HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_11.19.2003CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003, AT 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
101 E 7th STREET, GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
Members Present: Chris Aadnesen, Chair, Johnny Anderson, Vice- Chair, Harry Gibbs,
Secretary, Audrey McDonald, Linda Turner, Jennifer Shield, William Moore, Brian Ortego and
Marlene McMichael
Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning & Development Services; Bobby Ray,
Chief Development Planner; David Munk, Development Engineer; Melissa McCollum,
Development Planner; Carla Benton, Development Planner, Patricia Carls, City Attorney; and
Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary.
Meeting started at 6:30 p.m.
1. Action from Executive Session – None.
2. General Amendments – UDC procedures and / or standards that require further
consideration and / or amendment.
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation on the General Provisions, and as follows:
Chapter 1, Section 1.03, C. – the proposed amendment mandates that the Unified
Development Code setbacks be used when there is a conflict. If applicant would like to utilize
the platted setbacks, they will be required to go before the Planning & Zoning Commission for a
waiver to use these platted setbacks.
Commissioner Moore made the motion to approve Chapter 1, Section 1.03.C. Commissioner
Anderson seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 1, Section 1.03, D. – this is for an addition of a neighborhood that was left out of this
section with the initial adoption of the Unified Development Code – the Lost Addition. Applies to
the properties within the Lost Addition that were previously zoned residential planned and
having an approved site plan, which allows them to continue as a legal conforming use.
Commissioner Aadnesen verified that the list was complete. Commissioner Moore made the
motion to approve Chapter 1, Section 1.03.D, Applicability. Commissioner Turner seconded
the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 4, Section 4.05.040 C.4 – clarification of the location of on-site parking in the Williams
Drive Special Planned Overlay District, stating that the parking be to the side or to the rear of
the building, and to provide some screening.
Commissioner Turner made the motion to approve Chapter 4, Section 4.05.040 C.4. Parking in
the Zoning Districts. Brian Ortego seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 5, Section 5.01.020 – Land Use table additions: 1) Single-Family residential to the list
of permitted uses within the C-2 Downtown Commercial district; and, 2) Retail Sales and
Service to the list of limited uses within the Industrial district.
Chris A. Mealy, 120 E. 8th Street – relinquished him time
Commissioner Anderson had concern about a car lot going in on Williams Drive, and asked to
make a change where any vehicle sales and service in a Commercial district be subject to a
limited use permit, as it is in the C-2 district, and said he had no problem in making an
amendment to the motion that the C-3 zoned areas be limited permit to deal with specifically,
the vehicle sales applicants.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve as outlined Chapter 5, Section 5.01.020,
in Permitted Uses by Zoning District, to change under “C-2” Downtown Commercial add “P”
(Permitted by right), to Single-Family attached and Single-Family detached, and under Industrial
(IN), add (L) Limited use to retail sales and service, all other sales and service uses with
reference to Section 5.02.150 in the notes column. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the motion,
which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Anderson made a second motion to add, under Chapter 5, Section 5.01.020,
Permitted Uses by Zoning District, under C-3, Vehicle sales and service, sub-paragraph
Vehicles sales, rental and leasing facility be changed from “P” (Permitted use by right) to “L”,
(Limited). Commissioner Turner seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-1, with
Commissioner Gibbs voting against.
Chapter 5, Section 5.03.030 C.2 – (this section is incorrectly identified, and should be changed
to 5.05.030 C.2). This proposal requires an 8’ tall wall for screening of general or outdoor
storage from the public right-of-way. Commissioner Anderson verified that this proposal was
adding the requirement that storage be screened – Ray confirmed that the addition says that the
screening be an 8’ tall masonry wall.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve changes to Chapter 5, Section 5.05.030
C.2. Commissioner Ortego seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 5, Section 5.03.040 B.3 – this provision limits signage for family daycare, subject to
the same requirements that we currently have for residential home occupation, which is a non-
illuminated wall sign of not more than 2 square feet.
