Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_06.27.2024Minutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of Georgetown'. Texas Thursday., June 27, 2024 The Georgetown ubc Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 2:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th 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 under the ADA, 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 Public Wishing to Address the Board u I 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 meetinRa bein(�-, called to order ma4, sjjeak. S�ceakers will be allowed uo!, to three minutes to sAeak. If kjou wii-hAo-- speak for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six m i n utes for a s�tea ker m aVI be Era nted. The re# uesto and be present at the meeting. On a sWLiect not.po, d on the agendx, A request must be racynive_cLbi� �,rd, ir C 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. 1. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 30, 2024 UDC Moved by Brad Smith-, seconded by Stephen F Dickey to Approve the minutes. Motion Approved: 8- 0 Voting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith Voting Against: None (.B 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 1_#1­r­(WUf WWI I L *77WT full shade and in areas with minimal soil. He noted that many of his clients do not have the necessary soil to support sod installations, making it difficult for them to meet plantin requirements. n uounT, so it is required that certain county facilities be located in Georgetown. With the current UDC, they are required to develop as a commercial development, which has caused some difficulties in working through the language of the code since government facilities �zre not necessarily commercial developments. Mayor Schroeder asked if there are other cities that the County has worked with that have a separate code section for Wilco or county projects. Jacobs said that there is not any that he knows of but noted that Wilco is bound to Georgetown through the City's county seat position, so it is a unique situation. Mayor Schroeder asked what commercial regulations the County would like to be exempt from. Jacobs noted that he has not reviewed that yet, but would like to explore collaborating with Georgetown on the UDG Rewrite. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced the item and reviewed the previous meeting and City Council's workshop discussions. Those discussions included establishing a limitation on the amount of grass in residential areas (especially in side setbacks), examining other cities' landscaping restrictions for turf and artificial grass. Nelson noted that our current UDC only allows artificial turf in the backyard with a permit, which requires an engineer's stamp to certify that it is pervious. Mayor Schroeder asked if there are other ways to confirm pervious artificial turf other than an engineer, which can be a costly undertaking for residents, Nelson noted that the City's Engineering Department has guided that discussion and established that that is the standard they would like to hold that requirement to. development standards from Freese & Nichols, our UDC Rewrite consultant. They are also working on commercial standards and gateway buffers. (.0 Overview of Impervious Cover Requirements Discussion on Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 11.02 — Impervious Cover -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced the item and noted the discussion points that staff would like to touch on for this item. She also read the UDCs definition for Impervious Cover to ensure that everybody has the same understanding of its meaning. Impervious Cover is currently defined in the UDC as: "Any hard -surfaced, man-made area that does not readily absorb or retain water, including, but not limited to, building roofs, parking and driveway areas, pavement, graveled areas, sidewalks, and paved recreation areas. Impervious Cover is subject to the determination of the Development Engineer. Includes and may be referred to as the term "Impervious Surface". Committee Member Birdwell noted that the UDC definitions should line up with the Statt and environmental codes for impervious cover, especially in regard to how pools are calculated in impervious cover. 07 , F1411F7 7 TwiMTT Ter when considering impervious cover, and runoff can be handled in ways other than limiting impervious cover. Water quality and other environmental concerns can be addressed with other standards as well. Committee Member Birdwell stated that he does not believe that the City should have impervious cover limitations, as one could almost never actually achieve 100% impervious cover when you consider the other standards in the code. Committee Member Birdwell noted that it should be up to the developers and engineers to work through the mechanics of stormwater management and other development standards. Committee Member Stevens agreed, and noted that there is already drainage criteria developers are required to meet that addresses the issue of water runoff. He noted that as long as the intent of not harming neighboring properties is met, there should not be an arbitrary limit on impervious cover. Committee Member Brashear noted that at the time that impervious cover limits were I set, the concept was generated based on the State of Texas when they determined I'. Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone as a critical environmental zo Bne, and he would like t hear from a wider group with more expertise on the subject before giving approval on eliminating impervious cover limitations. Committee Member irdwell noted that I impervious cover limits are enforced via zoning district, not whether the property is within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Nelson explained to the Committee which applications include a review of impervious cover. Mayor Schroeder asked about the platting process in relation to setting impervious cover limitations: If impervious cover is set on the subdivision plat as opposed to leaving it up to zoning, is it possible for the first builders within the subdivision to use all of the impervious cover allowances, therefore leaving less available for future residents who build within the subdivision? Nelson explained that when impervious cover is set on a subdivision plat, the applicant will notate the allowed percentage for the entire subdivision, but also include charts or plat notes for each lot's impervious cover allowances within that subdivision. Committee Member Birdwell added that a developer can then strategize where they would like more or less impervious cover within the subdivision. