HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_04.03.2001April 3, 2001
P&Z Minutes
Page 1
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday April 3, 2001
Chair, Patrick Walsh, called the April 3, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Gabe Sansing, Marjorie Herbert, Chris
Aadnesen, Richard Glasco, Robert Seamans and Jack Noble. Staff present was Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director, Janis Russell, Recording Secretary, Carla Benton, Development Planner,
Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, Steve O’Neal, Commercial Building Planner and Cathy
Riedel, Assistant City Attorney.
Consent Agenda
3. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the March 5, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting. Robert Seamans asked that it be noted that he had made the
statement in agenda item #6 that there seems to be a lack of consistency in terms of park
land dedication, where one developer is allowed to pay fees-in-lieu and another developer is
required to develop park land. Robert Seamans made a motion to amend the minutes as
noted. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
4. Rezoning of San Gabriel Village, Section One, Block 1, Lot 1B, from C-2A - Restricted,
Commercial First Height to exclude all residential district uses, to C-2A - Restricted,
Commercial First Height, to include multifamily residential uses only, or any more restrictive
district, located on Waters Edge Circle—Carla Benton. Robert Seamans stated that it looks
like there is already construction going on. Don Martin, agent for the applicant, responded
that there is staging operations going on for the construction of Phase One and Phase Two
of the apartment complex.
5. Revised Record Final Plat of 18.76 acres in the William Addison Survey, to be known as
Revised SummerCrest, Section One, located on SH29, with Variances to the Subdivision
Regulations—Melissa Murphy
Robert Seamans asked that Agenda Item #6 be removed from the Consent Agenda to be
considered individually by the Commission.
Jack Noble made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda as written.
Richard Glasco seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
Regular Agenda
Marjorie Herbert made a motion to move Agenda Item #7 before the remainder of the
agenda. Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
7. Review and possible action on the proposed revisions for the Manufactured Housing
Ordinance, to create a High Density Residential Ordinance. Verna Browning introduced Joe
Warren of the Housing Working Group. Richard Glasco asked Mr. Warren to go over the
proposed changes which the Commission members were given immediately before the
meeting. The mixing of different types of housing within one subdivision was discussed. Tom
Nichols addressed the Commission and explained that the ordinance will allow single family
homes and multi-family homes within the same subdivision. Patrick Walsh suggested adding
a statement about defining a cluster of homes within a subdivision. Gary Martin addressed
April 3, 2001
P&Z Minutes
Page 2
the Commission. He stated that the beginning point here is the district, not the development.
You create the general overlying district for the use, and then when the use is established,
developers will come in and propose the development and the remainder part of the
ordinance talks about development regulations which is where it talks about what you can
and cannot do in relation to structures. In this section of the ordinance, dealing with the use
of the land, you cannot be restrictive of structures and still accomplish the goals of a high
density land use. There will be a process where the platting and development plan will be
reviewed and where it will be decided whether or not a proposed clustering or kinds of
homes are appropriate, according to the sizing of utilities and streets, etc. Robert Seamans
stated that perhaps manufactured homes should have their own zoning classification and
that our rushing to be the first to put all these types of housing into one category seems to be
premature. Extensive discussion followed regarding permitted uses within this High Density
zoning classification. Richard Glasco stated that he is satisfied by the review process that will
take place when a developer requests the new zoning classification. Chris Aadnesen made a
motion that further dialog be suspended on this section of the ordinance (item #6, under
paragraph 2.14020), with the understanding that the City Council knows that there was
extensive dialog on it. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion. The Commission then
discussed the other proposed changes to the draft ordinance. Required parking and satellite
parking was discussed. Robert Seamans stated that people won’t utilize satellite parking and
it would encourage on-street parking. Robert Seamans stated that requiring a recreation area
is not consistent with other developments that are allowed to pay fees-in-lieu. Gary Martin
stated that the recreation part of the ordinance will be reviewed and possibly revised by the
Parks and Recreation Board and staff. Mr. Nichols stated that it was the intent of the
Working Group to require recreation areas because of the density of the subdivisions. Patrick
Walsh suggested some re-wording in the fence language of the ordinance. Extensive
discussion followed regarding skirting of manufactured homes, HUD, State and City of
Georgetown regulations regarding manufactured homes. Robert Seamans asked that
“durable material” be specified for skirting material, such as hardi-board, which won’t be
susceptible to termites, or rotting. Steve O,Neal responded that there is a requirement that
the board used for skirting be treated. After the discussion, Marjorie Herbert made a motion
to recommend to the City Council the High Density Ordinance with the following provisos:
1) Section 2.14037 having to do with Parks and Recreation, there will be collaboration to
conform this to the Parks and Recreation ordinance and process; 2) the fence language
could be clarified as discussed; and 3) Section 2.1403 B.6.C. to be clarified as requested by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion. Jack Noble
stated that a PUD would be a way to solve the problem in Section 6 that the Commission
discussed for so long. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. Robert Seamans was
opposed. Amelia Sondgeroth pointed out that there are sections of the Subdivision
Regulations that relate to the High Density Ordinance and need the Commission to
recommend that the Subdivision Regulations conform to the new Zoning Ordinance. Marjorie
Herbert made a motion to recommend to City Council that any necessary conforming
ordinance changes to be consistent with the Housing Ordinance that was just approved, we
also recommend. Chris Aadnesen seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-2. Jack
Noble and Robert Seamans were opposed.