Commissioner Turner made the motion to approve the Chapter 5, Section 5.03.040 B.3 to staff
recommendation – “one non-illuminated identification sign is permitted provided the sign is
mounted flat on the exterior wall of the dwelling and has an area no greater than two square
feet”. Commissioner Ortego seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 6, Section 6.01.030 B – clean-up item; providing a section reference that was
currently left out of the Ordinance.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve the change to Chapter 6, Section
6.01.030 B by adding the reference of Section 6.01.040. Commissioner McDonald seconded
the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 6, Section 6.02.030 – this amendment was a provision in the Subdivision Regulations,
intended to provide flexibility with regards to minimum lot widths for cul-de-sac lots – the
proposal is to allow for 30 foot to 50 foot lot widths for cul-de-sac lots, provided that the full
required width is provided at the front setback line.
Commissioner Ortego made the motion to approve the General amendments to Chapter 6,
Section 6.02.030 regarding the minimum lot widths on cul-de-sac. Commissioner McDonald
seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 6, Section 6.03.020 – the proposal is to change the language to allow an increase in
impervious coverage up to 95% for projects in the Downtown Overlay District, subject to a
parking in-lieu fee (along with the current language that allows an increase if a project is
providing on-site parking).
Sondgeroth answered Commissioner Gibbs’ question of what the payment in-lieu fee would be
by saying that the City would need to determine that fee, and the money would go into a parking
fund. Commissioner Anderson asked a policy question of if it would always be cheaper for a
developer to pay for a parking permit - to take a parking space and make it an income part of
the property is more economically attractive to a developer. Sondgeroth said that through the
Downtown Design Guidelines and the Downtown Overlay Ordinance, the Council, due to the
parking downtown, passed an alternative parking plan, to which a number of different types of
parking that can be provided – off-site, shared, valet and a fee in-lieu of.
Glenda Overfelt, 951 CR 317, representing Downtown Georgetown Association and the
Managed Parking Task Force for the Main Street Advisory Board, had these concerns: the in-
lieu fee taking precedence over providing parking spaces; if a parking fund was established;
and; and if fees were going to be adequate enough to accomplish the City’s needs. Overfelt
wanted to be sure that in the future, these alternate plan provisions would not be abused and
would be able to satisfy parking.
Renee L. Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, representing the Downtown Design Guidelines,
Downtown Economic Analysis, and the Downtown Master Plan, said she was not against
adding the “in-lieu” of parking, as long as it is decided on as a case by case basis, and not as a
matter of right. Hanson that language needs to be added so the acceptance of this fee is
optional and that it does not provide a hardship to surrounding businesses or residences, and
that the business is meeting the goals of the Downtown Business district.
Chet Hall, 4400 Gattis School Road, Round Rock, who owns Georgetown property, asked if
property owners participated in the development of the Unified Development Code. Sondgeroth
informed Hall of the adoption process that Planning and Development went through to get the
UDC adopted in March, 2003, that being 1½ years of public meetings and workshops with
notice given to property owners within the entire City limits. Sondgeroth confirmed that property
owners were included in the amendment process. Hall asked if the economic analysis of the
proposal was available, and if not, it should be. Commissioner Aadnesen suggested that Hall
contact the mayor or Sondgeroth to get an explanation of how the UDC is applied. Sondgeroth
verified that this proposal would not apply to properties outside the Downtown Overlay District.
Commissioner Anderson pointed out Section 9.02.060, paragraph G, covers the fee in-lieu
parking, and suggested that the paragraph be referenced with the change.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve Section 6.03, Table 6.03.020 to add the
verbiage “ 1)” to if providing one-site structured parking and “ or 2) providing a payment of a
parking fee-in-lieu of the required parking” as referenced to Section 9.02.060 G. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 6, Section 6.03.040 a and b – a) this proposal is to allow on-site parking that serve
contiguous commercial uses to be located within the side yards; b) specifies that any
encroachment into a public utility easement (P.U.E.) must obtain a License to Encroach.
