HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_05.18.2004Minutes of the Meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , May 18,
2004.
Members Present:
Chris Aadnesen, Johnny Anderson, Harry Gibbs, William Moore, Marlene McMichael, Brian Ortego, and
Russell Phillips
Members Absent:
Sarah Milburn, Audrey McDonald, Jennifer Shield
Staff Present:
Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning & Development, Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, David
Munk, Development Engineer, Melissa McCollum, Development Planner, Dave Hall, Building Official, Patricia
Carls, City Attorney, and Tammye Sharpe, Planning Specialist/Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Meeting called to order at 6: 05 P.M.
Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Bobby Ray explained the report and how it was written with the 5 Exhibits, and that development issues
that had occurred prompted these proposed changes to the UDC.
1. Amendments to various Sections of Chapter 2 (“Review Authority”), Chapter 3 (“Applications
and Permits”), and Chapter 12, (“Pedestrian and Vehicle Circulation”) to incorporate the City
Council adopted Access Management Policy into the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation on Exhibit 1, Access Management. Anderson asked why the
expected ADTs (Average Daily Trips) were changed for the Major Collector, Minor Arterial, and Major
Arterial (pg 8 of Exhibit 1) on Table 12.03.020: Street Classification Standards. Ray explained that
those changes, along with others in the Table, were made to comply with the Overall Transportation
Plan (OTP). McMichael asked why a driveway permit would be required if, when zoned, driveways
would be taken care of (pg 5 of Exhibit 1; Section 3.19.020.B). Ray said that the zoning change may
not trigger a traffic review, but this permit provision would allow a review within the Site Plan process.
Ray confirmed that the Site Plan would not be approved until the Driveway Permit was approved and
issued.
Anderson made the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to
the Unified Development Code for Exhibit 1, Access Management policy. McMichael seconded the
motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
2. Amendments to various Sections of Chapter 4 ("Zoning Districts") and Chapter 6 ("Lot
Design Standards") to provide better coordination between the Downtown Master Plan, the
Downtown Design Guidelines and the Unified Development Code.
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation on Exhibit 2, Downtown Related.
Moore made the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to the
Unified Development Code for Exhibit 2, Downtown Related. Ortego seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 7-0.
3. Amendments to Chapters 5 (“Zoning Use Regulations”) to include development standards
governing the establishment and / or enlargement of Places of Worship with Residential
Zoning Districts.
Melissa McCollum gave the staff presentation on Exhibit 3, Places of Worship. Ortego asked if staff
had received written comments on the proposed changes. McCollum said no physical letters, but staff
talked to various churches that desired expansion, and said these changes would help them with good
guidelines to follow.
Anderson made the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to
the Unified Development Code for Exhibit 3, Places of Worship. Gibbs seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 7-0.
4. Amendments to Chapter 10 (“Sign Code”).
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation on Exhibit 4, Sign Code. Sondgeroth noted Exhibit 4, pg 11 -
Section 10.06.020.3; and said adding a sentence: "No sign area shall be greater than 50% of the total
structure", would assure for a monument sign. McMichael asked about existing signs. Sondgeroth
explained existing signs would become non-conforming signs, and would follow the nonconforming
section of the Code - existing signs could stay as they are currently built. Anderson asked the size of
the Auto Parts sign on Williams Drive. Ray confirmed the sign was 96 square feet (for the sign area ),
and with the proposed change, all future signs would go to 48 square feet. Aadnesen asked how staff
settled on 50-50, structure versus sign. Ray said that staff looked at the information provided by
Gordon Baker and his correspondence, and picked out what staff thought was best via pictures
provided. McMichael asked, regarding the Georgetown Village letter, how staff addressed the
concerns outlined in the letter - the placement of signs from 1 mile to 3 miles, and pricing of homes on
directional signs. Ray said with the directional signs, the change proposes having multiple builders on
one sign; the 1 mile provision, which seemed a reasonable distance from the entrance of subdivisions,
was what staff was proposing; and staff did not include the pricing on the signs. Gibbs said the mile
provision should be changed to 2 or 3, and to allow pricing on the directional signs. Phillips suggested
the change to 3-mile boundary, but to preempt that, when there was a major arterial, the arterial
becomes the border. Phillips felt this would discourage a mass gathering of signs in unlikely places.