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director for Current Planning, noted that there are differences in expectations when moving through that process for homebuilders and homebuyers versus developers, and can result in a heftier burden on the homeowner. They may purchase a property without knowing their impervious cover limit has been met, and they cannot make any additions without vacating and replatting the subdivision, which requires the consent of all property owners on the plat. Discussion on considerations for developers when setting impervious cover limitations for subdivisions. Mayor Schroeder asked if the city is responsible for the maintenance of water quality ponds within neighborhoods. Baird explained that the maintenance stays with the neighborhood, and the City exercises regulatory control over it on behalf of the State. If a neighborhood's HOA fails in the maintenance, the City will step in and provide guidance on requirements for compliance. Committee Member Dickey asked if open space lots or floodplain is counted as an impervious cover credit. Committee Member Birdwell noted that if the floodplain is notated on the plat, it could be counted as pervious for the site. Nelson noted that the City of Leander has open space and landscaping requirements, but it does not regulate impervious cover in the same way that the City of Georgetown currently does. Leander requires 20% open space for multifamily developments and has other standards that would dictate what landscaping needs to be applied for development. Committee Member Birdwell commented that the City calculates swimming pool impervious cover as 50% of the water surface, but the State, as well as the City of Austin, considers 100% of the water's surface pervious. He noted that he believes the City's standards should mirror the State of Texas's standards. Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, noted that there are cities that allow engineers to set their impervious cover limitations, and it is often determined with drainage design considerations. Sparks explained that it can be set as a design assumptions or a hard restriction. If a design assumption is proposed to be exceeded, water detention and water quality elements can be added in order to mitigate the requirement to vacate and replat to change the limitations. This can be in the form of a berm, pond, a series of underground pipes for detention, etc. IRWRIFORINTRI FER51 I !I � I I 1� I Mayor Schroeder noted that the general discussion of this Committee is moving towards a mi i desi�#�in assuim tixn with the abilito i,4LhmkLta_higher imAervious cover limits. The Committee generally agreed that this is what they've discussed as a viable option for City Council to discuss and consider. -717M 717* 711 r F iTrEM777V -at r GEM [it 1 7-117711raIg behavior; if you are leaving out a minimum standard, you don't need incentives. Mayor Schroeder agreed and noted that if we want incentives for increased landscaping, that should be included in the landscaping chapter of the code, while this section should be focused on water quality and runoff. Nelson confirmed with the Committee that they discussed establishing a minimum design qssumption using percentages already within the code, with the ability to design to a higher. level. 1.13 Chapter 6 and 7 Review Presentation of Drafts of Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the Unified Development Code -- Chance Sparks, Freese and Nichols (UDC consultant) JIL Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, reviewed the draft chapters and asked the Committee for their feedback. Committee Member Dickey asked if our current cul-de-sac length requirements are inconsistent with current practices and if they meet fire code, Sparks noted that standards are not too far off from what they've seen with other cities, and they do meet fire code. committee Member Birdwell asked if the Planning Department could share how many variances have been requested for block length or connectivity requirements, especially on the side of town that typically runs into topographical challenges. Sparks noted that the code could vary its standards based on location, or allow Administrative Exceptions. Travis Baird, Assistant PlanninA, Director for Current Planninp, noted that the current UDC allows Administrative Exceptions to be utilized for natural barriers or challenges for those standards. Discussion on considerations for connectivity and block length, including density, street classifications, incompatible uses, etc. Nelson noted that she will bring joint access concerns to the next meeting, as it has relevance in this conversation. Committee Member Smith asked how cross access is enforced currently, and noted that we need to consider how landowners will enforce private access agreements. Baird noted that multifamily development do not currently have a requirement to connect to a non - residentially used property; However, two commercial uses that front on the same street Committee Member Brashear noted that transit is a public function, and when you shift that access onto private property without paying for that cost, he is unsure that is fair to the property owner. He noted that those access points should be dedicated to the City for them to maintain. Committee Member commented that there could be incentives for property owners, but he's unsure if its possible to mandate joint access. across lots, but there is concern for liability and a desire to explore options for dedicating those access points for public use. Adjournment These minutes were loved at the meeting of Chair L--11' I Attest