HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.22.2009 CC-Wof the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council resent: j Council sent*
Keith Brainard, Gabe Sansing, Dale Ross, Ben All Council Present.
Oliver, Pat Berryman, Bill Sattler, Patty Eason
Staff Present: ------
It
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary; Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney;
�j Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Mark Thomas, j
Economic Development Director
A Review of the proposed Third Round of 2008-2009 Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments, including
an update on the Fourth Round -- Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
Cook said the third round of the Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments is a little more complicated
than the other two updates and revisions seen so far. She noted, in Chapter 3, there is a change to the
variance process. She said this now includes a special exceptions process. She noted Chapter 4 is being
replaced entirely as well as Chapter 6. She said Chapter 7 is also being replaced, which will now be devoted
only to the residential and agricultural districts. She noted, in Chapter 3, the Local Government Code allows
Zoning Board of Adjustments to review special exceptions to zoning regulations. She said, in Chapter 4, the
Agricultural District will now be considered a special purpose district instead of a residentional district. She said
they are proposing that the Agricultural district no longer be considered a residential district. She noted there
are now provisions that will allow land being annexed to be zoned something other than agriculture. She noted
they refined the zoning district purpose statements as well. She gave examples of those refinements. She
noted Chapter 4 also includes the addition of a new Public Faciltiies (PF) Zoning District.
Sansing asked and Cook said there will still be an agriculture district, but the City could propose other districts
for new annexations. Sansing asked and Cook said people can still keep their land as an agriculture district.
She said one of the big changes in Chapter 4 is that the old town overlay district section has been updated to
reflect requirements that were located in other sections of the Code. She said they have proposed to have a
special exception process, which is specifically for a setback modification option. She said they looked at old
town and it has been expanded so that it applies to any subdivision created by plat prior to 1977. She said a
setback modification option was added with special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for Old
Town and older plats. Sattler said, when he was on the Zoning Board, they found many of the current out
buildings are not permitted. He asked what the City does when an applicant uses the "but everone else has it"
argument. Cook said they would have to look at the application in the analysis they are proposing. She noted, a
lot of the time, those buildings were constructed before any regulations existed. Cook said the City staff is
trying to address issues like this that come to the Zoning Board. She said, in Chapter 4, staff also looked at the
Gateway Overlay District requirements and buffering, with provisions clarified and map updated to reflect
revisions. She said they tried to make this more conducive to what was intended for all of the gateway overlays.
Sattler asked and Cook defined the term "gateway." Eason asked and Brandenburg said the downtown
City Council Workshop Minutes/Sept 22, 2009
Page 1 of 3 Pages
gateway district does not reach the inner loop because it is more of an industrial area.
Cook moved on to Chapter 6 regarding residential zoning districts. She said staff has separated the specific
regulations that go with each zoning district. She said, in each of those sections, they included the other section
references where one would need to go further into the UDC for information. She said staff has proposed that
residential and agriculture district standards be based on zoning designation rather than lot size and housing
type. She said staff took the residential estate and the residential low density districts and had them apply to
larger residential lots of 1 acre and 10,000 sq. ft. She said, in Chapter 6, they have also clarified that townhouse
districts and multifamily districts have building materials and design requirements. She said staff is also
proposing that for a common open space, when necessary, two passive areas or one active area are required.
She said they have clarified that the gateway buffer requirements apply to residential developments. She noted
Chapter 7 is the non-residential development standards. She said staff is proposing a ETJ minimum lot width of
25 feet for all new plats. Mayor asked and Cook explained an instance where a person would have a 25 foot
wide lot. Cook said staff has taken the standards chart and added more information and also ensured that
those standards are applicable for each zoning district. She said, if someone wants to do a zoning district by
itself, there is a minimum district size. She explained a situation where this would occur and listed the minimum
size for each district. She noted staff has also added a minimum lot width within the City's districts except for
downtown.
Sansing asked and Cook said, if it is a condo relationship with a business, it would not be a considered a "lot."
She said the City would consider the larger piece of the property as the lot. Cook said staff is proposing that the
"build to" requirement be an option to either build forward or build back in a conventional way. She said this
option is not applied to the downtown gateway area and, in that area, it is a requirement to build forward and put
parking further back. She spoke further about parking lot regulations. She said the design standards have
changed a lot. She noted the building design standards now apply to most structures and expansions, but there
are more options to obtain relief from the requirements. She said, in the building materials section, they have
allowed more glass on the upper stories of the buildings. She said the EIFS and cement board be limited to 40
% of the building and the rest consist of masonry products. Eason asked about the build -to section of the code.
Cook said the staff did not change the "build to" provisions for smaller, more residential, transition areas.
