Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_07.24.2024I'vAlinutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of Georgetown., Texas Wednesday., July 24.,2024 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering committee met on Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 2:00 PM at 295 SE Inner Loop, 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: Michael J Walton, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper, Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash Public Wishing to Address the Board 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 speak for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requester's granted time to speak. No more than six 0[1 A not psted on �the a �enda� A request must be received by the Advisory Board or Commission Liaison 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 June 27, 2024 UDC I Z11111012511 Moved by Stephen F Dickey; seconded by Ercel Brashear to Approve the minutes. Motion Approved: 9- 0 Voting ror; Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash, Michael J Walton, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Voting Against: None (I.B Overview of Current Progress - Use Chart Update Presentation of current UDC Advisory Committee recommendations for Use Chart updates -- Zane Brown, Management Analyst Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, and Zane Brown, Management Analyst, shared with the Commission the progress made on land use charts with the UDC Advisory Committee. This Committee meets monthly and have been focused on current uses and updating what districts they are appropriate in. The attachment included with this item on the agenda notates recommendations from this Committee. Members include HOA representative, engineers, downtown representatives, and developers. LC Impervious Cover Discussion and direction on requirements for impervious cover -- Sofia Nelson, AEEEVIN� Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced the City's Engineering team, including David Munk, Ashley Hanson, Caleb Fuhrer, and Reisz Krampe. Nelson reviewed the guiding and reviewed the options for regulating impervious cover. Option 1 - current approach, based on zoning district. Remove streets from calculations. IC is dependent on location over EA, zoning district and plat note. Developer can distribute impervious cover across subdivision. Option 2Use current impervious cover maximum as design minimum and allow applicants to engineer to higher coverage. This would still require plat notes. Option 3 Don't regulate impervious cover, and require a minimum amount of landscaped area Option 4: Set impervious cover by zoning district. No plat notes, and no distribution Committee Member Stevens asked the engineering team what their opinion on the options presented are. Fuhrer noted that TCEQ also reviews applications to ensure water quality standards are met, and he often sees homeowners reach out who wish to add impervious cover to their lot (add a pool or an Accessory Dwelling Unit) but are already at their limit and are thrown headfirst into drainage requirements with both Georgetown and the State, which can be overwhelming for them. Committee Member Birdwell noted that it can be a challenge to inform homeowners about impervious cover specifications and plats, but he is not sure that there is a n option here that would solve that problem. He noted that accommodations can e made by the developer to allow for the things that future homeowners may want to add onto their property. Discussion on process for amending a plat note or restrictive covenant. contributing zone with very little recharge zone within their jurisdiction. He noted that it worked, and he agreed with Committee Member Birdwell's point that educating homeowners may always be a challenge. Discussion on redevelopment and how the UDC would work if impervious cover regulations were changed. Committee Member Cash noted that option 3 could have a public perception challenge. Many residents do not like seeing new development with landscaping that requires irrigation while they are on watering restrictions. Committee Member Birdwell asked city staff what approach they would like to see adopted. Nelson noted that option one with increased allowances for impervious cover percentages. It allows the allocation of impervious cover across a subdivision for engineers, although not necessarily the very highest degree of flexibility for engineers. Committee Member Dickey commented that he would like to see a hybrid of options 1 and 2, especially when considering the differences between residential and commercial developments. Committee Member Birdwell noted that he would like to see the numbers staff proposes for option 1 and test it against current and future projects they are working on to see how they interact. Committee Member Birdwell noted that the Committee should keep in mind that they are trying to reduce the amount of landscaping and sod required to be installed to reduce water usage. Committee Member Cash commented that homeowners often do not know how to read a plat or their survey, and many don't realize that their lot is maxed out on impervious cover. Builders do not have an incentive to inform buyers of this. Council Member Hood asked if there is a way to incorporate expanded allowances for larger lots into option 1. Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, said that he has seen separate lot coverage maximums on top of impervious coverage methods. Committee Member Birdwell noted that he would still prefer option 3 but is open to see what staff comes back with for option one, and acknowledged that staff will always be present in staff's work with existing plats. Committee Member Kasper noted that he is concerned with irrigation and water conservation during times of drought when considering option 3. Committee Member Birdwell asked if option 4 would work with the engineering teams interpretation. Munk noted that he doesn't have a problem with locking commercial in on zoning, but the 70/55 restriction is for extra water quality on bigger commercial sites and aimed to encourage the preservation of raw land. Discussion on other communities' stormwater management and water quality that experience a similar climate as Georgetown. Staff will come back to the Committee with drafts for two separate standards for commercial and residential and test numbers. LD Inter -parcel Connectivity Discussion and direction on the requirement for inter -parcel connectivity between commercial uses -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, Introduced the item and review the previous discussion the Committee has had on this topic. Sparks reviewed vehicular connectivity approaches, their pros and cons, and noted that they can implement one, some, or all of the options. • 1: Maintain current conditions. Option 2: Add performance criteria for easements. Option 3: Add placement standards (slip street, backage style) Option 4: Add driveway access prohibition and tie to classification. Committee Member Birdwell asked where the liability lies between two property owners Who are required to have cross access. He asked if there is potential for an easement document outlining the liability and whether it is public or • Currently, the City id not liable for inter -parcel connection. Committee Member Smith noted that the problem he has seen with these agreements is that they are not in perpetuity, and there is often not a responsible party outlined in those #• Committee Member Birdwell noted that he is in favor of slip streets but also concerned with the liability and who that is placed on, He commented that it can eb a hinderance for vie t2�e ot tie liQ,*ility of neiahborina uses. Committee Member Smil Drive. Sparks noted that public slip streets are rare, especially on redevelopment areas suc as Williams Drive. I Discussion on connections between commercial and multifamily developments concerning liability and safety. Sofia Nelson summarized the discussion to confirm that staff Is understanding the Committee's feelings on the topic: Driveway access i son a first -come first -serve bases-, If inter -connectivity is needed, that is something for property owners to work out with their neighbors, but the City should not require inter -parcel connectivity. The Committee generally supports connectivity between parcels, but is concerned with the liability that comes with it. Sparks noted that the conversations seems to be leading towards greenfield developments being platted in a way where all properties can achieve access with driveway spacing standards, while infill development's goal is to reduce the number of driveways, with the option of utilizing backage roads or slip streets. Committee Member Smith noted that greenfield development is easier, while infill presents more problems. He is okay with allowing property owners to work • .• between themselves, • noted that there are lots of considerations with TxDOT and the City, but there should be some sort • standard set. Nelson confirmed with the Committee that they would like to strikethrough the inter - parcel connectivity requirement currently in the code. in the event that a lot does not applicant can submit an easement agreement showing that connectivity prior to SDP approval. Committee Member Dickey added that there should be driveway standards based on road classifications and not just the current speed limit of the road. 1.E Review of Gateway Overlays Discussion and direction on the gateway overlay districts to be coded within the Unified Development Code (UDC) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson introduced the item and explained the standards for each Gateway Overlay in the UDC. She asked the Committee if they agree with the current roadways designated here and if they're appropriate for additional landscaping. Committee Member Brashear noted that trying to protect the image of those roadways and the imposition of the PUE adjacent to the ROW presents a problem for development. If landscaping cannot overlap a PUE, then there are functionally two lot frontages. Landscaping should be sensitive for water conservation, and requiring trees can be a problem for signage visibility. The Committee generally agreed that the Gateway Overlays should not extend past SH 130, and landscape standards for these overlays should be examined. 93 M kyw.] RON HAN W# M111110 1-4 V Rt In I re. STMI ate All-Vijeci there is a lot of heavy, oversized traffic on the east side of SH 130. The Committee generally agreed that the gateway should be kept, perhaps with adjusted standards. Adjournment These min ere approved at the meeting of AiA�q v 6 -f- 21 7,o 7,1-4 6ha W, Attest