Sondgeroth said there would need to be suggested "language" in the UDC for what Phillips was
proposing. Aadnesen asked what the difference was between the monument sign and the subdivision
entrance monument sign - Ray explained it was 40 square foot sign area with a maximum height of 5'.
Aadnesen disagreed that the height of the proposed entrance monument signs, as the landscaping
could possibly hide a 5' sign. Anderson asked about the proposal of monument signs being
constructed of materials and colors compatible to primary building's facade. Ray confirmed that
Section 10.06.030.A.1.b (pg. 12 of Exhibit 4) does require that, and that this language was existing.
Ray said this provision was to give proportionality to sign and structure.
Gordon Baker, 1103 S Walnut Street, Georgetown, gave his presentation. Baker addressed two
proposal items:
suggested the 48 square feet should be changed to 64 square feet for multiple tenant retail shopping
center, and 2) real estate off-premise signs can have alternative monument signs that do not conform
to the building, but look like a monument sign.
Anderson asked Ray if the motivation for the 48 square feet was to standardize on a standard size sign,
or was it to limit the size of signs. Ray said the motivation was to limit the size of individual stand alone
monument signs. Ray said that Baker's suggestion to go from 48 to 64 square feet for multiple tenants
signs is dealt with in another Section on the UDC, on page 16 of Exhibit 4, Section 10.06.050 Multi-
Tenant Signs. Ray pointed out that tenants are required to submit a Master Sign Plan application, and
pointed out F and G in the referenced Section.
Dave Hall, Building Official, said the Rivery started the multiple tenant signage provisions to exist. Hall
said that the intent was to cut-down on the large number of signs, and still provide adequate signage.
The Rivery site has high profile tenant signs (Home Depot & Wal-Mart), with several additional sign
spaces available. Wolf Ranch, along with the approved P.U.D., submitted a Master Sign Plan, and was
reviewed as a "package" submittal. Hall confirmed no multi-tenant monument signs have been
submitted to the City, but said the closest submittal would be the Eckerds on Williams Drive.
Sondgeroth suggested that if the Commission felt there was a need to address multi-tenant signs for
monument signs, staff could put a provision in Section 10.06.050 Multi-Tenant Signs to allow signs to
go up to 64 square feet, if the sign was providing signage for 4 businesses (there is need to specify a
certain number of tenants). Sondgeroth said that we should make decisions for these signs to
accommodate the future. Ortego confirmed that subdivision directional sign placement would be
governed by the 1 or 3 mile limit provision. Sondgeroth stated that directional signs had to be
permitted. Discussion about the differences in the monument signs and the directional signs.
Anderson made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the proposed amendments to
the Unified Development Code for Exhibit 4, Sign Code with the following additions and/or
amendments: Section 10.06.050. (Multi-Tenant Signs), change the verbiage to a maximum signage of
64 square feet with a minimum number of tenants as 4 with other criteria that the staff may recommend
prior to City Council approval; Section 10.03.020.O.2, Subdivision Entry Signs, to change the maximum
height to six (6) feet; Section 10.06.020.A.3, change to no greater than 50% of the total structure; and
prior to City Council the staff revisit Section 10.06.040, Subdivision Directional Signs - include adding a
provision for single developers; leaving F. as one (1) mile; and changing Section A. by adding a # 5 -
pricing of homes. McMichael seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
5. Miscellaneous Amendments to Chapters 3 (“Applications and Permits”), 5 (“Zoning Use
Regulations”) and 16 (“Reference”).
Ray gave the staff presentation on Exhibit 5.
Nadye Pidilla and Jose Cuervo, 2201 Williams Drive, gave comments to Section 4.05 Special Area
Plan Overlay District, and were present to support the whole section.
McMichael made the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendments to
the Unified Development Code for Exhibit 5, titled Miscellaneous. Anderson seconded the motion,
which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Comments from Director. None.
Comments from Commission. None.
McMichael made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Ortego seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
/tas