Sansing said he thinks the EIFS and cement board percentage limitation should be increased. Cook listed the
material that the City considers masonry products and noted it is not just stone and brick. Eason asked and
Cook said EIFS is a building treatment similar to stucco. Berryman asked and Sansing agreed it may be good
to raise that number to 60%. Brainard suggested staff reconsider the limitation percentage. Cook spoke about
building design standards and said more detail has been provided for parapet roofs. She added solar panels
are no longer considered mechanical equipment. She said, in terms of building articulation and architectural
features, smaller buidling and screened walls may not have to meet articulation. Mayor asked and Cook defined
"articulation." She said they are allowing more flexibility in the placement of wall and roof off sets. She said they
are also requiring that all buildings have architectural features, with the option to choose type and design.
Mayor asked and Cook said a homeowners association can have more restrictive regulations than the City as
long as they do not break the City Ordinances. Mayor asked and Cook said this does not affect the existing
regulations. Sattler asked and Cook confirmed homeowners associations can have more restrictive
requirements than the City. Sattler asked and Cook said the homeowners associations can not waive a City's
regulations. Carls said the two regulations co -exist and, as applied to the homeowner, the most restrictive
regulation applies. Mayor explained how homeowners association regulations and City regulations are able to
co -exist. Cook said there is a provision for architectural compatibility required between building walls and
multiple buildings on the same site. She said another one of the big changes is the alternative building design
provision. She explained this provision. Cook reviewed the recommendations and next steps of the amendment
process. She said the task force has approved the language brought forward to City Council. She said the
Planning and Zoning Commission has approved this document and asked staff to continue to refine language
and add more illustrations. She said a public hearing and first reading is scheduled for the October 13th meeting
with the second reading on October 27th. Cook gave Council a preview of future amendments and said there is
going to be a new Chapter 5. She noted the Zoning Uses are being replaced in that Chapter. She reviewed the
items and amendments proposed for this new Chapter. She said the use table will be updated and expanded
with more uses listed. She noted the garage sale issue will also be in Chapter 5.
Sansing agreed with the fact they are trying to include the auto dealership issues as well as garage sales and
electronic signage. Sansing said he is wondering why the the electronic signage for the IH -35 service road is
not included in the upcoming first reading. Cook said Chapter 5 will not be in the first reading in October. She
said the signage is not ready to go for this next meeting but noted it will be going to the Planning and Zoning
Commission in October. Sansing asked and Cook said the electronic signs should be expected to come to
Council at the second meeting in October. Brainard asked and Cook spoke about the UDC task force and the
City Council Workshop Minutes/Sept 22, 2009
Page 2 of 3 Pages
response and results from its meetings. Brainard asked and Cook said attendance can range from one person
to 20 people per meeting. Berryman asked and Cook said the Dairy Queen electronic sign is not something that
can be done today because it is not currently allowed in the UDC. Carls said, to accommodate this gentleman's
request, the City has to change the Code. Berryman said she understands this amendment process takes time,
but the Council may need to put this on the agenda to see how they could allow this man to have the electronic
signage.
Mayor said the problem is that there is no provision in the Code to allow Council to make exceptions for people.
Brandenburg said this new section would apply to the entire 1-35 service road and noted the ramifications would
apply to a lot more than just the Dairy Queen business. Berryman asked and Cook confirmed the main
difference between the four proposals is the length of time a message can be displayed. Berryman proposed
that Council allow this man to have the sign and then make him change it later, according to the Ordinance
when it is approved. Oliver said he can not support this because the City does not has provisons for this type of
sign. Oliver asked and Cook said this will come back to the Council at the second meeting in October. Oliver
said this particular issue is not on the front burner for him as related to other issues in this process. Eason
agreed with Oliver and said this business has been there for a while and noted it is quite visible. She noted
waiting a little while for the sign will not be harmful to the business. Berryman said she thinks the Council
should put this applicant on the agenda and take care of it as a one time exception. Oliver said he thought the
sign was attractive, but he asked for staff to study it because he is very wary about 1-35 turning into a whole row
of these type of signs. Oliver said this study needed to be done because he did not want a row of offensive
signs on the side of the road. Oliver said he does not want Council to be making choices on an ad hoc basis.
Oliver said the Council needs to look at this as a policy issue and not whether or not we agree with this
proposed sign. Ross thanked Cook and her staff and said this new UDC amendment process has been very
effective. Ross said he looks at this as process driven and noted it would not be fair to look at this on a one
time basis.
Recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.087 -- 5:05 p.m.
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 5:50 p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 05:50 PM.
City Council Workshop Minutes/Sept 22, 2009
Page 3 of 3 Pages
ity Secrdt ry.kessica Hamilton