Commissioner Moore made the motion to approve Chapter 6, Section 6.03.040, 6.a, sub
paragraph viii, which states “On-site parking serving contiguous commercial uses may be
located within required side yards”, and the addition to sub paragraph b the following “without
approval of a License to Encroach into the easement. Commissioner McDonald seconded the
motion, which passed with the vote of 7-0.
Chapter 7, Section 7.03.050 C – proposal to omit this paragraph that allows residential fences
less than 6’ in height to be erected without a building permit
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to amend Section 7.03.050, by removing the
wording of paragraph C. Motion was seconded by Gibbs, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 8, Section 8.02.020 – staff recommended this item be pulled from consideration and
brought back to the Commission for further study.
Chapter 8, Section 8.03.020 B –clean-up item; proposal to make the tree caliper measurement
consistent by omitting the existing three feet , and adding “four and a half (4 ½) feet
Commissioner Ortego made the motion to approve the general amendments to Section
8.03.020 sub paragraph B by adding the language four and a half (4 ½) to the size of the caliper
of the trees. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 9, Section 9.03.020 A.3 – adds a reference to design and location requirements for
Handicapped parking spaces
Commissioner Moore made the motion to approve Section 9.03.020, sub paragraph A, with the
addition of sub paragraph 3 as written. Commissioner Turner seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 9, Section 9.03.020 D – proposal to eliminate “off-street parking areas, drive aisles,
driveways, access easements and loading areas for all uses”, leaving all designated fire lanes
to be paved in a manner consistent with local street design. Munk, Development Engineer,
explained that the existing standard is a higher standard than most parking lots are built to, and
this proposal will let the other parking surfaces go back to a normal parking style, which has less
base and sometimes less hot-mix, and have only the fire lanes maintain the local street design
standard.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to accept the changes to Chapter 9, Section
9.03.020, Section D. Commissioner Turner seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of
7-0.
Chapter 10, Section 10.03.020 J – this section prohibits any sign or flag within 10’ of the curb
or the street edge, and was not included in the adopted UDC – proposal is to add language to
the UDC.
Commissioner Ortego made the motion to approve the general amendment to Section
10.03.020 J. and read the paragraph as written in report, noting that there were no exceptions.
Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, and asked what the following exceptions were.
Ray said that it was the language as it current exists in the Code, which brings in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 a and b. Commissioner Anderson verified that this proposal was just killing the first
sentence in that section, and adding the proposed paragraph to memorialize an existing
Ordinance. Ray verified that the first sentence being taken out disallows signs in the public
right-of-way. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 10, Section 10.06. Table 10.06.010 – proposal is to replace the language “Williams
Drive Overlay” with “Williams Drive Corridor Study Area”, basically to expand the sign provision
for the full length of the Corridor. Sondgeroth explained that monument signs are permitted
along Williams Drive, existing pole signs would be grandfather-ed, but any new sign permits
would be along the entire Williams Drive Corridor Study area would be required to be monument
signs - what was included in the Ordinance was the Overlay District.
Commissioner Turner made the motion to approve under Section 10.06, Table 10.06.010 the
change to replace “Williams Drive Overlay” with “Williams Drive Corridor Study Area”.
Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 10, Section 10.06.040 G – this section deals with the duration that subdivision
directional signs may remain in place more than 30 days after CO; and the proposal is to
remove the language “or multi family complex”.
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to approve the Chapter 10, Section 10.06.040 G, to
remove the language “or multi family complex”. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion,
which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 11, Section 11.03.050 – proposal is to add 2nd paragraph that provides a 1 to 1 credit
for the preservation of existing trees, which is not currently included in the existing text.
