Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUS_12.04.2024Minutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of Georgetownt Texas Wednesday, December 4. 2024 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Wednesday, December 4, M24 at 9-00 Am at The Hewlett Room in the Georgetown Public Library, located at 402 W 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined un er t e I reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. The following Members were in attendance: Present were: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Public Wishing to Address the Board Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the meeting room. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Board Liaison prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the meeting being called to order may speak, Speakers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. If you wish to ,.peak for six minutes, it is permissibip to use another rpriuestor's granted time to speak. No more than six a �form and be present at the meeting. prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the Board or Commission members. No action can be taken. Aimee Payne, with Blake Magee, approached the podium to address the Committee. She noted that Blake Magee has been developing several large neighborhoods in Georgetown over the years, including Parkside on the River (POTR) and Woodside. POTR is developed according to the 2001 UDC, while Woodside meets the 2015 UDC. Payne noted that Blake Magee is very interested in bei involved with the development of Chapter 8 and the tree ordinance, and noted that they do not wish develop in communities that do not have a tree ordinance, as they aid in beautifying the area. Payne noted that she believes that the way that Chapter 8 is currently written in the UDC is detrimental to their projects. The POTR and Woodside properties are covered in trees, many of which require mitigation to be paid in order to remove or prune them. Payne would like to see mo incentives offered for developers to plant new trees. Currently, the UDC give 50% credit for each new tree planted in terms of mitigation, but she would like to see 100% mitigation credit given to developers for planting trees. Payne described the cost of planting trees and the comparison to mitigation fees, and noted that it is often more cost effective to just pay mitigation for a lost tree than planting new ones to fulfill mitigation. lj,vle-afso n*rF-,#7tR7rT=1F7)II I F I I TFAW phase of development, and recommends that tree ordinance enforcement be tied to the construction plan phase. 1. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 26, 2024 regular meeting of the UDC Steering Committee -- Jessica Lemanski, Associate Planner (WF77*71- Rasnear 11T 5-717171TIF111.0—IFT"r WMITMUL-M posted on the agenda to reflect that he was in attendance at the last meeting. Moved by Shawn Hood, seconded by Stephen F Dickey to Approve the minutes as amended by Committee Member Brashear. Motion Approved: 9- 0 Voting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Voting Against: None 1,G Review Approval Criteria for Zoning Changes Discussion on approval criteria for zoning changes and special use permits -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced staff and reviewed the current criteria that staff uses to analyze and review rezoning requests, and identified opportunities for enhancement in that criteria by the Steering Committee and City Council. Committee-Wiember 6rashear noted that the or- in enf-To-r crife-n—aX was incomplete applications weren't submitted just so developers could get their foot in the door. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director - Current Planning, noted that there are that staffs completeness check is quite comprehensive and does not allow incomplete applications to advance to the Commission. Mayor Schroeder noted that he is unsure that criteria H captures the full breadth of strategic goals for the Council. Committee Member Smith asked why that criteria is included. Mayor Schroeder explained that there are certain projects that may not fit in the box of the other criteria that are involved in economic development negotiations. Criteria H is intended to bring transparency to those projects and get it out in the open that some projects present significant economic benefits to the city, although on the surface it may not be clear that there is a partnership. Committee Member Brashear asked if we can add the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) into criteria C. Baird noted thar the Comprehensive Plan and EDSP do not always align and so it may be challenging to have those in one criteria. Committee Member Birdwell noted that this criteria is intended to help Commissioners make informed decisions, but it does not add clarity for developers, who see these criteria as more subjective and a matter of opinion. The Committee discussed the need to identify economic development projects and making it clear when those are being presented for consideration. Nelson stressed that the approval criteria is about transparency and making it clear why decisions were made. Committee Member Smith asked what happens fi a 7-bning request is approved for an economic deal, but that deal then falls through. Mayor Schroeder noted that Council is privy to those more confidential conversations, and they have their own responsibility to cmmlm�#� Nelson reviewed the changes advised by the Committee and noted that staff present a draft for approval when complete. 