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.