5th Round UDC Reading - Staff Report

8/8/2019 5th Round UDC Reading - Staff Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/5th-round-udc-reading-staff-report 1/7

Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report

City Council Public Hearing and First Reading

5th Round 08-09 UDC Amendments Staff Report Page 1 of 7

Meeting Date: January 25, 2011

Report Date: January 14, 2011

Item Description

Public hearing and first reading of the Ordinance to adopt the proposed Fifth Round of

the 2008-2009 Annual Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments.

Background

In 2008, the City Council approved a revised process for the annual review and

amendment of the UDC. The process involves citizen participation in the form of aUDC Task Force, which is comprised of self appointed members, the general public, the

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and final decision by the City Council. At the

same time the Council also adopted the 2008-2009 UDC Amendment List, which was

recommended by the P&Z as well as the UDC Task Force.

Since that time, staff has worked with the UDC Task Force to prepare language for the

proposed UDC Amendments. This agenda item represents the fifth round of 08-09

UDC amendments and the proposed text in Exhibits 2-6 is being presented to the City

Council for review and discussion. The remaining 2008-2009 List, as amended, is

included here as Exhibit 1 with items reviewed within this round highlighted.Public workshops to allow additional public review and comment were held on

December 1st and 2nd. Three (3) persons attended the meetings who were interested in

the home-based business revisions, and they all preferred Option 1.

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing was held on December 7.

After hearing several speakers and discussion, the P&Z recommended approval of the

balance of the amendments as presented and Section 5.03.020.E. with the options

recommended by staff. See the end of the report for more detail regarding the

recommendation.

On December 14, 2010 and January 11, 2011, the City Council held workshops on the

proposed amendments and asked that staff include the P&Z recommendation in the

proposed ordinance and include a home business registration option as well for further

consideration. For informational purposes, staff has included all of the UDC Task Force



Planning & Development Department Staff Report


Home-Based Business options in the discussion in the Overview section of this report.

Overview

The following summarizes the revisions proposed in the fifth round of UDCamendments, organized by subject.

Residential Additions and Infill within the Old Town Overlay District (Exhibit 2)

This proposed text amendment addresses the UDC List item intended to keep new

residential construction in the Old Town Overlay in scale with the existing historic

character of the area. The concern expressed by some of the members of the Task Force

was that there were no requirements to ensure construction related to a new home or

additions to an existing home remained in context with surrounding homes. The

proposed UDC amendment would set limitations beyond those of the underlying

zoning district (generally RS) for all single and two family residential additions or new

home construction in the Old Town Overlay District. These limitations could not be

exceeded without approval of a Certification of Design Compliance (CDC) by the

Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). Variance approval by the

Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) would still be required, in addition to the HARC

approval, for any proposed construction that would also exceed the underlying zoning

district requirements. The proposed limitations are summarized below.

1. Additions will not be made to the street facing façade of an existing single or two

family dwelling. (RS district establishes a minimum front setback of 20 feet.)

2. Single and two family structures will be limited to 30 feet in height. (RS district

establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet.)

3. Upper stories are subject to a ten (10) foot side setback and a 15-foot rear setback.

(RS district setbacks are six (6) and ten (10) feet respectively.)

4. The square footage of additions to existing homes may not exceed 30% of the

square footage of the existing structure. (Building setbacks and maximum

impervious coverage are the only requirements currently limiting size.)

5. The total floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of a residential parcel shall not exceed 0.65

where new construction or an addition is proposed. (FAR is currently notaddressed in UDC.) This would mean that the total square footage of the structure

could not exceed 65% of the square footage of the property.

Companion changes are proposed to Section 3.13 to address the requirements for CDC

approval identified with this amendment.

Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition of Historic Structures (Exhibit 3)





The changes to Section 3.13 amend HARC’s current CDC review process for requests to

demolish or relocate historic properties or properties located within the historic overlay

districts. This proposed amendment is in response to the UDC List item to have more

stringent protection of historic homes. The amendment is intended to further protecthistoric resources by giving the HARC the ability to extend delay periods to allow more

time to seek alternatives to demolition and increasing the justification information

provided by the applicant.

