Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_UDCUSC_01.16.2025I"wlinutes of the UDC Update Steering Committee City of GeorgetownTexas Thursday, January 16,. 2025 The Georgetown UDC Update Steering Committee met on Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 2-.00 PM at Community Room in City Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street. -7T -=nT 77 1 (TIMpITIce D7f--#=JF MrMFA XIrRT f 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, Wendy S Cash, Brad Smith, Shawn Hood, Josh Schroeder 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 minutes for a s�teaker and be present at the meeting. *E2, sy.4ject ),.*t *,*sted *n-8ke-*-en,0,,,2.- A. rekixes"AvstAt rtceive*r '*y tht kAnsgry gn.,2rt! Qr C*mi-nissi*n Liaispig 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 (.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 4, 2024 meeting of the UDC Rewrite Steering Committee -- Jessica Lemanski, Associate Planner moved by Brad Smith; seconded by Stephen F Dickey to Approve the minutes. Motion Approved: 5- 0 Voting For: Brian Birdwell, Stephen F Dickey, Wendy S Cash, josh Schroeder, Brad Smith 12alay.&MLILL= 1.B Overview of Current Progress - ETJ Regulations Discussion on development regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced the item and established that City Council has asked for recommendations on how the City should regulate in the Extra -Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Municipal Utility Districts (MUDS) were not included in the packet, but Nelson emphasized their importance and basic requirements for MUD policies. Committee Member Smith asked how purchasing is evaluated when a MUD is annexed. Skye Mason, City Attorney, noted that the City does not usually move forward on purchasing and annexing until that debt is close to or completely done. The City will take over responsibility and maintenance for infrastructure. Discussion between Committee Members, Nelson, and Mason on accrued debt due to MUDs, processes for annexing MUD properties, and phasing of annexation. Nelson noted that MUD requests have substantially increased recently. Discussion on common negotiation points within more recent MUDs. Mayor Schroeder noted that if regulations are relaxed in the ETJ, this can be a disadvantage to the City in negotiating MUD standards and be seen as more of an ask than a standard regulation. Nelson shifted the conversation to stormwater standards Within the ETJ and introduced the City's Assistant Systems Engineering Director, Caleb Fuhrer, and Senior Utility Engineer David Munk. Nelson noted that Stormwater Permits (SWPs) are required for 1 lot or greater development in the ETJ and single- and two- family developments are exempt from that requirement. Mayor Schroeder asked What Williamson County (WilCo) regulates in this regard in the ETJ if the City's standards were relaxed or removed. Fuhrer noted that the City requires 85% water quality over the Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone, while the State of Texas an raise their standards for subdivision rules. Munk noted that he will look into that further. Fuhrer noted that was likely a conversation between Wilco and The US Fish and Wildlife Service. removal in the ETJ. Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director, noted that Wilco does not, but development in the ETJ does require a SWP from the City if they are proposing to Fuhrer noted that in the ETJ, the City restricts impervious cover to 70% in SWPS. Williamson County does not have impervious cover restrictions. Discussion on identification of uses in the ETJ to determine applicable regulations. I 1� � MBM=-- � I "AMIR&T423-TOW-M driveway standards are applied in the same way within city limits and the ETJ. Mayor Schroeder asked how that intersects with the County when the driveway goes onto a County road. Fuhrer noted that in those cases, the driveway would likely be dual permitted with the City and the County. Fuhrer noted that if there is a driveway on a city road, we would still permit it even if the property is opted out of the ETJ. Discussion on County versus City regulations on driveways. Nelson moved the conversation towards Parkland and noted that the County does not require parkland dedication like the City in the ETJ. Kimberly Garrett, Parks Director, explained that parkland is established to preserve open space and provide quality of life enhancement and provided Berry Springs Park as an example. Berry Creek did not provide a park when it was developed because they utilized their golf course. As residents turned over, they wanted somewhere for their kids to be able to play, and so the City worked to adjust the Code to be able to require parkland for development. In the ETJ, since the City collects no revenue from property taxes, we would collect a fee in lieu to purchase land for parks within city limits. Mayor Schroeder asked if we can require parks within MUDs. Garrett noted that we are able to negotiate within MUDs to provide a certain amount of non-exclusive parks as well as parkland dedication fund contribution. Mayor Schroeder asked if trail dedication is separate from parkland. Garrett said yes, that is on the Trails Master Plan. Baird noted that trails are treated more as transportation infrastructure, and it is not counted towards parkland dedication. Nelson introduced Glen Holcolm, Chief Building Official, and noted that his department manages sign permits both in City Limits and the ETJ. Committee Member Dickey asked if the city sees a lot of pushback on our signage regulations. Holcolm replied that it depends on who is applying and if they're even aware of our regulations. They may not know that we regulate signage in the ETJ and so it can eb a bit of an education process. Nelson noted that billboard signs and Electronic Message Signs are prohibited. Mason noted that the County's regulations on signs may be more focused on signage not blocking certain areas. It can be difficult to see what