Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_02.06.2025Minutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of GeorgetownTexas Thursday, February 6r 2025 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 3:00 PM at City Hall Community Room, 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street. ...... ..... I to) Tal 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 8 Cash, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith, Kris Kasper Public Wishing to Address the Board .......... speak for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six i ,+��— "I P t* ;mothpr sne;zker must also stO*mit a.&*rm•Pr mav Mab-4--�hFDT-nrt -st,*,r 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 site Development Plans - secti6n 3.09 of the UDC Presentation and Discussion on Requirements for Revisions to Approved Sill - Development Plans -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, and Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director - Current Planning, introduced the item. Baird explained the history of how Site Development Plan (SDP) processes have been handled the past 10-15 years. In summary, the current process within the UDC only allows for "insignificant or miniscule" changes to the SDP to be carried out through record drawings. All other changes to an already approved SDP must be done through an SDP amendment, which requires additional review time and fees for the applicant. Staff recommends creating a middle ground option for Minor Revision to the SDP to allow changes that may not fit the "insignificant or miniscule" criteria, but is not so extreme as to warrant a whole new review of the entire SDP through an amendment. Committee Member Dickey asked what the process was prior to 2011. Baird explained that site and construction plans were rolled into one application, so revising SDPs was not much of a concern. Committee Member Brashear asked how this would apply to properties that are developed lawfully without an SDP (i.e. if they were developed in the ETJ where none was required) who are proposing to update their site. Baird explained that if the changes do not affect the entirety of the site, there is the option for a Minor Site Plan, which has its own criteria for applicability. A Minor SDP is different from a Minor Revision to an SDP and does not require that there be an existing SDP for the property, only that the property is already developed. Discussion on the scope of minor revisions and non -conforming situations. Committee Member Birdwell asked about developed properties for which no SDP exists who are proposing demolition would be required to get an SDP for that. Nelson confirmed that a SDP is currently required prior to demolition. Committee Member Birdwell noted that in order to approve an SDP, a plat must exist, which can turn into an extremely expensive undertaking for a property owner that just wants to get rid of a building. Discussion on the Development Manual and the option to put the criteria for each SDP amendment into that document. The Development Manual is an administrative document that outlines the technical and procedural requirements for the submittal of development applications. It is updated twice a year, but staff is hoping to limit this to once a year in the future_ Mayor Schroeder suggested that the criteria for each SDP revision option be housed in the Development Manual. Baird notes that those criteria can eb outlined in the UDC Section 3.09, or each option can eb outlined in the UDC and then reference the Development Manual for where the criteria for each option is published. Structure within the UDC is more secure from change, but that can also make it harder to amend if the need arises. Mayor Schroeder and Committee Member Brashear agreed that they are in favor of the criteria being moved to the Development Manual. Discussion on processes for reviewing revision requests. Discussion on sequence of permits. Mayor Schroeder noted that SDP review takes 30 days, which holds up Certificate of Occupancy (CO) and building final inspections. Jeff Cardwell, Chief Plans Examiner, noted that once building final inspections are complete, his department gets enormous pressure from contractors to move into the building, and SDP requirements that remain are never followed up on. Greg Holt, Assistant Chief Building Official, explained the process for closing out building permits and noted that they have tried to start getting SDP processes started earlier so that they can get taken care of before building final inspections are needed. Baird explained that in the past, at a time when the city was receiving record numbers of applications, inspections were being called on sites that were either unfinished or not built to plan, resulting in significant wasted staff time during a time when workload was extremely high. Committee Member Birdwell asked how long it takes from when a developer turns in record drawings to final inspections and CO issuance. Staff confirmed abotu 3 weeks. Committee Member Birdwell asked if there is any way that can eb shortened. Nelson noted that a lot of the delay is due to staffing and a lack of inspectors. Right now, plan reviewers/case managers are also performing inspections on those projects, and she believes that inspector positions should be invested in to speed that process along. Nelson asked the Committee how the process works for other cities that they've worked in. Committee Member Birdwell replied that site and MEP inspections are called in simultaneously, and building finals are performed after. Discussion on how to best perform and schedule