Commissioner Turner suggested staff look at putting consequences for applicants that do not
save the existing trees – i.e., fines. Commissioner Gibbs asked if existing big trees were being
pulled up. Sondgeroth said that 2 recent examples in the last year and a half, where this
situation has occurred, and said that she felt this needed to be looked at.
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to approve the amendment to Chapter 11, Section
11.03, Section 11.03.050 as recommended by the Staff, with an additional note that the Staff be
directed to look at Section 11.03.070 on page 11-5 of the current UDC to see if there ought to
be additional damages if someone violations the tree requirements in the UDC. Commissioner
Anderson seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 11, Section 11.05.050 C – proposed to delete language now, and would like to bring it
back at a later time when the program is brought forward for review and adoption.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve the modification of Chapter 11, Section
11.05.050 to eliminate paragraph C. Commissioner Aadnesen seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 13, Section 13.04, Table 13.04.050 – proposal to reduce the right-of-way width for
Residential Street from 70 feet to 50 feet, and to reduce the right-of-way width for Collector
Street from 80 feet to 70 feet. Munk, Development Engineer, said that it has been found that
50 feet works throughout the county in residential subdivisions because of the way they are
designing the drainage patterns - by allowing the flow across the streets, roadside channels are
not needed, and in the Subdivision Regulations, it was found that 60 feet was being reduced
down to 50 feet.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to approve the changes made to Chapter 13,
Section 13.04, Table 13.04.050. Commissioner Ortego seconded the motion, which was
passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 13, Section 13.04.070 D.3 – this amendment establishes a main size for wastewater
improvements in rural subdivisions to be a minimum of 8 inches. Munk said that the UDC did
not have the minimum diameter of 8 inches called out.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to accept the changes to Chapter 13, Section
13.04.070 D.3. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 13, Section 13.04.070 E.4 – this amendment establishes a main size for water
distribution system improvements to be a minimum of 8 inches.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to accept the changes to Chapter 13, Section
13.04.070 E.4. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chapter 13, Section 13.07.020 – this amends the street light standards for rural residential
subdivisions to reduce the overall requirement for street lighting to exempt the Agriculture
district, along with the areas within the City’s Extra-territorial Jurisdiction from the requirements
of Sections 13.07.020 A and B; however, street lighting shall be provided at entryways to rural
residential subdivisions subject to the determination of the Electrical Engineer for the City of
Georgetown Utility System (GUS).
Commissioner Moore made the motion to approve the addition to Chapter 13, Section 13.07,
sub Section 13.07.020, of sub paragraph C as written. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the
motion, which passed with a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners Anderson and Turner voting
against.
Meeting was recessed at 7:50 p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Aadnesen recognized the following folks for the hard work done with the Old
Town Overlay District: Quana Childs, Staff Architect, Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning
and Development Services, and the members of the task force, who are Renee Hanson, Jim
Dillard, Joyce Perry, Marvin Lackey, and Joe Burke.
2. Public Hearing and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding an
Amendment to Section 4.04.030 (G) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to
the Old Town Overlay District.
Quana Childs gave the staff presentation. In answer to Commissioner Anderson’s question
regarding the purpose of the District, Childs said that a Historical Preservation District would be
quite large with many more cases than the City is currently having. Childs said City does not
have any financial incentives; the State of Texas, none, and nationally, there are very few
incentives, except for possible commercial uses, in which there are some tax breaks. Hanson
said that a Preservation Ordinance would encompass a lot more than what the City was trying
to do. If a structure was on the list, it would have to be reviewed, which would not burden the
residences with this kind of review. The Task Force was strictly saving structures from being
demolished without anyone knowing about it, so maybe the structure could possibly moved.
Hanson informed the Commission that in the early 90’s, the City tried to have a Preservation
Ordinance, but that failed because people did not want to be told about painting or altering their
house. Hanson supports having tax breaks and incentives.
