Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_03.27.2025Minutes of pdate the USteering Committee City of Georgetown,, Texas Thursday, March 27.. 2025 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, March 27, 2025 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, Kris Kasper Public Wishing to Address the Board Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the 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 minutes for a speaker may be granted. The requester granting time to another speaker must also submit a form and be present at the meeting. Can a subiect prat posted on the agenda: 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 February 27, 2025 UDC Steering Committee meeting -- Erica etress, Planning Specialist Moved by Stephen F Dickey; seconded by Brian Birdwell to Approve the minutes from the February 27, 2025, UDC Steering Committee meeting. I Toting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Patrick J Stevens, Wendy S Cash, Ercel Brashear, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder, Brad Smith Voting Against: None 1.13 Tree Preservation Presentation and discussion on Tree Preservation Ordinance -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson began the item With feedback from the landscape roundtable that was held on 03/26/2025. Nelson shared that the roundtable included excitement with the additional credits, It was noted that the process including time and implementation of the code w inconsistent with a specific example of mitigation calculation, I Mayor Schroeder noted implementation With subjectivity to the process and specified inspections post construction, as well as the possibility of inconsistent certified arborist decisions when it comes to the condition of a tree. Mayor Schroeder questioned where the criteria for the decisions are housed and suggested in creating a way to address the subjectivity judgement calls. Nelson explained that the plan to address the inspections will be to request an inspector position and noted that there was an internal process to work through with regard to the arborist decision. Nelson explained that the current code referred to the planning arborist, but the proposed change will now refer to the planning director for discretion if there was disagreement. Committee Member Brashear inquired about whether an arborist was involved in mitigation discussions. Nelson confirmed that the city arborist was included. Committee Member Hood inquired about whether an applicant can receive the opinion of a 3rd party arborist regarding the condition of a tree. Nelson shared that the UDC Steering Committee would be able to add that as it was not currently written in the UDC. Committee Member Birdwell noted that the wording "best efforts need to be made" or "all other option5 need to be exhausted" was difficult to define. Committee Member Birdwell proposed to remove the subjectivity and just provide mitigation options. Mayor Schroeder noted the need to have flexibility and agreed with Committee Member Birdwell. Committee Member Birdwell suggested to provide an option and increase the mitigation fee so that it was not the most cost-effective route. Committee Member Brashear recommended in exploring alternatives and added that alternatives need to be measured and quantified. Mayor Schroeder agreed on providing options for mitigation instead of requiring the applicant to prove that they must mitigate. Committee Member Dickey agreed on reviewing an option for mitigation so that incentivizing the removal of a tree was the most optimal option. Committee Member Kasper agreed with most of the discussion and commented that the tree ordinance has uncertainty. Committee Member explained that paying into the mitigation fund was not the preferred method and recommended more incentives to plant more trees. Committee Member Hood explained that there needs to be a clearer path forward and suggested in removing areas of the code that are difficult to prove. Committee Member Hood emphasized the question of how the process can be completed in a timely manner and commented that the end goal was to preserve trees. Committee Member Hood conclude with a comment on repercussions for inspections with damaged trees. Committee Member Brashear reiterated that the end goal to was preserve trees and recommended including an arborist to assist with rewriting the code. Committee Member Cash agreed in removing subjectivity to provide more predictability. Committee Member Cash suggested to reevaluate the mitigation options and make them more appropriate, possibly including a percentage in which preserving trees would be significantly more cost effective than paying mitigation fees. Committee Member Smith echoed the ambiguity part of the discussion. Committee Member Smith commented that the code appears very confusing as a homeowner and suggested to add more clarity for all to understand it. Committee Member Stevens agreed with the committee. Discussion on the mitigation fund. With no more discussion on the mitigation fund, Nelson shared that the following feedback was that the removal of dead trees should be a simpler process and highlighted that the tree must be dead and not dying. Nelson shared that the feedback was to lower the fee associated with the removal of it and noted that the current code allows for the city arborist to make the determination that the tree was dead. Nelson added that the proposed change would be to allow the property owner's arborist to make the determination. Nelson shared that the current code