportation, public facilities, parks, etc. without requiring plat-level
engineering and detail. Consider minimum acreage sizes for preliminary plats and/or concept plans.
Protect street connectivity between subdivisions by having more global plans.
3.08.070
6 Expand development agreement language establishing
clear requirements and processes.
Upcoming policies for procedures and consideration of special districts and development agreements
are anticipated and would require UDC amendments to implement.3.2
Page 2 of 8Page 25 of 27
General
Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section
50 Update the UDC based on the pending updates to the
Overall Transportation Plan.
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on pending updates to the Overall
Transportation Plan.Chapter 12
54 Review access requirements on numbered county
roads.
Review access requirements on numbered county roads to determine if any additional provisions
should be considered. 13.04.030
55 Address naming policies related to private streets and
drives internal to multi-tract developments.
Consider applying the city’s street naming requirements for public streets to private driveways/streets
that serve more than one internal tract in order to address 911 issues identifying emergency locations.12.03 & 12.04
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
60 Review special district procedures and approval
criteria
The City is currently reconsidering its policy on special districts in light of an overwhelming number of
requests and unique situations. Update 13.10 to reflect new policies and procedures.13.10 and 3.20
61 Refine the UDC regulations regarding abandonment of
a nonconforming situation.
Based on experiences with the provisions, staff would like to provide better clarity regarding the
determination of abandonment.14.01.060
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
65
Update codes to provide provisions for green building
strategies and ensure regulations do not
unintentionally prohibit such strategies
The UDC should be reviewed to ensure there are not unintentional barriers to utilization of sustainable
energy, such as requiring solar energy panels to be screened.Various
66
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be
necessary based on updates to the Downtown Master
Plan.
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on updates to the Downtown Master
Plan.Various
67
Consider adding limitations to certain uses to create a
"transition zone" between the Downtown and Old Town
overlays.
Consider adding limitations to certain uses along the edge of the Downtown Overlay that are adjacent
to residential uses outside the overlay to create a "transition zone" between the Downtown and Old
Town overlays.
Chapter 5
Ne
w 69 Residential Infill Added by City Council
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
De
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
64 Revise various definitions for clarity or add new
definitions as needed.
Staff has come across several definitions that need clarity or definitions that are needed to provide
clarity in other sections of the UDC. Examples include clarification of street yard definition and
consideration of the current contractor services, limited definition. In addition this would include any
revisions to definitions needed for other revisions made to the UDC.
Chapter 16
No
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
63
Define process for determining nonconforming status
and consider if there are additional existing situations
to exempt.
Staff currently receives requests for determination of nonconforming status, particularly abandonment
status, and the process for this determination should be clarified and included in the UDC.Chapter 14
Pa
r
k
l
a
n
d
57
Update provisions governing parkland dedication
based on forthcoming recommendations by the Parks
& Recreation Board subcommittee review.
A subcommittee of the Parks & Recreation Board has been created that is tasked with reviewing and
providing recommended changes regarding the city’s parkland provisions and policies.13.05
Chapter 13
12.02
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
59
Review and update of Chapter 13 provisions related to
water and wastewater improvements and extension
requirements.
General review of language regarding utility improvements which have not been updated in some time,
including extension policy for plats and site plans. Review for updates, clarification of current policy
and terminology. Includes Rural Residential Subdivision criteria and standards. Also, update any
regulations affecting provision of water in order to implement any changes that may result from the
potential merger with Chisholm Trail Special Utility District.
53
Consider updates to street standards to address
current and pending inconsistencies between different
agencies and documents.
When implementing new OTP (pending) and Fire Code (approved), consider new standard, alternative
and contextual street cross sections that account for public safety needs, traffic requirements and
needs of private property in relation to public streets. Also, there are current inconsistencies between
current OTP design standards and the current UDC design standards. Additionally, the city’s standards
should be reviewed against Williamson County’s standards to address inconsistencies, especially
related to any HB 1445 Agreement issues or potential updates.
Chapter 12,
Sections 13.04,
11.06
Chapter 12
52
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.
The City needs to ensure we are adequately preparing for future roadways with plats, dedications and
reservations. Clarification is needed regarding when Traffic Impact Analyses are required and
appealed, and how right-of-way is being planned to implement the City’s Overall Transportation Plan,
for example, adequate intersection right-of-way.
Chapter 12
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
51
Review and consider updates to the City’s provisions
related to connectivity (subdivision access points)
between neighboring developments.
Connectivity (subdivision access points) is extremely important to the function of our public safety and
transportation network. In process, design, and implementation, the City has not received adequate
connection points and homeowners complain when streets are connected. We need to globally
reconsider the ratio, design, locations, and exemption process to protect traffic movement, public
safety access and ability to use street facilities as planned.
56 Review sidewalk extension and design provisions.
Review sidewalk extension and design provisions and consider updates as may be necessary
regarding upcoming Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit. Additionally, the residential
sidewalk fund provisions should be reviewed.
Page 3 of 8Page 26 of 27
General
Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section
8 Review the criteria for approval used when evaluating
rezoning requests.
Assist P&Z and City Council with consistent approval criteria lessen subjectivity and potential for
challenge of arbitrary or unreasonable findings.3.06.030
10
Consider withholding or limiting approval on
applications when the property owner has unresolved
City Code violations.
Existing language in Chapter 15 is unclear if additional entitlements may be withheld for violations of
City Code, even when there is a serious life, health, safey violation on a property.15.03.040
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
/
Pl
a
t
t
i
n
g
11 Review current exemptions to platting requirements
for clarity.
Update subdivision language to reflect case law, attorney general opinions and correct confusion
between 3.08.020 and 3.08.010 E relative to division of land for the purposes sale versus division of
land for development.
3.08.020
La
n
d
Us
e
s
17 Consider updating the list of Specific Uses in Chapter
5 to include various uses that are not currently listed.
Consider allowing small scale residential cottage product by-right, something with "micro lots", maybe
just in an infill situation or allow for small residential PUDS.Chapter 5
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
41 Review the paved surfaces currently approved for
parking lots and consider additional surfaces.
Consider an updated review of the materials or products that may be acceptable to meet the
requirements for paved surfaces for parking lots.Chapter 9
48
Update UDC regarding temporary signs for open house
and model homes as may be necessary now that they
are being enforced.
Updates to the regulations governing Temporary Off-Premise Signs for Open Houses and Model Homes
may be necessary to address any changes in current city operations since the regulations were
written.
10.07.050
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
49 Consider bonuses for rain collection and other non-
runoff alternatives.Explore new alternatives and waivers for residential and non-residential for rain collection, etc. Chapter 11
No
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
62 Refine the UDC regulations regarding expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Consider refining provisions applicable to the expansion of buildings that do not conform to current
requirements for clarification and flexibility.14.04.080
Zu
c
k
e
r
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
St
u
d
y
68
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be
necessary based on a pending recommendations from
the consultant’s study of city operations.
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on a pending recommendations
from the consultant’s study of city operations.Various
10.07
Remove from List
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
&
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Si
g
n
s
44
Review temporary banner regulations to update event
banner provisions, address temporary banner
approval, and consider subdivision banners.
Review temporary banner regulations to update event banner provisions as they are no longer allowed
across streets, to address temporary banner approval downtown, and to consider internal subdivision
banners.
Page 4 of 8Page 27 of 27