Commissioner Anderson referred to Section 4.10.020, Applicability, and confirmed that the
district only be applicable to residential to commercial conversion. Commissioner Anderson got
confirmation that vacant land to commercial conversion and commercial to commercial
conversion, would not have the Old Town Overlay District requirements and the Certificate of
Design Compliance applied to it. Childs explained that the Certificate of Design Compliance
was to maintain commercial keeping the residential look.
Childs confirmed that the high priority list was 20 years old, and listed the following as the
criteria used to make the list: age of structure, architectural significance (such as craftsman era)
or and historical important person significance (person important to the County, State
Georgetown, or national). Childs said that a historic resources survey done of Georgetown
would be very costly, as it would need to be done by professionals. Commissioner asked what
effort was going to be made to “scrub” the existing 1984 list. Childs informed the Commission
she had not had the time to go and look at all of the 150 structures on the list, to see whether
the structures were still existing, or to make a determination as to what was historical or not.
Discussion about the map that was being used by the Old Town Overlay District, and Childs
said that the Design Guidelines would be used, and passed the Commissioners a handout (see
attached). Discussion of the handout being Section 3.13, Certificate of Design Compliance. In
answer to Commissioner Moore’s question, Childs said that there are 3 things an applicant can
do if the application is denied: 1) applicant can accept the denial, and fix up their property; 2)
applicant can appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment; and 3) applicant could work with HARC
and City staff (Childs) to sell it off or move it. If the application was denied by HARC, it is
usually because they need further information (delay a decision, pending further information).
Childs said the applicant could come in 180 days after the first application was submitted, and
try for demolition once again (side stepping going to ZBOA and providing proof of economic
hardship). Ray said that in Chapter 3, under limit of reapplication, an application that is denied
cannot be re-filed until a period of 90 days has expired. Ray said that if someone was denied
by HARC, and then denied at the Board of Adjustment, the waiting period would be 3 months
before they return to HARC with the same application.
Sondgeroth clarified that in Texas, a property owner cannot be completely denied the ability to
demolish the property completely. Sondgeroth said that at a certain point, that property owner
would be able to proceed. Sondgeroth clarified that HARC could deny demolition for 180 days.
Childs said only the actual citizens of the task force, some of which were owners of high priority
structures have had input into the study. Commissioner McDonald asked for clarify as to why
there were boundaries for this district if it was all about 150 houses that are high priority. Childs
said that only 10% of the homes on the list are considered high priority. Commissioner
Anderson clarified that there were two parts to this: 1) to protect High Priority structures from
demolition requests, and 2) any residence in the district that is going to convert from residential
to commercial use to apply for a certificate of Design Compliance within the boundaries.
Robert Phipps, 1404 Elm Street, Georgetown, Texas – moved from Hyde Park in Austin,
supports the Old Town Overlay District, but wants HARC to deal with smaller, actual
neighborhoods of historic quality, or structure by structure, and wants care to be taken on the
wording. Phipps said that tax incentives have been proven to work.
Peter H. Dana, 1101 Walnut Street, Georgetown, Texas – been in Georgetown for 24 years,
and is in favor of the Old Town Overlay District project
Chet Hall –withdraws his name
Jim Dillard, 1404 Maple Street, Georgetown, Texas – lives in a home built in 1895. Dillard is the
President of the Georgetown Heritage Society, and stated that they were in the process of
buying homes that would be demolished, and move them so they would be safe. Dillard said
that the last bid for an updated study (from Hardy, Heck and Moore) was $52,000, he urged the
Commission to pass these recommendations.
Doris Curl, 1404 College Street, Georgetown, Texas – speaking on behalf of the Georgetown
Heritage Society, wanted the Commission to realize the importance of working with the citizens
to preserve Georgetown and its economic future.