will not allow credit for a smaller tree that was underneath another tree and the suggestion was to allow that credit. Nelson shared the roundtable's concern of the definition of an ornamental tree. Nelson added that the roundtable discussed the rounding of sizing of trees. After a certain threshold the number should be rounded down and rounded up after another threshold. Nelson shared that there was a request to provide a 50% credit for trees in the floodplain and explained that currently floodplain trees do not receive credit. Committee Member Smith shared that trees in the floodplain are advantageous and preferred full credit for the trees. Nelson continued to share feedback from the roundtable with regard to concerns with providing the tree survey at the time of the preliminary plat and shared that was the time that the lot analysis was completed. Nelson explained that staff did not have a recommendation for the Steering Committee just yet. Committee Member Birdwell shared that during the review of the preliminary plat was the right time to submit the tree survey. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director of Current Planning, shared that the financial aspect of submitting a survey at that time would be balanced by not requiring mitigation during the preliminary plat. Nelson further provided that during the round table discussion it was recommended to utilize professional arborists when recommendations are not consistent. Discussion on certification of a certified arborist. Nelson brought forth the discussion point of disturbance in the critical root zone from the landscape round table. Zane Brown, Management Analyst, explained the current requirements for protecting the critical root zone. The two areas or requirements are: any area more than 50% of the critical root zone and the entirety of the half critical root zone which was the area that was made up of the half radial distance of the total circle. Nelson shared the feedback which included review of the drip line in the Construction Specifications Manual, desire to have more encroachment into the protected area, and using consistent language. Committee Member Birdwell questioned the practicality of calculating disturbance within the critical root zone and the need for clear guidelines for engineers. Baird explained the process for verifying compliance with critical root zone requirements, including the use of construction fencing and equipment planning. Mayor Schroeder suggested that the section is highly technical and should be included in the development manual for technical experts to address. Nelson asked the committee if they would prefer that staff work with the arborist community to revise the critical root zone, CRZ, section or strike the mention of 50% of the CRZ. Mayor Schroeder suggested to work with arborists. Nelson noted comments that the committee provided to include the industry standard for the critical root zone, remove ambiguous language, not to require that all options have been exhausted, create options for mitigation, review the fee in lieu of any adjustments, provide full credit for trees within the flood plain, and review requirements for AG, agriculture, exemptions. Nelson asked the committee if there were additional comments or questions. Mayor Schroeder shared that he felt that the city, especially when building roads and utilities, need to be exempted from the tree ordinance. Mayor Schroeder explained that the city has no control over property decisions and emphasized that taxes should be allocated to road or utility improvements, not to the mitigation fund. Committee Member Birdwell agreed with the mayor and added that the school district would be in a similar situation. Committee Member Birdwell expressed that he would like the committee to provide city council a recommendation on the topic. Committee Member Brashear disagreed with the recommendation in which public entities are exempted from the tree ordinance. Committee Member Brashear highlighted that the estimation would be included in the bond package. Continued discussion on the topic of exempted entities from the tree mitigation ordinance. Committee Member Smith suggested to provide a limit to the mitigation and highlighted that school districts will be facing the issue as they move into the rural areas. Council Member Hood requested data of the tree mitigation fund, specifically the percentage of private versus public. Committee Member Kasper agreed with Committee Member Smith with regard to providing a limitation for public entities. Nelson summarized the following recommendations that the Steering Committee would like to make: • City infrastructure projects exempted from the tree ordinance (8-1; Committee Member Brashear voted against this recommendation) • Williamson county to not be exempted from the tree ordinance (9-0) • GISD to be exempted from the tree ordinance (4-4; Dickey, Brashear, Kasper, Stevens were against this recommendation; 1 abstention from Mayor Schroeder) Note- Committee Members Kasper and Stevens were in favor of keeping the cap and removing the language of "all options must be exhausted" found in the agreement with the City Council. LC RM District Presentation and discussion on the RM Zoning District-_ Sofia Nelson, Planning Director I 1.D Demolition Criteria and Definitions Presentation and discussion on criteria for demolitions within the Old Town and Downtown Overlays -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adjourn nt u rn mi 0'01 These mi tes were proved at the meeting of Chair est