1.0 inter -parcel connectivity Discussion and direction on the requirement for inter -parcel connectivity between Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, reviewed the concerns that the Committee has voiced in the past for this subject and the options for regulating inter -parcel connectivity. Committee Member Smith asked if the City is going to become a party to cross -access easement agreements, and how the City would place terms on those agreements such as time limits, enforcement, etc.. Discussion on difficulties in management, liability, etc. associated with cross -access agreements. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director - Current Planning explained that the City would likely have a signature line on those agreements, • that wouldn't necessarily make it a •« to the agreement', rather, it would establish that the City has reviewed to ensure it meets the minimum standards. mayor Schroeder asked what the plan is moving forward to address the Committee's concerns. Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, said that the approval of agreements can include the city as an approval on the easement document or not have a city signature on it - the risk with the latter is that the agreement could be altered without the city's Mayor Schroeder asked how It would be handled when a neighbor does not wish to develop. Sparks noted that this is getting more into specific scenarios, but it could possibly be handled through an Administrative Exception of some sort. Baird noted that the first property to develop could provide access, but they don't necessarily need to create the connection all the way through to the other property. Lua Saluone, Transportation Manager, discussed the proliferation of driveways on Williams Drive, noting that there are several businesses with multiple driveway and access points through adjacent properties. He explained that the overabundance of driveways on Williams Drive creates significant safety issues that can be improved by Yxro*,,*g Daniel Bilbrey, Deputy Fire Marshall, noted that multiple access routes to properties is beneficial Discussion on access disputes related to interconnectivity. The City has not received many complaints on this subject (once in eight years per Baird's experience). Committee Member Smith noted that developers would rather this be a civil dispute that the city is not involved in. Discussion on TxDOT interaction with inter -parcel connectivity and the timing of creating cross connections. Committee Member Birdwell noted that the developing property's use should determine whether the connection is made, and the adjacent property's zoning and use should not be a consideration. Discussion on difficulties involved in creating access easements when adjacent properties develop at different times. Nelson noted that variance processes are available for properties that cannot meet UDC standards, and there is possibly opportunity for administrative variance at a LD Use Chart Update Presentation of UDC Advisory Committee recommendations for Use Chart updates — MESM Sofia Nelson, Planning Director and Zane Brown reviewed the discussions the UDC Advisory Committee has been having in relation to the use charts. council Member Hood asked where else in the UDC an 8 foot screening wall is required, in relation to that requirement for drive -through restaurant. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director - Current Planning, noted that loading docks and mechanical equipment is required to be screened, but not necessarily with fences. Committee Member Smith asked for confirmation that the requirement is that talk boxes in drive-throughs must be 150 feet away from and not facing residential. Staff confirmed that is the requirement proposed. Committee Member Smith noted that many commercial developments and tenants design sites to specifically have talk boxes in the back of the site, which is usually where residential areas would develop. Committee Member Dickey agreed and noted that those requirements should be a "one or the other" option. Mayor Schroeder agreed that he would like to look at the 150 foot requirement more and allow more flexibility for tenants. He proposed that the Code should require a screening mechanism of some kind in all situations, and then give an option of either being 150 feet away from or not facing adjacent residential development. Mayor Schroeder asked if there is any guidance we can give to developers on an acceptable distance for fuel sale uses to be to each other. Committee Member Smith suggested that when there are multiple fuel sale uses proposed at an intersection, we should require they be on opposite sides of the road so drivers aren't crossing over on there way to and from work or their destination. Committee Member Birdwell asked if Council wants to see site plans for fuel sale uses before they approve or disapprove the use, or if they are only concerned with the use. Committee Member Dickey noted that there are situations where a fuel sales use would not have been approved without a proposed site plan presented. Discussion on Warehousing and Distribution, Office/Showroom, and Office/Warehouse uses. The Committee generally discussed a focus more on form based standards rather than uses. Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, noted that performance standards, such as hours of operation and traffic patterns, may be helpful to analyze when defining these uses. Committee Member Birdwell noted that Warehousing and Distribution, Limited should include a limitation on loading dock height. Discussion on the benefits and challenges of including a physical limitation in a use definition. Nelson noted that staff will look into adding a limitation on dock height for less intense uses, and that the 1-1 district should allow for full dock height to allow those distribution uses. The Committee took at break at 12 pm for lunch and reconvened at 12:20 pm. Brown reviewed the current definition and limitations for the Home Based Business use. Discussion on hotel uses in the MU-DT zoning in relation to parking, HARC requirements, and SUP requirements. The Committee generally agreed that Hotel, Boutique should be allowed by right in MU_DT due to the parking guidelines established in the Downtown Master Plan. The hotel use definitions should be narrowed down to be more clear on aesthetics, scale, etc. Discussion on Live Music and Entertainment, Dance Hall or Nightclub, and Event Facility uses. Mayor Schroeder noted that he doesn't see a need to differentiate so much The Committee proposed allowing Indoor Firing Ranges in the 1-1 district. Daniel Bilbery, Deputy Fire Marshall, noted that fire code intersects with this use when a tenant carries magazines and ammunition. Surrounding uses on the property may not be allowed in , " 'U - �017 t this would need to be a consideration for *7,vu -jt41� the property owner to take into account if they are proposing a Indoor Firing Range. The Committee generally agreed that vape and cannabis sellers should be included in the Personal Services, Restricted use. 1.13 Overview of Current Progress - ETJ Regulations Discussion on development regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, asked the Committee how they felt abotu the current level of regulation that Georgetown exercises in the ETJ. Mayor Schroeder noted that he would like to remove as many development standards from our ETJ regulation as possible to cut down the argument of properties seeking dis-annexation from Georgetown's ETJ. Discussion on the purpose of city regulation in the ETJ- Mayor Schroeder noted that if the city removed the tree ordinance from our powers in the ETJ, many properties would then be open to staying in our ETJ and the city could have a seat at the table to MEEMM WS7F! of properties dis-annexing from the ETJ, developing without city regulation, and then approaching the city to be annexed afterwards. Sparks noted that he has not seen the ETJ, looking at it more as a negotiation point. Sparks explained that there are several cities that are just as active in regulation in the ETJ as in city limits (San Marcos, Bee Cave, Taylor, Boerne, etc.). In response to the Texas legislature allowing cities to dis-annex from ETJs, he has seen cities remove regulatory protection for residents on the periphery of city limits to discourage that. Committee Member Kasper suggested that it would likely take a number of cities to make a difference in the legislature on this point. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director - Current Planning noted that there are different approaches to this legislature change everywhere - there are legal cases in process, some cities are ignoring the change altogether, and some are abandoning their ETJ. Committee Member Dickey requested that this item be On the next meeting's agenda to Ascuss, and that staff provide a possible alternative tree ordinance that is based on incentives to retain ETJ propertiea Nelson asked the Committee if they see a difference in ETJ properties closer to the periphery of City Limits. Committee Member Birdwell responded no, noting that they have just as much of a right to dis-annex as those properties 5 miles out from city limits. Baird suggested providing incentives for those that are closer to city limits. The Committee generally agreed on this point from Baird. Sparks asked the Committee what kind of incentives in regard to the tree ordinance they would like to see. Committee Member Birdwell suggested offering credit towards impact fees for Heritage Trees preserved on- _Ae HE noted he is unsure offfielegalitk3 of that situation, but offsetting traffic im,,Aact fees would be a huge incentive for developers. Mayor Schroeder requested staff bring this item back for discussion at the next meeting, specifically focused on an incentive -based tree preservation plan for ETJ properties, He noted that impervious cover and stormwater is regulated by TCEQ, so the city may not need to regulate that in the ETJ. He noted that he would like to keep sidewalk and street standards (pedestrian and vehicle circulations) standards in the ETJ regulatory power. Baird noted that we could consider adopting county standards for those - when streets are built to city standards in the ETJ, the road is often taken over by the county, which can create maintenance problems for them. Mayor Schroeder suggested that this could also be a topic that we revisit after the adoption of the UDC, and with the legislative session coming up, it may be beneficial to delay this conversation to see what happens in that session. Nelson noted that staff also intends to delay action on the Williams Drive Overlay discussion, but noted that ETJ regulation should definitely be looked at one more time before putting it on pause completely. 1.F Chapter 8 UDC Presentation and discussion regarding Chapter 8 Non-residential landscaping -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director TIM 1,H Overview of Current Progress Update on work on Chapter 3 of the UDC, coding work to address development standards in the Old Town Overlay District, and Neighborhood Plans for San Jose and EMU= MIM Attest