Sherri Babcock, 409 E University Avenue, Georgetown, Texas – had concern of preserving the
home built by David Love, and famous for the resident Jesse Daniel Ames. Babcock talked
about Ms. Ames’ specific accomplishments, and informed the Commission that the home was
for sale. Since the Overlay District would preserve the home, Babcock encouraged the
Commission to approve the proposed amendments pertaining to the Old Town Overlay district.
Barbara Meyer, 705 E. 3rd Street, Georgetown, Texas – donated her time to Hanson
Renee L. Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, Georgetown, Texas – representing herself and the
Board for the Heart of Georgetown Neighborhood Association, said the Ordinance would save
historical homes from being torn down, and asked Commission to pass the Ordinance, or table
until further modification can be done.
Commissioner Anderson asked if it is possible have an Overlay district that was smaller in
geographic scope that would address the residential to commercial conversions, and then have
protected structures that were geographically outside the geographic district that were
protected. Hanson said she had spoken with Carls, City Attorney, about this very issue, and felt
it would be good to look at an alternative that could be passed that just dealt with the list and
demolition only. Hanson agreed that if there were a way to find the balance of an ordinance that
would just deal with the demolition, that would be the ideal solution.
Discuss about what would be done with a residence that would be converted into a church, and
if the Overlay would affect that situation. Childs agreed that if it were high priority, HARC would
be involved. Childs also said that if the property was not high priority, then HARC would not
have to review.
Commissioner Gibbs asked if the task force look at any incentives, such as what Mr. Phipps
brought up earlier – tax incentives. Childs said not at this time, but she was looking into that for
Georgetown in general. Commissioner Gibbs was very much in favor of incentives.
Commissioner Aadnesen asked about what other cities have done regarding this. Childs said
that W ichita Falls, Grapevine and Bastrop all have a variety of incentives, usually with a different
breakdown between residential and commercial, and usually there is a time period for which the
rebates apply – 5 to 10 years, then fade away. Commissioner asked Hanson what ideas of
modification does she have. Hanson said that the biggest modification would be to find a way to
have an Ordinance that dealt with the high priority list and demolition, then the boundary of the
Overlay could be redrawn along Austin and University Avenues, and then to amend a couple of
sections in the UDC to cover the other goals that the Task Force was trying to get to.
Commissioner McDonald wants to table the Amendments for future study. Commissioner
Anderson liked the idea, but had 4 different concerns: 1) List needs to be scrubbed (updated);
2) District is too big; 3) protection plan to protect the vacant to commercial conversions and
commercial to commercial conversion; and 4) investigation on tax incentives. Moore does not
want to stop progress until the list is scrubbed, and will support the Amendment. Turner
supports the Amendment as is. Ortego is supportive. Gibbs would like to downsize the district;
investigate incentives, and wants to table the issue, work on it, and bring back to Planning &
Zoning in a month. Aadnesen wants to table for the following reasons: 1) to find out what other
towns have done ; 2) to find out how much it would cost to scrub the list, and then to scrub the
list 3) work on the size and boundaries of the Overlay; 4)tax incentive district too large 5 )
vacant properties. Carls, Attorney, said you could still have the demolition aspect of this
particular proposal and have that procedure be regardless where that structure is located, and
then if you feel like you need an Overlay District, then you could do that with the boundaries.
Carls also said that the paradigm that she was familiar with are incentive based and that is what
protects the historical structures and that is what keeps them intact, and can be as little as
subjecting them to a process just before they demolish or as involved as what color is the trim
going to be painted. Those procedures can apply across the City regardless of what the
boundaries are. Moore brought out again the purpose and intent of the regulations, according
to what is written by staff, is to “maintain a residential appearance along S. Austin and
University Avenues, and maintain the integrity of the residential character in the Old Town
District. Moore said that there needs to be boundaries that show what the Old Town District is –
and that he feels the district is not too big.
Commissioner Turner made motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Proposed
Amendments to Section 4.04.030 G of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay District. Commissioner Moore made a motion to amend
with the following recommendations to City Council: 1) that High Priority List of structures be
scrubbed in a timely manner; 2) tax incentives for historic structures be considered in a timely
matter; and 3) make a determination of what other towns have done in regards to historic
preservation.
