Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_03.05.2001 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, March 5, 2001 Vice-chair, Gabe Sansing, called the March 5, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Marjorie Herbert, Chris Aadnesen, Richard Glasco, Robert Seamans and Jack Noble. Patrick Walsh was absent. Staff present was Amelia Sondgeroth, Director, Janis Russell, Recording Secretary, Carla Benton, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, Steve O’Neal, Commercial Building Planner and Cathy Riedel, Assistant City Attorney. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the February 6, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of 31.10 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, from A, Agricultural to RM-2, Residential-Dense Multi-family and RM-3, Residential-Office and Service Districts, located along Northwest Boulevard south of Whisper Oaks Lane. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 18.37 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Texas, Phase 4D, Neighborhood 17-B, located along Sun City Boulevard and Red Road. Item #3 was pulled from the Consent Agenda to be considered individually by the Commission. Marjorie Herbert made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Jack Noble seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0. Regular Agenda 3. Consideration and possible action on Public Review Final Plats and Detailed Development Plans in the David Wright Survey of 9.05 acres to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Texas Traditions, Phase Two-A and of 6.79 acres to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Texas Traditions, Phase Two-B, located on Sabine Drive. David Munk gave the staff report and recommendation. Robert Seamans stated that it was his understanding that the flooding that occurred after the first phase happened subsequent to the pond already being put in. David Munk responded that it did, but there were modifications made to the pond to curve the water more down stream which helped, and then Williamson County did an extensive channel improvement which really reliev ed the problem. He stated that the “catch pond” was designed and sealed to accommodate all the phases of the Texas Traditions Subdivision. Steve Sorenson, of Corridor Engineering, and designer of the pond, briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that in designing and building the pond, they had exceeded the standards required by the City of Georgetown. After the discussion, Robert Seamans made a motion to approve the Public Review Final Plats and Detailed Development Plans in the David Wright Survey o f 9.05 acres to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Texas Traditions, Phase Two-A and of 6.79 acres to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Texas Traditions, Phase Two-B, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Jack Noble seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0. Cathy Riedel asked that Agenda Item #7 be discussed before Item #6. P&Z Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 2 7. Review and possible action on the proposed revisions for the Manufactured Housing Ordinance, to create a High Density Residential Ordinance. Verna Browning, Director of Community Services, introduced John Gavurnik, Tom Nichols, Joe Warren and Mike Barnes, members of the Council-appointed Housing Group. She passed out some last minute corrections to the proposed High Density Residential Ordinance and gave a brief history of the evolution of the new ordinance. Chris Aadnesen asked if there were other cities with similar ordinances. Joe Warren stated that 17 states and 22 cities were looked at in order to write this ordinance. He stated that other cities had built pieces of this ordinance, but Georgetown would be the first to incorporate al l the different types of affordable housing into one “system” for housing possibilities for entry leve l workers. Richard Glasco asked if the goal of the ordinance is to allow for mixed uses in the same subdivision. Verna Browning answered that the goal is to allow all types of housing in the City, and to have that housing fit with the character of the City, being aesthetically pleasing and meeting some of the existing ordinances such as the Urban Design Standards. John Gavurnik addressed the Commission and explained that one vision of the working group is to allow the mixing of town homes and single family homes in the same subdivision, with narrower streets and rights-of-way and different setbacks not unlike a Planned Unit Development subdivision. Richard Glasco stated that he was concerned with on-street parking on the narrower streets and reduced setbacks. Mr. Gavurnik discussed different parking options that could be used. Gabe Sansing was concerned with the 2-acre minimum size for the subdivisions. He felt that the minimum should be at least 4 acres, if not 5 acres. John Gavurnik responded that the group envisioned the smaller 2-acre tracts to be located within a larger subdivision. Chris Aadnesen stated that he was still confused with the mixed uses in the same subdivision, which is the way the ordinance reads. Mr. Gavurnik responded that they don’t envision a manufactured home to be built next to a stick built home even though the ordinance would allow it. He stated that the market would probably not allow it. Robert Seamans asked about the difference between a mobile home and a manufactured and/or modular home. He also asked about enforcement of the maintenance requirements for the manufactured homes. John Gavurnik responded that the intent would be that enforcement would be handled by a homeowner’s association or deed