Legistar header
                                                         
File #: PH-23-061    Version: 1 Name: Ordinance Amending Chapter 31 - Architectural and Site Design Standards
Type: Ordinance/Public Hearing Status: Passed
File created: 11/13/2023 In control: City Council
On agenda: 12/12/2023 Final action: 12/12/2023
Title: HOLD a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending Chapter 31 of the Killeen Code of Ordinances, providing for amendments to the City's Architectural and Site Design Standards, and amending the building setbacks in single-family residential zoning districts. (Requires 3/4 majority vote)
Sponsors: Development Services
Attachments: 1. Minutes, 2. Ordinance, 3. Presentation

Title

 

HOLD a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending Chapter 31 of the Killeen Code of Ordinances, providing for amendments to the City’s Architectural and Site Design Standards, and amending the building setbacks in single-family residential zoning districts. (Requires ¾ majority vote)

 

Summary

 

DATE:                     December 5, 2023                     

 

TO:                     Kent Cagle, City Manager                                          

 

FROM:                     Edwin Revell, Executive Director of Development Services                     

 

SUBJECT:                     Architectural and Site Design Standards                     

 

BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS:

 

On August 15, 2023, staff presented Council with proposed changes to the Architectural and Site Design Standards. During that meeting, Council directed staff to hold stakeholder meetings and reach a consensus regarding the proposed amendments. Stakeholder meetings were held on September 11th, September 19th, and October 5th. During the October 17th Council Workshop, staff was directed to bring the proposed ordinance forward for approval.

 

As a result of the stakeholder meetings, the following changes have been made to the ordinance:

 

                     Appeal process - Based on input from the stakeholders, the appeal process has been revised to allow staff to approve special exceptions administratively, only if a proposed building meets the intent, if not the letter, of the standards.  The applicant may appeal staff’s determination to the Zoning Board of Adjustment through the Special Exception process.

 

Residential:

 

                     Repetition Standard - The proposed repetition standard now provides separated standards single-family and two-family homes, as follows:

o                     Single-family homes of the same elevation shall not be placed within two (2) lots on the same side of the street, or directly across the street from one another.

o                     Two-family homes of the same elevation shall not be
placed within two (2) lots on the same side of the street, or directly across the street from one another.

 

Staff recommends adding the following clarifying language to the repetition standard in Sec. 31-902:

                     Homes of the same floorplan may be repeated, but only if the rooflines and elevations are noticeably different.

                     Mirrored elevations are not considered different elevations for purposes of this section.

                     A developer or homebuilder may seek pre-approval of proposed elevations prior to submitting permit applications.

 

                     Garages - Language was added allowing three-car garages to comprise up to 60% of the front elevation if the third-car garage is setback at least twelve (12) inches.

 

                     Architectural Elements - Multiple changes were made to Sec. 31-904 to make the standard easier to meet:

o                     Made requirements for duplexes and single-family structures different - single-family must provide five (5) and duplexes must provide four (4) architectural elements.

o                     Language was added to allow duplicate credit if multiple architectural features are provided.

o                     Separate options were created for “covered front entry” and  “covered front porch”.  The minimum size for a covered front entry was reduced to forty (40) sq. ft. 

o                     Language was added to the “covered front porch” allowing it to count as two (2) options (double credit).

o                     Incorporation of an eyebrow roof over a window or garage door was added to the menu of options.

o                     Separate options were created for garage doors with windows, and garage doors with decorative hardware.

 

                     Setbacks:

o                     Front Setbacks  - Staff recommends that the front building setback in “R-1” and “SF-2” (Single-Family Residential) be reduced from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet. 

o                     Side Setbacks - Staff recommends that the side yard setback in “R-1” (Single-Family Residential) be reduced from seven (7) feet to five (5) feet. 

 

Nonresidential:

 

                     Roof Pitch - The minimum slope for a flat roof to require a parapet wall was reduced from 3:12 to 2:12 on the front and side elevations, only.

 

                     Mechanical Equipment - Language was added requiring only mechanical equipment located on a street-facing elevation to be screened.

 

                     Architectural Elements - The number of required architectural elements for non-residential buildings was reduced from four (4) to three (3).

 

                     Horizontal Articulation - The maximum uninterrupted length was reduced from thirty (30) to twenty (20) feet, and the minimum depth of offsets was reduced from eighteen (18) inches to six (6) inches.  Language was added allowing canopies to count as articulation.

 

                     Articulated parapet - Language was added requiring a parapet wall on the front and side elevations, only.

 

                     Transparency - Language was added clarifying that the percentage of transparency is based on the horizontal length of the building, not on the area.

 

THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

 

The City Council has three (3) alternatives:

                     Do not approve the ordinance;

                     Approve the ordinance with modifications; or

                     Approve the ordinance as presented.

 

Which alternative is recommended? Why?

 

Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as presented.  Staff finds that the proposed changes will make it easier for applicants and developers to comply with the standards by making the requirements less stringent and by providing additional options.

 

CONFORMITY TO CITY POLICY:

 

The proposed ordinance conforms to all City of Killeen policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

 

What is the amount of the expenditure in the current fiscal year? For future years?

 

This is not applicable.

 

Is this a one-time or recurring expenditure?

 

This is not applicable.

 

Is this expenditure budgeted?

 

This is not applicable.

 

If not, where will the money come from?

 

This is not applicable.

 

Is there a sufficient amount in the budgeted line-item for this expenditure?

 

This is not applicable.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

At their Regular Meeting on November 6, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended disapproval of the proposed ordinance by a vote of 4 to 2, with Commissioners Rowe and Marquez voting in opposition to the motion to recommend disapproval.

 

Therefore, in accordance with Killeen Code of Ordinances Sec. 31-39(e), approval of the proposed ordinance will require the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all the members of the City Council (6 affirmative votes).

 

DEPARTMENTAL CLEARANCES:

 

This item has been reviewed by the Planning and Legal staff.

 

ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

 

Minutes

Ordinance

Presentation