Commissioner Turner accepts the amended motion. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ortego, and is denied with a vote of 3-4, Commissioners Gibbs, Aadnesen, Anderson and
McDonald voting against the motion.
Commissioner Anderson made a motion to table the Old Town Overlay District amendment to
be rescheduled in a timely manner to address the issues that were brought up with concerns, to
include high priority list; the investigation of tax incentives for preservation of high priority
properties; re-look at the size of the district; to look at the vacant lot to commercial conversion
and commercial to commercial conversion; and to make a determination of what other towns
have done in regards to historic preservation. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 4-3, with Commissioners Ortego, Turner and Moore voting against.
3. Public hearing and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding an
Amendment to Sections 4.08 and 8.06 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining
to the Gateway Overlay District.
This item was skipped, and scheduled to be heard at the December 2, 2003, meeting.
Don Martin, 3345 Bee Caves Road, Austin, Texas; Renee L Hanson,1252 Austin Avenue,
Georgetown, Texas; and Mark Baker, 14205 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas, were scheduled to
speak, but did not, as this section was skipped.
5. Section 4.09 (Courthouse View Protection Overlay District) based upon input and
recommendation from citizen task forces.
Carla Benton gave the staff presentation, using the map to identify the Courthouse View
Protection Overlay District.
Greg Strimka explained how to fix a point (like the CR 152 and Austin Avenue) - topographic
map was used to determine the height that a building could be. Strimka said that inn the south,
the Freeway view was being protected.
Renee L. Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, Georgetown, Texas – supportive, but Ordinance needs
more definition to some of the terms that were in the original UDC.
Steve King, 315 Bowie St, Austin, Texas – donated his time to Don Martin
Don Martin, 3345 Bee Caves Road, Austin, Texas – gave Commissioners a handout that had
four alternative solutions regarding the Courthouse View Overlay. Martin saw 1) Sec.4.09.010
Purpose and Intent- to add “as defined by a view of the Courthouse which can reasonably be
seen by a driver and/or front passenger of a car when looking in the general direction of travel”.
OR, “as defined by the view of the drive and/or front passenger of a car for a forward cone of
view of 45% as views in the direction of travel”. OR, “This ordinance is intended to protect the
existing continuous views for the Courthouse and shall not be construed to include minor, brief
views of the Courthouse incidental to a site; 2) Allow interpretation discretion by the Director of
Planning; 3) Amendment to 4.09.020 Applicability – “For the purpose of Section 4.09 of the
Unified Development Code, Lot 3, Section 1 of San Gabriel Village is exempt from the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay District”., and 4), Delete the IH-35 View Corridor 4.09.020
(A).
Rick Albers, 811 Barton Springs Road, attorney for Don Martin, has an interest in the Comfort
Suites, wants to clarity to what determines a courthouse view.
Patricia Carls, City Attorney, explained that the Comfort Suites and the City have an pending
appeal.
Gibbs feels there should be some adjustments made on the Corridor. Commissioners all agree
that there needs to be more understanding of what views the Courthouse Protection View
Corridor should protect. Commissioner Aadnesen suggested that the Commission drive the
Corridor together. Commission was in agreement of the suggestion.
Commissioner Turner made the motion to recommend to City Council to table the proposed
amendments to Section 4.09 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), pertaining to the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay District. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion,
which passed with a vote of 7-0.
It was decided that the Commissioners would meet at the Georgetown Municipal Complex
(GMC) to travel the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District, at 4:00 p.m., November 25,
2003.
6. Section 13.09.030 (B) Oversized Facilities – presentation of the recommendation prepared
by Georgetown Utility Services.
This item was skipped, and scheduled to be heard at the December 2, 2003, meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
/tas