restrictions. Mr. Seamans stated that these standards would be in a City ordinance and not in deed restrictions. Gabe Sansing asked what would prevent someone from buying some houses and property in old town, tearing them down to build the proposed affordable housing. Mr. Gavurnik responded that the property would have to be rezoned to this zoning district and he doubted that it would be approved by P&Z and Council. Joe Warren stated that this ordinance would not address “in-fill”. Richard Glasco asked if the manufactured homes could be put on slabs. Verna Browning stated that some manufactured homes needed to have the underneath accessible so slabs would not be required. Jack Noble asked if the manufactured homes had to meet the City’s current building codes. Joe Warren responded that they would be cert ified by HUD and HUD standards would be accepted by the City and tie-downs are regulated by HUD as well. Jack Noble stated that he had a concern about leased spaces with the possibility of the leases expiring and the owner of the property deciding that he had a better use for the land and closing the manufactured home park. Mr. Noble asked how the committee came up with the “8 units per acre”. Mr. Gavurnik responded that in a normal single family subdivision, you may get 3 ½ units per acre and with multi-family, such as duplexes, you can get 6-8 units. He stated that through a lot of discussion and investigation, the committee decided that 8 units wouldn’t be over-dense and yet more dense than the ordinance allows now for single family units. Tom Nichols stated that the committee had an unwritten charge to provide affordable housing for Georgetown while protecting the sanctity of the neighborhoods in Georgetown. Robert Seamans stated that he needed more time to review the ordinance. He asked if emergency services had given the committee clear footages that they needed on the roadways. Verna Browning stated that the roadway width, from curb to curb, is the same and only the right -of-way widths had been narrowed. Mr. Gavurnik stated that there would be opportunity for changes in the ordinance as the need arises. Richard Glasco asked if the committee had talked about the average cost of these types of housing units. Mr. Gavurnik stated that everyone had different opinions about the P&Z Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 3 cost but his opinion was anything under $100,000. Richard Glasco stated that he also wished to look at the ordinance more before recommending anything to the City Council. Chris Aadnesen also stated that he wanted more time to review the ordinance. Jack Noble concurred with the other commissioners. Marjorie Herbert stated that she was ready to make a recommendation. Gabe Sansing was also ready to make a recommendation to the Council. After the discussion, Jack Noble made a motion to set this agenda item for next month’s agenda. Richard Glasco seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 4-2 (Gabe Sansing and Marjorie Herbert voted opposed). 6. Public Hearing, discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council on a Revision to the Subdivision Regulations regarding park land dedication ordinance and fees. Marianne Banks led the discussion and outlined the revisions that the Parks Board is proposing. She stated that the Parks Board was concerned that parkland was not being required very frequently and wanted to look at revisions to the ordinance that would require more land being donated. A number of subdivision and master planned communities that were going to develop a lot of lots were not actually coming in with large enough plats to require them to donate lots for parks. The current requirement is 150 lots and the developer was coming in with much smaller plats than that. The proposed revision would be to require that the land be dedicated up front, with the first plat of th e development in order to capture more parkland. They have also proposed an increase in the park land fees to what was the highest in the region and just $25 per unit more than what we currently charge. Ms. Banks stated that some of the other revisions being proposed were: boundary markers around the parks will be required now; the 100% credit that could have been gotten with river frontage before has been changed to 50%; water and wastewater utilities will be required to be extended to the active park land sites; the river park land donation cred it was taken out; developers won’t be able to achieve their whole park land credit through the donation of flood plain any more; and street frontage requirement for parks has been changed from 50’ to 200’. Robert Seamans stated that he was concerned with the lack of consistency in requiring one developer to dedicate land and another developer to pay fees -in-lieu. After the discussion, Chris Aadnesen made a motion to recommend that the City Council make the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations regarding parkland dedication ordinance and fees. Richard Glasco seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6 -0. Marjorie Herbert made a motion to recommend that the City Council make a charge to some appropriate group or committee to study and plan for green belt areas protecting the City, in addition to the park land dedication requirement. Gabe Sansing suggested that the Parks Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission work together on this, instead of creating a new committee. Robert Seamans seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0. 8. Staff comments and reports. a. Council action update. Melissa Murphy updated the Commission on the February City Council meetings. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.