Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_05.30.2024Minutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of Georgetown,, Texas Thursdayr May 30,, 2024 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, May 30, 2024 at 2:00 PM at Friends Room in the Georgetown Public Library, 402 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626. The City • Georgetown is committed to • with the Americans with Disabilities Act • -• assistance in • at a public meeting • to a • as defined •_ the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's • Ice, at least three (3) days prior to the -• meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street foradditional 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, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Public Wishing to Address the Board • at the entrance to the meeting room, Clearly print your name and the letter • the item on which you speak when the Board considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the ta • for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six and • 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 • Commission members. No action can • taken. 1. Regular Session I.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 28, 2024 meeting of the UDC Steering Committee - Jessica Lemanski, Associate Planner Moved by Stephen F Dickey, seconded by Brad Smith to Approve the minutes. Motion Approved- 7- 0 Voting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, F-rcol Brashear, Shawn Hood, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Voting Against: None 1-B Progress Update Update on work done since our last meeting -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director - IMW I TRM process and the outreach feedback themes. Nelson reviewed the topics t at t e Committee has already discussed and recapped the previous meeting topic. 1.0 Review of Residential and Non -Residential Landscape Standards Discussion on Unified Development Code (UDC) Chapter 8 - Sections on Residential Landscaping and Non -Residential Landscaping Requirements -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, noted to the Committee that Chapter 8 of the UDC currently includes residential and non residential landscaping requirements, as well as tree preservation requirements. Today's meeting focus will only be on landscaping requirements, with a future meeting to discuss tree preservation requirements. Committee Member Birdwell asked if Georgetown's Preferred Plant List aligns with Austin's Grow Green list. Rachel Hagan, Senior Landscape Planner, said that it does, a 0 it is also aligned with the City's internal list for water conservation requirements. Committee Member Birdwell asked if Georgetown had considered simply adopting Austin's Grow Green list for simplicity for developers working in multiple jurisdictions. Hagan noted that Georgetown's list is more broad than Austin's plant list. Committee as that gives Georgetown little room to have a say in what's on the list. Hagan noted tha the list has not been narrowed down in her time with the City of Georgetown. Additionall diversity of plant life is recommended by the US Forestry Service. Committee Member Smith commented that we should emphasize native plants and consider the longevity of these species as weather patterns and diseases such as oak wilt morph through time. I Nelson reviewed some commonly used terms in Chapter 8 and shade tree requirements. Committee Member Stevens commented that the shade tree plantings at HTeaO look great now, but when the trees mature, they will be too closely spaced to survive long-term. Hagan noted that COG sets minimum distance spacing requirements, but it is generally up to the site designer to space those trees appropriately. Kris Kasper asked if there are considerations for plants that would pass away over time - is it an option for overplanting to account for trees that may die over time? Hagan noted that this is a strategy that TXDQT utilizes, mostly for weed suppression purposes. I SIMON a I AMA aINIA, CIAN AmRs 900- NO She noted that it is a requirement for the applicant to provide an engineer's stamp proving that the turf is pervious, which is a difficult task for residents to fulfill. Committee Member Dickey asked if the allowed grass species are drought tolerant. Hagan noted that there are different varieties of the listed grasses, which are marketed differently regarding their drought tolerance. She added that some water usage is a result of cultural or educational impacts - some owners may have a drought tolerant lawn, but still overwater it. Committee Member Birdwell noted that some developers may be more incentivized to utilize drought tolerant grasses that aren't available in turf squares if they were able to obtain their Certificate of Occupancy prior to those plantings being fully installed. Council Member Hood asked if there is interest from non-residential developers to utilizer artificial turf or xeriscaping in their developments. Hagan said that most of the interest she has seen for those options are coming from established residential residents. Council Member Hood noted that one of City Council's single biggest issues is conservation. If it is more affordable and efficient for developers to utilize non -drought tolerant grasses and get their permits quickly rather than find creative solutions to address water conservation while working around UDC