inspections efficiently considering the volume of applications Georgetown has been receiving. Glen Holcomb, Chief Building Official, established that he allows MEPs to be done as long as Planning and Landscape inspections have been requested. Committee Member Smith thanked staff for their work and noted that internal communication between departments is obviously strong, which he appreciates. Nelson thanked the Committee for hearing staff's point of view on this topic. Mayor Schroeder opened the public hearing. Bryan Moore, Engineer at Steger & Bizzell, noted that he is looking for more flexibility in the SDP revision process. In his opinion, an SDP amendment is intended for applicants repurposing their whole site for something different. He noted that he would IiKe to see changes that don't affect the code requirements or that were requested by city staff to be done through record drawings. He believes that if the process is simplified, there will be more applicants willing to follow that process than circumventing it and asking for forgiveness at the end. Moore believes that changes to impervious cover that do not impact drainage should be handled as minor revisions, and there should eb a threshold for quantitative elements that can be handled through a minor revision or record drawings. Mayor Schroeder asked if changes to impervious cover, where the site is still under the impervious cover limitation, require recalculated water quality. Moore replied that drainage is usually designed for maximum impervious cover allowed, so as long as the change made does not go above that maximum, it does not usually require an expansion of water quality ponds/calculations. Moore continued and pointed out that SDP amendment applications get a new city project number, which causes confusion for contractors, and he suggests that SDP revisions are kept under the same project number. Mayor Schroeder closed the public hearing Nelson summarized the Committee's recommendations for confirmation- Add language in UDC Section 3.09 for SDPs to allow changes that do not require an amendment, and refer to the Development Manual. Work on processes to allow changes that are called out in the field. Allow all inspections to be called in (besides the building final) once record drawings are approved. Add a re -inspection fee to discourage multiple inspection requests. The Committee generally agreed that simultaneously performing inspections will improve the developer's attitude around SDP amendments. 1.B Status of UDC Efforts Presentation and Discussion on the next few months of UDC work -- Sofia Nelsol REMMMEM including the agriculture exemption. 11MMA 0701*01WO MT- lw#MW* rr7T,-#W ff(?rTV.W'A NOM unauthorized removals than mitigation if the former fee is less expensive. Committe tree ordinance may apply to their property. Discussion on oak wilt prevention. City Code requires oak wilt trees to be removed and tree care plan to be implemented on surrounding trees, which may include those neighboring properties. Trees that are proven to have had oak wilt are not required to gated for. I Nelson continued reviewing credit options for tree mitigation. Committee Member Birdwell asked if the credit trees should be able to be applied to 100% of Heritage Tree removals to encourage the preservation of Protected Trees that may grow to be a Heritage Tree in the future. Committee Member Kasper commented that Protected Trees standards should be 12 inches to 26 inches. Brown explained the #• for a Heritage Tree discount/credit when calculating tree gation for Protected Trees. Committee Member Birdwell asked why this wouldn't apply for the mitigation for Heritage Trees. Baird explained that this section is meant to function more as an incentive to save more Heritage Trees than setting a minimum standard that must be ied that when I in this calculation to past pro*ect's tree same. Some properties saw mitigation go up, specifically the industrial projects that utilized the majority of their site for buildings. The extent that this option helps applicants' mitigation depends upon how the property is utilized, how many Heritage vs, Protected Trees are on the site, etc. Committee Member Birdwell would like to see this as an "either/or" option for calculating mitigation. Council Member Hood would like to see how Wolf Ranch's calculations would hold up with these incentives applied. Nelson asked the Committee is comfortable putting this section in the Code to test. The Committee agreed that they would like to see this tested, both with residential and non- residential development. Discussion on projects that could be utilized to test cases on. Brown reviewed stafrs discussion With the City of San Antonio's arbonst regarding the utilization of canopy analysis. The Committee generally agreed that they would like to see it as an option in the Code to allow flexibility. Committee Member Stevens noted that -2;-4 with this option. Brown noted that San Antonio sends inspectors out to particularly large canopies to ensure that it is not majority invasive or undesired species that are being saved. Mayor Schroeder asked if canopy within the floodplain would be counted here. Baird established that the code language could allow that. Ag exemption, and to examine the canopy approach, and she asked the Committee if they believe staff has achieved that goal with these recommendations. The Committee generally agreed that they had. Nelson will give an update to Council on our progress on Tuesday. Discussion on the origin of the Heritage Tree ordinance. Adjournment These minute ere approved at the meeting of 0 Chair Attest