Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_09.26.20241"Ifinutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of Georgetown,, Texas Thursday, September 26,, 2024 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 12*00 PM at City Hall Community Room, 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street. 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 re#uest. ease 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, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Revised Agenda This agenda was revised at approximately 11:45 am on Monday, September 23, 2024 to add the last two items to the agenda. 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 requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six 7,AfTj and be present at the meeting. �bect �not #sted 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 Public Comment Greg Holmes with Media Choice addressed the Commission to speak about the regulation of billboards in the City of Georgetown and emphasized that billboard regulations have not been revised since the late 80s or early 90s in the city, Holmes displayed a video to the Committee about the use of digital billboards for displaying multiple advertisements and mum�#A Regular Session Joan Hender, Westinghouse Road, approached the Commission to advocate for the conservation of open green spaces in Georgetown. Hender noted that she is from Washington state and has been pleasantly surprised by the green spaces in Georgetown, but has been noticing a decrease in the wildlife in the areas, including birds, foxes, and hawks. Hender described an undeveloped plot of land near her home that she enjoys and asked the Committee to consider planning for open spaces in the City. !.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approved the minutes from the July 24th regular LIDO Steering Committee meeting -- Jessica Lemanski, Associate Planner Moved by Stephen F Dickey; seconded by Kris Kasper to Approve the minutes. Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper, Ercel Brashear Voting Against: None 1.B Overview of Current Progress - Use Chart Updates Presentation of current UDC Advisory Committee recommendations for Use Chart updates -- Zane Brown, Management Analyst Zane Brown explained to the Commission the work that the UDC Advisory Committee (UDCAC) has done recently on the use charts in Chapter 5 of the UDC going line by They have focused on the proposal to combine the current CN - Neighborhood Commercial, OF - Office, and C-1 Local Commercial zoning districts into a new C-1 Local Commercial district, and have heard some concerns from residents about those uses currently allowed in C-1 when adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The LIDCAC has considered a blanket limitation on uses that are currently allowed in ON and OF, but not the current C-1 district, to not be allowed adjacent to residential neighborhoods. They are putting forth a new proposal to combine the CN and OF districts to allow a less intense commercial district as a transon to residential areas. The UDCAC felt that combining ON, OF, and C-1 would result in a wide range of intensities and could create challenges when analyzing the range and complexity of uses allowed. have not been utilized throughout the City, and they generally propose to consolidatd when that is the case. W Discussion on the placement of neighborhood commercial and commercial properties next to residential neighborhoods. Sparks noted that they can place residential adjacency restrictions for commercial properties in this situation such as hours of operation limitations, building footprint sizes, etc. to address the issues that come with being adjacent to residential. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, noted that access is a key issue for those kind of properties, as well as predictability for those living next to currently CN zoned properties that may be upzoned in the future. I scussion o to combine the CN and OF districts and leave C-1 separate. Brown noted that a new UDC website will show the current progress of the rewrite project and publish UDC drafts for the public. The webpage can be found at this link- https://ww-w.georgetowntexas.gov/development—services/planning/`unified—developmen 1.c Tree Preservation Presentation and discussion on Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Co (Tree preservation) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, reviewed the presentation given to the Cilt Discussion on what Is considered a removal of a tree during construction. If over 30% of the tree canopy is removed, or if 4 inches of soil is removed or added, the tree may be considered removed under the UDC. Committee Member Kasper noted that it seems a bit drastic to consider a tree removed if pruned over a certain amount. Rachel Hagan, Senior Landscape Planner, noted that excessive pruning can throw off the balance of the tree, introduce diseases, and damage the tree past the point of recovery. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director for Current Planning noted that we most often see removal by pruning during the construction of current development. Those trees then need to be mitigated for either by payment, replacements trees, additional plantings, etc. Committee Member Kasper asked if this applies to City projects like parkland and road improvement projects. Mayor Schroeder confirmed yes, and that the City is the largest contributor to the mitigation fund. INI 1 11*1 11 11 i I I 511111E N I I 1 $1 1 � I IT I I it�� trees is more than the cost to pay the fee -in lieu. Baird noted that if the fee in lieu is lowered, then it would serve to reduce the cost of keeping trees, not the cost of plantin-f new ones. Mayor Schroeder noted that as removed for public infrastructure or roadways should not be mitigated for, especially if those projects are using taxpayer or bond dollars. Discussion on preserving older, established trees versus planting younger, new trees that require additional care and maintenance to survive until they're established. Discussion on what phase of development mitigation is usually handled at. Committee N'ROV4,40 problematic since you do not have the grading, drainage, and other tools and information to know where the tree will be in relation to infrastructure and whether the tree can realisticaliv *e saved. Discussion on the trees for miticiation. E The Committee generally agreed that mitigation at the current phase is fine, and that a tree canopy measurement tool can be utilized as an option. Mayor Schroder noted again that he would like to see a dollar for dollar credit for money spent on mitigating for trees (1: 1 ratio for mitigation). Committee Member Birdwell asked if the city should be required to pay for tree mitigation for public infrastructure. Nelson noted that they should still work to retain the most amount of trees possible, and once those methods have been exhausted, resort to mitigation. She asked if the Committee is in favor of the best efforts exhausted clause. Committee Member Birdwell asked how one would define "best effort". Discussion on hou/ to make that distinction. Chance Sparks, Freese & Nichols, noted that the more you incentivize the preservation of trees, the more trees are likely to be preserved and retained. Sparks also noted that the relationship between the city and the school district matters or public entity exemptions. Committee Member Brashear asked if there is anything prohibiting the City from donating that money back to the school district. Baird noted that it could be utilized to make plantings elsewhere. =111 � � Z lirllqlill�l a M im. 3 WON I i 1 11111110011011:11 1 FIRM` 1 Iscussion on'XI'V7,evellopment 1=OaZ7`Vr1WU) unapter 6 - Sections on &=1k#= Landscaping Requirements -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director This item was not discussed at the meeting. I.E Impervious Cover Discussion and direction on requirements for impervious cover -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, reviewed the impervious cover regulation options, as well as the City's current approach and an example of Pflugerville's impervious cover regulations. Discussion on how hardscaping, trails, and similar landscape design elements would "M considered under option 3 (minimum landscaped area option). Discussion on differe I elements of landscaping that could present issues on interpretation and application of th option. Ir . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion on quality and quantity of water going into the Edward's Aquifer, filtration of water, and stormwater runoff. Nelson noted that staff s recommendation is option 1 (the current approach), and sh'-6 reviewed the proposed maximums for each zoning district. Chance Sparks, Freese Nichols, added that there are incentives elsewhere in the UDC to allow for impervio cover credits. He also noted that they have examined other cities' approaches to impervious cover regulations and found that they are driven by a desire for a certain aesthetic called for in their Comprehensive Plans. 11 Discussion on residential storm systems that are designed under the current imperviou cover standards and the possibility of them being given additional allowances if we mo to an alternate method, Discussion on allowing an effective date for properties platted Ji 0 leSIOT11 0 R RV R 11 The Committee generally agreed they are in favor of option 1 With a process for allowing more impervious cover based on on an engineered designs. The Committee would also that exists for the regulation of heritage tree removals. 1.F Chapter 3 UDC Presentation and discussion regarding Chapter 3 Application and Permits -- Sofia Relson, Planning Director I & 1.G Non -Residential Landscaping Presentation and discussion regarding Chapter 8 Non-residential Landscaping -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adjournment These min tes were approved at the meeting of ir Attest