is currently being regulated because of signage existing prior to current regulation. Nelson noted that our signage regulations are very similar to other cities she's seen. Nelson introduced the tree preservation section, and Baird explained the difference in uses and process for identifying Heritage and Protected trees. He noted that Protected and Heritage trees are required to be shown on subdivision plats so that, in the event of a new owner, they can hopefully be aware of its status before removing or doing construction too close to the tree. This is most often brought to the City and property owner's attention when coming in to obtain building permits. Heritage trees require mitigation to be removed, while Protected trees have a minimum percentage that must be preserved, and anything over that percentage that is removed must be mitigated for at a higher rate. Mayor Schroeder noted that tree preservation is the number one non -financial reason that property owner's are dis-annexing from our ETJ, and a new ordinance may mitigate those a lot. Nelson noted that the direction she's received is to focus on credit and allowing more opportunity to credit for mitigation, and improving the readability of the ordinance. Committee Member Birdwell shared that he believes there are two groups that are dis- annexing from the ETJ: non -developers who don't truly understand the implications of it and want less regulations on their property, and developers. The number one issue he hears about from developers in the City is the tree ordinance. Mayor Schroeder noted that cost and time in relation to this is a huge driver. Committee Member Dickey voiced concern about properties dis-annexing, removing all of their trees, and then requesting to be brought back in. Committee Member Birdwell agreed that if the City allows that to happen, people will take advantage of that. Committee Member Dickey said that he believes the tree ordinance should eb the same for City limits and ETJ properties, btu those regulations should be relaxed a little bit. Mayor Schroeder asked how trees are negotiated for ETJ MUDs agreements. Nelson recalled that Parkside on the River requested that their standards mirror Wolf Ranch's standards. She noted that staff is looking at those standards to try to mimic those in the ordinance, specifically the ability to count protected trees in residential areas. Discussion on Parmer Ranch tree preservation standards. Baird explained that they created areas within the development that allows more removals and other areas that preserve more trees. Nelson asked the Committee what their recommendations to Council would be to change the current ETJ regulations for trees. Mayor Schroeder noted that he believes dis-annexation is motivated by money, but the narrative portrayed by them is that the ETJ is over regulated, particularly the tree ordinance. He explained that his goal is to cut that argument out and establish that it doesn't really have to do with development standards, and they are probably more motivated by something else. Committee Member Smith asked if he would then recommend that the tree ordinance and other development standards in the ETJ discussed today be relaxed so that there is less regulations there to further his argument. Mayor Schroeder noted that that may be the middle ground for the ETJ, to relax the tree ordinance and see how that plays out. Committee Member Birdwell said that he believes the City will continue to see dis- annexations from individuals that do not understand the ramifications of that action and are only looking to remove a restriction on what they can do with their land, but those are likely not the larger pieces of land to be worried about. Developers do not mind complying with tree ordinances, as long as the ordinance and the administration of that ordinance is fair. He believes that the administration of the current ordinance has been a problem as much as the ordinance itself. If those problems can be fixed, then a tree ordinance can exist and be reasonably enforced and complied with. Council Member Hood concurred with Committee Member Birdwell and added that he believes the developers that the City desires to build our community want to see a tree ordinance of some kind. He noted that he gets a good number of complaints about how our current ordinance is enforced as well. Committee Member Dickey established that he believes that SWP and sign standards should remain in the ETJ regulations. Committee Member Smith noted that the simple answer to keep properties in the ETJ is to deregulate more, but the answer is dependent on what Council's goal is for the ETJ. Committee Member Birdwell said he would be interested to know out of the 2,600 acres that have dis-annexed from the ETJ, how many separate applications did that consist of, and what is the average acreage of land for a dis-annexation request. He believes that most of the dis-annexation requests are not developers, but rather farmers, ranchers, and homeowners that do not want to work with the City. Baird noted that 32% of the dis- annexations that are mapped out are from two developments, meaning a third of the dis- annexed properties is comprised of two large tracts. One of those is Santa Rita - the majority of that development is within another city's jurisdiction, and only a small portion was within Georgetown, and so it made sense that they would want to simplify that and have the entirety of their development to be in one jurisdiction. Committee Member Birdwell noted that he would like to spend some time to focus on the language of the tree ordinance and having it apply everywhere. Mayor Schroeder noted that the group's consensus seems to be to leave other applicable regulations as is and spend some time adjusting the tree ordinance to be applicable in the ETJ and city limits. He also noted that he would like to keep an eye out in the testing period of this process to identify minor problems for smaller parcels that may also drive dis-annexation. Skye noted that one plat exemption that WilCo has that is not in Georgetown's code is the plat exemption for transferring land to family members. Baird noted that the extension of public utilities often disqualifies properties from a plat exemption as well. The County's proposed changes to their subdivision regulations seem to align more closely with Georgetown's than previously. LC Residential Side Setback - Mechanical Equipment Discussion on allowable locations for mechanical equipment with relation to sida. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, introduced the item and Zane Brown, Management Analyst, reviewed the recommendations on this item from our Building and Inspections Department. The issue for this item r• out of concerns for mechanical equipment being located within setbacks, especially with the proposed smaller lot sizes and side setbacks. Maintenance and access to this equipment could •` a concern with the decrease in space to place them. Recommend not allowing mechanical equipment within 4 feet of the property line. 73—mmae—efl as ecm aeci I levels for mec anicaFequipment Fs a this discussion. Glenn Holcolm, Chief Building Official, noted that is not a part of this discussion. He noted that noise level for generators varies, but he has not seen it be an issue. Full size generators are not as loud as portable ones, and the full size generators are the concern here since they are larger and limit the space for maintenance and fire Committee Member Birdwell noted that almost every other city in Texas that he is aware of has a 5-foot side yard setback. He asked if any of those cities have restrictions on where mechanical equipment is placed. He noted that most homeowners would not want to place their mechanical equipment in their backyard, so the side yard is the next option. Holcolm noted that home builders typically don't put a gate on the side of the house with equipment is typically located on one side of the house and services are located on the other side. If a generator is then added, access is further restricted. Council Member Hood voiced that he likes the idea of designating one side as accessible and the other as non -accessible and intended for equipment. If a generator is •#'t in the future, then it will need to be set up on the mechanical side. i T Reff T-11MI-IF I Schroeder summarized that from a safety standpoint, one side of the house must be accessible. Committee Member Birdwell noted that he has never seen a jurisdiction restrict a side yard to not allow mechanical equipment and he is not in favor of that at this point. Nelson noted that she is hearing that the code section needs to clarify that one side of the house needs to be accessible. The Committee generally agreed. Council •'' Hood asked if the City finds that most builders are complying with the allowance for eaves, cornices, etc. to extend 18 inches into the setback or if they are desiring more. Holcolm replied that most are complying, and he has met with some designers and had to make some adjustments to their design to comply. Director and Ryan Clark, Senior Planner - Long Range Sofia Nelson, Planning Director introduced the item and Ryan Clark, Senior Long Range Planner. Clark reviewed current standards for multifamily and noted that MF-1 is often developed as townhomes and condos than apartment complexes while MF-2 typically results in a garden style apartment complex. We are hoping to create a more walkable, connected configuration for these kinds of development by prioritizing locating and integrating density into commercial nodes, creating connectivity standards similar to single family requirements. Mayor Schroeder asked how those connectivity standards would work for dense complexes utilizing a smaller piece of land than a single family neighborhood would. Sofia noted that we've been examining a provision to allow one lot per building, and so each of those lots would need to have street frontage. Other cities have also moved more towards a form based approach and the "bones" of the development, meaning block length would be more of a focus. Clark continued to summarize the efforts on multifamily design, including integration standards for commercial and multifamily, pointing to several developments with commercial on the road frontage and multifamily behind that do not attempt to blend those components into a vertical product. Clark also showed the Committee several developments that have been identified as desirable products that represent Georgetown well. Clark reviewed the proposed changes to the multifamily districts. He noted that the requirement to have each building on their own lot creates opportunity for a more dense street connection network, whereas typical garden style apartment complexes tend to create building islands in a sea of parking. There is an allowance for a one lot development with an SUP, but the by -right allowance would be for each building to be located on their own lot. It's also recommended to pull buildings up to the street with a build -to line to improve aesthetics of the design and a substantial parking lot setback to minimize the view of parking from the roadway. Council Member Hood asked if there are articulation standards for these buildings that are required to be pulled up to the road. Clark confirmed that the articulation requirements have been kept in this proposal. Mayor Schroeder noted that Council has established that if there are no more garden style apartments built in Georgetown, they would be fine with that. Committee Member Birdwell noted that Engineering and Fire should be involved in these discussions for how these design standards would impact their work. Committee Member Cash and Smith left the meeting at 3:53 pm. Nelson noted that she will send the Committee some proposals and requests their feedback to consider. 1.E Status of UDC Efforts Presentation and Discussion • the next few months of UDC work -- Sofia Nelsol gmzmit v � Adjournment