As proposed, there would be additional submission requirements for demolition or

relocation CDC applications depending on the basis for the requested removal. If

HARC were not to approve a demolition request at the initial public hearing, a delay

period would automatically commence. During the delay period, which varies

depending on specified criteria, an applicant may need to provide additional

information, work toward finding potential buyers, complete additional research and/orsimilar activities to justify the proposed removal. In addition, if an applicant makes an

argument for demolition or relocation based on no economically viable use of the

property the request would be reviewed by an economic review panel. This review

panel would analyze the financial documentation presented by the applicant that

justifies the economic necessity of the proposed removal, and then make a

recommendation to HARC.

Sidewalks (Exhibit 4)

As proposed, the changes to Chapter 12 and 13 would allow an alternative sidewalk

plan for sites with unique and extraordinary conditions. If a site qualifies for thisalternative option, the replacement could be provided in the form of an alternate route,

payments-in-lieu or a delay in the installation of the sidewalk due to road construction.

In addition, the changes clarify that residential sidewalks are to be installed at the time

of subdivision site improvements. However, a provision is included that allows the

installation to be deferred for each residential lot until the construction of each

individual residential unit. If that option is selected, there would be a required payment

of 20% of the cost to construct these sidewalks into a fund that would be used by the

City to construct any missing pieces of sidewalk after a five (5) year period.

The ordinance reflects a renumber of the proposed amendments that more clearly

reflects the proposed changes. While the language has remained the same as

recommended by the Task Force, staff and P&Z, the placement and numbering in the

ordinance is different than the language in Exhibit 4.

Home-Based Business Limitations (Exhibit 5)





New UDC language was proposed for Home Occupations during the last round of

amendments with the Chapter 5 revisions. Staff initiated these changes due to several

calls regarding the current language, which does not allow any on-site retail sales or

services and therefore disallowed services such as tutoring and music lessons. At theCity Council meeting regarding the Round 4 amendments, there was concern expressed

that the Task Force had not had enough input into the proposal. So, staff reconvened

with the group to develop new language.

The new proposal not only changes the name from Home Occupation to Home-Based

Business, but also provides several options for consideration, based on input from the

Task Force. Overall, the proposals are grouped into two major options. The first

overall option, which includes some internal options, is based on the existing language.

If this option is selected by the City Council as the one to be adopted, Council will need

to also decide on items 5.03.020.E.2.e, h, and i. Item “e” addresses signage and whethera small sign would be allowed or not. Item “h” addresses parking for the home-based

business. Finally, item “i” clarifies whether on-site services would be allowed. In the

first option “i”, services are not allowed, which is the existing language. In second

option “i”, services are still not allowed, although a series of limited, small scale service-

type uses would not be considered “services” and therefore would be permitted as a

home-based business. During our review of the existing home occupation language,

UDC Task Force members have advised staff that several of these small scale services

are in fact just the types of businesses that are in operation today. Also under this

option, retail sales would be allowed with no store-front and would be limited to

incidential sales of merchandise related to the service provided; direct sales product

distribution (Avon, etc.); sales by phone, internet or mail; and sales of custom products

created by the business.

The second overall option for the Council’s consideration would create a separate set of

criteria for home-based businesses located in the Old Town Overlay District and have

the first option apply to the balance of the City. This option creates two (2) classes of

home businesses, those with on-site clients or customers (Class II) and those without

(Class I). There are a several standards similar to the first option, but with more

specificity and there is a list of prohibited uses. Within the second option there are two

(2) choices related to approval of the Class II home businesses: one would require aSpecial Use Permit, approved by City Council after a recommendation from P&Z and

the second would require approval of a Home-Based Business Permit approved by

P&Z. The Home-Based Business Permit would be a new process and there is

companion language to create that process. As envisioned by the proposal, this new

permit would be a single public hearing at P&Z with a $100 permit fee. As noted for the





first option, if Council wishes to approve the second option, there are still details that

will need to be recommended within each option.

Finally, there was a group of Task Force members who believed that there should not

be separate criteria for different sections of the City, and recommended that whichever

option was chosen apply to all of Georgetown.

