HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCAC_02.08.2023UDCAC Meeting Minutes DRAFT
Josh Baran called the meeting to order.
1.A: Meeting Minutes
Motion: Wanke, approve as presented
Second: Maddox
Vote: (4-0), approved
1.B: UDC Diagnostic Discussion & Feedback
Ryan Clark presented the discussion questions to the Committee.
What works well with the Code? What should we avoid changing?
Baran: General format of the code is good. Easy to navigate. Concerned with making major changes and
its effect on Shot Clock requirements. Checklists are very helpful.
Wanke: Good progress on landscape modifications to the Code.
Scott: As a resident, it covers the basics, but there is room for improvement on search capabilities.
Maddox: never liked the approval criteria used. Lots of options and administrative usability that other
codes don’t have.
Baird: re: approval criteria. Is it the layout or what the actual criteria points are where we run into
trouble? Maddox: When they were created, they weren’t being used how they are now. More form than
placement.
Baran: Fitting MGO into the code would be helpful.
Ryan: How do you feel about the forms and standards? Numerical restrictions, height, density, parking
requirements… are they relevant?
Maddox: Generally okay with height. Parking needs a deep study.
Baran: Downtown needs separate guidance or section in the Code. It has a number of conflicts with
HARC guidelines and the MU-DT zoning. Specifically on zoning, there needs to be something for smaller
lots besides developing a PUD to get what the City is wanting.
Maddox: Needs different standards for Old Town. Setbacks, fences, etc. is very different from new
subdivisions. Old Town needs more focus in the code.
Wanke: Impervious cover. Water quality.
Scott: Transitions on fill-in development, specifically between Residential and MF zones (buildings
heights). Mixing commercial and residential areas need more than just buffer yards.
Baran: Allow for conditional zoning approvals. PUDs are difficult for everyone – City, Developers, etc. For
example, a base zoning with conditions to not allow certain uses (# of trips per day, etc.).Wanke:
Conditional overlay concept is harder to track. Travis: if it’s codified well, there’s opportunity. PUDs are
hard to track anyways. The lack of flexibility in the current code has created a need for PUDS, resulting in
a lot of work for the developers and City staff. Finding that balance between flexibility and
overcomplicated workflow for staff. Concerned with creating a code that creates excessive review times.
PUDs often are manipulating the use table. Baran: Conditional rezone to eliminate certain uses without
creating a whole PUD.
Are there existing development standards that are overly onerous or cumbersome?
Baran: Parking requirements, adding more impervious cover. Planting types and irrigation doesn’t make
sense... Planting excessively only to not water it.
Articulation? Building materials?
Baran: if you’re building a project, you’re proud of, you’re not going to use bad materials.
Wanke: Articulation is one mechanism to get to high quality projects. Not sure about how onerous it is.
Discussion on building materials (Development agreement loophole).
Baran: High quality developments tend to use high quality materials in my experience.
Scott: Commercial zones against residential landscaping transition. Mechanism to require enforcement
on concept plans/ code compliance? Discussion on plats/landscaping/enforcing requirements.
Discussion on CO requirements.
Ryan: Anywhere in town where you see bad transitions between zones? Scott: Differentiation between
what kind of zone was there first. Typically, if a commercial property is being put in next to existing
residential, there should be a standard for better buffers.
Wanke: consider differences in elevations when examining planting/buffer yards.
Wanke: Neighborhood homeowners aren’t in the weeds of the development process. Illustrations or
some sort of aid for the general public to understand the code. Baran: I have seen a code from a
different City that has a “preamble” to help the public understand its purpose and function. Would be
helpful for public outreach. Wanke: Same concept for articulation. What are we trying to accomplish
there?
Maddox: Building design is important, especially because of the material legislation. Articulation
standards in the current code need to be improved/overhauled. Street relationship with the buildings is
important. Corridors, usage of overlay districts, intersections, etc.
Wanke: We can’t legislate design. Can at least set goals for what you’re trying to accomplish. Maddox:
Community matters, take where you are in the City into consideration.
Ryan asked the Committee if they notice any missing standards.
Scott: Commercial security cameras looking over residential properties.
Baran: Formal entitlement process. Discussion on vesting, Letter of Regulatory Compliance.
Allen: Notification on redevelopment/repurposing an existing development. Baird: No public notification
for Site Plan. Baran: Public outreach, advise homeowners to look at code and see what is allowed next to
their properties.
Ryan: Conservation standards? Incentives for conservation subdivisions? Maddox: Developed at a
different time in terms of open land, utilities, etc.
Baran: Compliance list on staff reports/approval criteria. Partially complies is often vague or difficult to
understand.
Baran: During presentations for land use ratios, at what point can developers look through those? Baird:
I can share those calculations/methods after the meeting.
Ryan: Good examples of development in other communities that you would like to see in
Georgetown?
Scott: Traffic calming efforts. Circles, islands, etc. avoiding the overuse of speed humps. North Shoal
Creek area in Austin.
Maddox: San Marcos code. Challenging for development, but useability/character is good from a
planning standpoint.
Wanke: Cedar Park does not have impervious cover, but regulates density based on other codes.
Baran: Separating technical reviews from Shot Clock.
Ryan: Notable changes you’d like to see in terms of end results?
Maddox: More administrative pressure = more pressure on staff. Becomes onerous. This is an
opportunity to streamline those processes.
Baran: Fee threshold for minor changes/growth.
Wanke: Issues getting open records.
Scott: Searchability is important. Plays into public outreach.
Discussion on fiscal surety.