Included are drafts for:

• Chapters 1 – 3, miscellaneous (22 pages)
• Section 3.16, Administrative Exception (2 pages)
• Section 3.21, License to Encroach (2 pages)
• Section 3.23, Waivers (3 pages)
• Chapter 5, Zoning Use Regulations (33 pages)
• Chapters 6 – 7, miscellaneous clean-up language (4 pages)
• Chapter 9, Parking (4 pages)
• Chapter 10, Signs (10 pages)
• Chapter 12, Street layout and Municode language (2 pages)
• Chapter 14, Nonconformities (16 pages)

Draft Chapter 5 – 3.3.10

Miscellaneous Code amendments – Round 4 – 3.3.10

Staff:  Elizabeth Cook, Valerie Kreger, Jordan Maddox, Karen Frost

The group reviewed the most recent draft of the Zoning Land Use Table, along with the associated limitations or restrictions as outlined in the new draft Chapter 5.  Definitions as were related to the uses listed in the Land Use Table were also discussed.  The preliminary changes proposed to the parking standards in Chapter 9 were discussed and staff explained that these proposals were to make parking requirement determination more straight forward in the future.  Once again, the general ideas behind the changes anticipated for Chapter 14 Nonconforming Uses were discussed.  Staff indicated that there will be at least one more task force meeting covering Chapter 5 prior to it proceeding to the public meetings that are at this point anticipated in March.

Please see the Draft Language link for the newest postings.

Draft Chapter 5 01.28.10

Draft Chapter 5 Use Table 1.28.10

Draft Parking Table 1.28.10

Staff: Valerie Kreger, Elizabeth Cook, Jordan Maddox

Staff discussed the newest iteration of the Chapter 5 Zoning Use Table with the group to get feedback on the uses allowed in each zoning district. Staff discussed why certain uses were required to be on the chart, how all the uses were grouped and where the descriptions of each one could be found and interpreted. Staff will follow up with an abbreviated version of the limitations on certain uses in the table so the team can get an idea as to how such uses will be restricted. The full limitations will come to the team in January. Staff also laid out the principles for the Chapter 9 parking table and ideas for Chapter 14 – Non-conforming uses. A discussion ensued about the non-comforming chapter and what could be explored to make the process of bringing non-conforming uses into compliance with the current regulations. Staff is going to study potential ways to relieve the burdens of some of these requirements. The Task Force will reconvene in January.

Please see the Draft Language link for the newest postings.

Chapter 5 Use Table 12.10.09

Section 10 CEVM Signs.9.28.09

Staff: Elizabeth Cook, Jordan Maddox

This meeting was held to present the most recent draft language regarding the addition of electronic message signs to the UDC.  Currently, such signs are not allowed; this amendment would allow them with certain restrictions and staff was instructed by Council to present an ordinance allowing the use of electronic signs on I-35.  Staff presented the draft ordinance in full and then allowed attendees to ask questions and make general and specific comments.  The majority of the language was acceptable to the group and received support from the previous task force meeting as well.  Most of the differences in opinion centered around the time allowed per frame (message), as the signs could potentially rotate out a message on a timed basis.  Staff presented 60 seconds, several attendees wished for them to remain disallowed, a contigent of the group wished for 5 messages per day (with any time allowed for each) as a compromise to the others that would like to see a 9 second rotation per frame.  A debate ensued regarding how these signs might change the character of town, particular the 35 corridor, and present safety and aesthetic concerns.  The arguments for the signs centered on the ability to reach a consumer audience with more information, provide Amber Alert or other emergency messages, and be more attractive than the static changeable boards.  The group discussed colors, with staff and a majority of attendees wishing to keep the amber color presented; two attendees, who own a business interested in installing one of these signs, encouraged red as a more visible option. 

Staff has decided to present all three timing options along with the option to not approve these signs to the Public Workshops and Planning and Zoning Meeting on October 6th.  After that hearing, the amendment would be on schedule to present to Council on October 27th.

Staff: Elizabeth Cook, Valerie Kreger, Jordan Maddox, Karen Frost

Handouts were distributed, the same as the public workshop handouts with the draft electronic message sign ordinance.  Liz reviewed the new, draft sign ordinance.  The proposal is to now allow changeable electronic variable message signs, applicable only on IH 35 frontage roads and with certain restrictions.

Mel questioned the need for the sign to be 1000 feet from any residential property and shouldn’t it be based on visibility. Liz responded that the language was based on an ordinance from San Marcos and can be reviewed further.  It was reasoned that the 1000 feet rule was to address the issue of some homes being visible from the highway and some not, and standardizing the distances.Mel also suggested changing the definition of the access to these properties.  If access is shared by two businesses on the frontage road, which is encouraged, do they both get a CEVM Sign or do they share one?  Where?

There was also discussion about the 7,000 nits and the definition of such.  Also, the color of amber lights being the only light color, and when amber is seen on an electronic sign, is it easily confused with a traffic signal?  Staff will look into all these concerns.

Section 3.13 was reviewed, which amends the section to include Special Exceptions being established and reviewed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The criteria for Special Exceptions are listed and the only Special Exception that may be granted by the Board at this time is for a residential setback modification and an expiration period is established.

Chapter 4 was reviewed.  The AG Zoning District has been moved to a Special Purpose Category along with Public Facilities.  The group agreed with the change. Section 4.03 has been changed to address newly annexed territory.  Newly annexed property can now have the option of being brought into the city limits as a District other than AG, following the normal rezoning procedures. 

In Section 4.08, Renee asked that HARC be notified of exempted properties, those that the Historic Preservation Officer determines are not visible from a public-right-of-way and therefore not required to be reviewed by HARC.  There were also several references to specific “codes” that the task force asked that references to their location be included.  Several typographical errors were noted and will be corrected before the document is finalized. 

Chapter 6 was reviewed briefly since most of the attendees had already seen the proposed changes.  Everyone agreed the idea of making residential and agricultural standards a separate chapter was a good idea.

Chapter 7 was discussed.  The discussion centered mainly around building heights.  Mel questioned whether the UDC was in conflict with the vision of the 2030 Plan, citing future growth could cause our buildings to outgrow the standards allowed.  Liz stated if that happens before the code is updated to accomodate that growth, a PUD could be used.  It was suggested that BP be reviewed for height standards and look at areas where height limits could be raised.  Liz suggested a height overlay may be appropriate in certain areas.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

First Draft CEVM Signs 9.11