requirements. Committee Member Dickey commented that he would like to take a chance on this portion of the UDC to address the issues that have been discussed with cutting edge strategies. Committee Member Smith noted that the local weather patterns have been on a pendulum in the past 10 years, which is why eh believes that native plantings are the key to addressing landscaping requirements to mitigate these issues. Committee Member Birdwell noted that we should also consider that these requirements are only applicable to City Limits, and Georgetown's water district covers a much wider area. Committee Member Kasper noted that incentivizing developers may not be sufficient either, and we would need HOAs to be on board to address their current CCNRs that may be undermining water conservation efforts. Nelson noted that a state law was recently passed that limited HOAs from prohibiting xeriscaping. Committee Member Birdwell noted that the Water Department is in talks to have water contracts with future developers, and the City might consider adding landscaping standards to those agreements. Council Member Hood noted that if in the long term, we are considering adopting xeriscaping, the first logical step would be to allow and encourage any form of xeriscaping in the side yards. He noted that most people utilize their front and back yards, but are unable to keep plantings alive in the side yards. Utilizing a lower billable tier for homeowners if they are utilizing landscaping that uses less water, or create percentage allowances for xeriscaping. Committee Member Birdwell noted that most Committee members seem to be in favor of allowing and even incentivizing xeriscaping, but there are other things to still consider: installation costs, irrigation for the initial stages of plantings, and mechanisms for the City to ensure that they're installed correctly after Certificate of Occupancies are issued. Discussion on incentives for water conservation landscaping. Nelson moved the group's discussion on to non-residential landscaping standards. In regard to parking lot landscaping requirements, Committee Member Brashear asked if requiring more tree plantings for increased parking spaces is counterintuitive to the goal of reducing water demand. Committee Member Smith pointed out that additional parking that exceeds the minimum standards is going over ground that could've remained pervious grass or earth, and that eh believes it is a matter of which goal they wish to prioritize and balancing those goals. Committee Member Birdwell noted that the City does not always see the full landscaping plan that dev elopers utilize - they will submit their code compliant plans and also have a "landscaping plus" plan with more plantings to aid in the marketing and beautification of the development. Hagan noted that there are functions in the UDC currently that allow flexibility in landscaping such as Administrative Exceptions, credit trees, pervious cover credits, etc. The preference would be to use the trees already on site and then add the small trees to meet the minimum standards. Discussion on materials besides trees allowed in parking lot medians. The Committee moved on to discussing Gateway Landscaping Requirements, including landscaping buffer yards along major roadways. Committee Member Birdwell asked if the intent was to create a landscaped alley to hide the development behind it on the Gateway Corridor Roadways. Committee Member Brashear replied that it was intended to beautify the roadway and to avoid a barren road with no greenery. Committee member noted that shade trees create a relatively solid screen across that buffer, which ultimately becomes a barrier to signage and the development itself along those major roads. Council Member Hood commented that an example of this is in the Rivery Development along the frontage of IH-35. The tree canopy has matured over the years and hidden those business' signage_ Committee Member Birdwell noted that he likes the increased landscaping standards along these roadways, but suggested that they could be spread across the whole site instead of concentrated along the roadway. The 15 foot Public Utility Easements (PUEs) required by the City further limits the developments in their buffer yards, as plantings are not allowed in those PUEs. Discussion on the distribution of plantings to meet requirements. Committee Member Ercel suggested that our requirement of shade trees may be too specific, and that we should allow the designer to be creative in filling the space with landscaping. The Committee continued discussion on buffer yard and screening requirements, including considerations such as sight lines along roadways, placement of plantings to address buffer yard/screening requirements, and the preservation of existing natural landscaping as buffer yards. Nelson thanked the Committee for their discussion and feedback on the landscaping standards. Future topics to be discussed include tree preservation, downtown, and subdivision standards. 1.D ist Public Draft of Chapter 14 Presentation of Chapter 14 - Nonconformities (1st public draft) of the Unifie4 Development Code (UDC) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, noted that this item is intended to release the first draft of Chapter 14 for the Committee to look over and analyze. She encouraged the Committee to invite people to these meetings and collected their input. Adjournment These minutes Chair I,-,' Attest