The complaints related to code enforcement of the current regulations have been

directed at those types of businesses that not only are currently not allowed as a home

business, but would also not be allowed as a home business under any of the options

proposed. Therefore, staff and the P&Z are in support of the first overall option

(5.03.020.E) applying to the entire City with sub-item “e” option 1 to allow a small sign;

sub-item “h” option 3 to allow utilization of on-street parking and existing on-site

parking; and sub-item “i” option 2 to allow limited on-site services and non-store front

retail.

During the Council workshop the request was made to include the P&Z

recommendation in the ordinance, which has been done. Also, there was a request to

include an option for home-based business registration for the Council’s further

consideration, which is located in Ordinance Exhibit D, Section 5.03.020.E.3, and reads

as follows:

“A Home-based business shall be required to register with the Planning and

Development Department to demonstrate compliance with this ordinance. If it

does not meet the qualifications to be a home-based business the business

operation at the residential premise shall cease.”

Miscellaneous Text Amendments (Exhibit 6)

There are several minor amendments contained in Exhibit 6, which include the

following:

• Chapter 3 changes relate to articulating the subdivision replat process that follows

the procedures and requirements identified in the Texas Local Government Code.

Today, the UDC is silent on the replat process.

• Chapter 4 changes include:

o Clarifying that the City (versus a specific department) will maintain the Official

Zoning Map and that digital mapping may represent the most accurate and up-

to-date information between Zoning Map printings. These are just

clarifications of existing practice.

o The Williams Drive Special Area is being modified to allow Public Emergency

Services Stations as a permitted use.





• Chapter 5 is being revised:

o To remove the limitation that does not allow columbaria associated with

religious assembly facilities to be located within the front yard.

o To allow an Integrated Office Center use by right in the Industrial District

rather than requiring a Special Use Permit. There is a companion definition

change in Chapter 16 to have multiple buildings or a site to be an Integrated

Office Center

• Chapters 6 and 7 are being revised to clarify that no buildings are allowed in the

required setback or yard; to include the word “street” next to the words “front

setback” in the Lot and Dimensional Chart in Chapter 7; and to clarify setback and

street setback limitations in Chapter 7.

• Chapter 11 stormwater management system design requirements are beingupdated to reflect Gateway Overlay changes made in prior amendments. These

items refer to the appearance of stormwater facilities in the Gateways.

• The exemptions section of Chapter 14 is being amended to allow site plans that

have been approved, but not constructed, to be completed even if a UDC change

has been made that would make the site nonconforming if constructed as

approved.

• There are some revisions to the recently adopted Chapter 16, either to modify an

existing definition, to include definitions needed as companions to other

amendments or to address missing definitions.

Special Considerations

As a reminder, the Council will need to make a decision on whether there will be

required registration of Home-Based Businesses.

Public Comments

Public workshops to allow additional public review were held on December 1st and 2nd.

Three (3) persons in attendance expressed their support for the Home-Based Business

Option 1. During the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing there wereseveral speakers.

Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation

On December 7, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and

made the following recommendation:





1. Residential Additions and Infill, Old Town Overlay District: Approval 5 to 1

2. Section 3.13 Demolition Revisions: Approval 5 to 1

3.

Sidewalk Alternatives: Approval 6 to 04. Home-Based Business:

a. Regulations should apply to all of Georgetown: Approval 6 to 0

b. Option 1 – 5.03.020.E: Approval 6 to 0

c. Signage (5.03.020.E.2.e) – Option 1, Parking (5.03.020.E.2.h) – Option 3; and

On-site Retail/Service (5.03.020.E.2.i) – Option 2: Approval 5 to 1

5. Miscellaneous Amendments: Approval 6 to 0

Staff Recommended Motion

Approval of the first reading of the ordinance as presented without the Home-Based

Business registration option.

Attachments

Exhibit 1 – 2008-2009 UDC Amendment List (amended)

Exhibit 2 – Residential Additions & Infill in Old Town Proposed Text

Exhibit 3 – CDC for Demolition of Historic Structures Proposed Text

Exhibit 4 – Sidewalks Proposed Text

Exhibit 5 – Home-Based Business Limitations Proposed TextExhibit 6 – Miscellaneous Amendments Proposed Text

Submitted By

Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director and Valerie Kreger, Principal

Planner

Documents

5th Round UDC Reading - Staff Report