Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCAC_02.14.2024Minutes of the Unified Development Code Advisory Commissio City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, February 14, 2024 The Georgetown unified Development Code Advisory Commission met on Wednesday, February 1 2024 at 3:30 PM at Community Hall, Community Room, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street. i you require assistance in pat ficipaunit, M a WASIR; ITIC0111 IijF ItTe-I reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact e or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. The following Members were in attendance: Present were: Scott A Allen, Joshua A Baran, Brian A Carr, Troy Hellmann, Travis Perthuis, Shelley G G Rodocker, Brad Strittmatler Public Wishing to Address the Board prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address t Board or Commission members. No action can be taken. I 1. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 10, 2024 regular Unified Development Code Advisory Commission meeting -- Erica Metress, Moved by Scott A Allen; seconded by Troy Hellmann to Approve the minutes from the January 10th meeting. Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Scott A Allen, Joshua A Baran, Brian A Carr, Troy Hellmann, Travis Perthuis, Shelley G G Rodocker, Brad Strittmatter Voting Against: None 1.B Review of Rezoning, Special Ose Permit, and PUD Criteria Discussion on Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.06.030 (Approval Criteria fo Rezoning), Section 3,07 (Approval Criteria for Special Use Permits), and Section 3.06.4 (Approval Criteria for Planned Unit Development) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director I jessicTO—MansKi, AssocFa-fe lan(Tel', �PITTI a 711,11-111nari T the January 10th UDCAC meeting. 11 1 Ma'AT-TOO, "I, MWITCffiTt7 ' I I I . information that was not captured in the summary. MCHME�.H tea tne comff TjTrewemne next agenii -111 committee will concentrate on discussing the Rezoning Criteria, found in the UDC section 3.06.030, to offer guidance to the Unified Development Code Steering Committee. TOIJ, =C- I - TI-rZM the application is complete, but additional information is required to provide an adequate review. Committee Member Baran shared his thought that criteria A is redundant due to the required completeness review with staff, Chair Perthuis asked if there was a situation where the application was complete, but criteria A was considered noncompliant. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director, recalled a situation when the fee was not paid and noted that there were rare instances with an error in the description that caused Nelson questioned committee members who have been or are current P&Z commissioners if they expect the application to be complete before it is schedule for a P&Z meeting, Chair Perthuis asked if applicants are required to submit information on wastewater or utilities to apply for a rezoning application. Nelson highlighted that there is a difference in submitting documents for the completeness review and providing information for infrastructure. Lemanski explained that the letter of intent should include a justification and explanation of how the proposal is in compliance with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, an explanation of how roads and utilities will serve the property, and an explanation as to how the request meets the approval criteria outlined in the UDC. Nelson summarized the discussion points as possibly dividing criteria A into two sections with the completeness of the application as one and the rest of criteria A as another, and to provide clearer terms than sufficient, correct enough, and adequate. Committee Member Hellmann recommended to remove all of criteria A except for the section that states that the application is complete. Committee Member Hellmann continued to note that if the commission doesn't receive enough information, then the application checklists are not reflective of what creates a complete application. Nelson suggested phrasing criteria A as "the application is complete based on the most recent development manual." Baird recommended phrasing criteria A as "the status of the application during the last submittal is complete instead of connecting it to the most recent development manual due to possible noncompliance based on changes that may occur in the development manual. The Committee expressed approval for Criteria B in the Rezoning Approval Criteria. Committee Member Hellmann shared his belief that criteria C is implied in the Comprehensive Plan Committee Member Allen shared his concern with the word "promotes" in criteria C. Committee Member Baran expressed his appreciation for the section of criteria C that notates the safe orderly and health development of the city. Baird explained to the Committee that the portion of criteria C that notates the promotion of health, safety, or general welfare of the city is similar to that of the state law. Ryan Clark, Long Range Senior Planner, shared with the Committee that the City of McKinney, Texas recently revised their Unified Development Code and read the approval criteria for all zoning changes found in their UDC Article 2: Zoning Regulations, Section 203 C, 2.e. Commissioner Allen highlighted the word supports and explained that there is a different connotation between that word and the word promotes. Nelson summarized the discussion points as possibly replacing the word promotes with the word support, and that criteria C is implied through the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Nelson called attention to criteria D and E of Georgetown's Rezoning Criteria, found in the UDC section 3.06.030. Committee Member Hellmann shared his dissatisfaction with criteria D and explained that a change in zoning district may not be consistent with the current zoning district. Committee Member Baran noted that criteria D can conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and provided specific examples. Committee Member Hellmann shared his discontentment with the word neighborhood and explained that the location of the rezoning application does not always apply to a neighborhood. Committee Member Baran suggested to use the word adjacent and explained that it provides more context. Committee Member Hellmann questioned the phrase present zoning in criteria D. Chair Perthuis explained that the phrase refers to the surrounding properties and suggested to omit the section of criteria D that includes the word conforming. Chair Perthuis explained that the word conforming does not allow flow in the sentence. Clark clarified that the words conforming uses prevents nonconforming uses from interfering with staffs review of approval criteria D. Baird explained that leaving criteria D with reference to just the present zoning may make it more difficult to consider the impact on uses of the neighboring properties that are in the ETJ. Committee Member Baran suggested to use the words surrounding property in place of the word neighborhood. Nelson summarized the discussion points and asked the Committee for their input on criteria E of the Rezoning Approval Criteria. Chair Perthuis shared that he thought criteria E's terms are clear and questioned if criteria A captures the same information. Nelson provided clarification in that criteria A focuses on the completion of the application, whereas criteria E focuses on the physical aspects of the property to determine if it can support infrastructure for the zoning change. Adjournment These minutes were approved at the meeting of Chair. �test