The Commission recessed at 7:40 p.m. Marjorie Herbert left the meeting at this point.
The Commission reconvened at 7:51 p.m.
April 3, 2001
P&Z Minutes
Page 3
6. Public Review Final Plat of 125.34 acres of Rivery Subdivision, Lot 1 and a portion of Lot
1, River Hills, Section 4, to be known as The Rivery, Phase One, located along the west
IH35 frontage road—David Munk. Robert Seamans stated that he walked the property
and had the following concerns: 1) Hillview ROW dedication needs to be taken off the
plat because it’s the first step in opening up the street; and 2) he sees no reason for
payment in lieu of parkland. He didn’t understand staff’s justification that the topography is
too severe. Kay Ingham, 100 Hillview Drive, addressed the Commission and stated that
there should be no road through the Riverhills neighborhood and she said that John Weber
promised a 150 foot buffer between properties and on this plat there’s a section that only
has a 50 foot buffer. John Noell, with The Urban Design Group and agent for the applicant,
responded that the connection to Hillview Drive was requested by the City and the applicant
will do whatever the City says to do. He stated that they will donate land or pay the fee and
they will conform to the City’s park land dedication ordinance. They cannot make the City
take a park. In response to Mrs. Ingham’s concern, Mr. Noell explained that from the
buildable portion of Lot 15 there’s a 100 foot LCRA transmission main easement and then
an additional 100 feet over to where the open-space buffer is. So from the edge of the
buffer to where a home could be built there’s about 200 feet. The reason the buffer doesn’t
extend further is because the land adjacent to Lot 15 is zoned RS and will need no
buffering. Patrick Walsh asked a question about the wording in the Staff Report: “…subject
to the approved Development Agreement”. John Noell responded that that statement is
referring to the participation in the infrastructure by the developer, including the bridge
needed to link Williams Drive and their portion of the construction of Rivery Boulevard. Jack
Noble stated that the P&Z had agreed that the connection to Hillview Drive should not be
required, but Council had required it. Robert Seamans stated again that he thought that the
right-of-way dedication needed to be taken off the plat. Carla Benton stated that the City
Council had voted to keep the right-of-way, but not build the street. Chris Aadnesen asked
again about the park land issue. Carla Benton explained that there is a 60 acre public park
very near this site (just on the other side of Rivery Boulevard) and the City had chosen not
to build a park in this development. Carla Benton stated that she did not have the
understanding that there was RS zoning as Mr. Noell had indicated on the plat. She stated
that she would research it. Mr. Noell stated that if the zoning is not RS, they would push
the buffer to 80 feet, then agreed to push it to 80 feet anyway. Jack Noble made a motion to
recommend approval of the Public Review Final Plat of 125.34 acres of Rivery Subdivision,
Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 1, River Hills, Section 4 to be known as The Rivery, Phase One,
provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and would
like the Council to take into consideration the Commission’s questions regarding the
connector road to Hillview Drive and the paying of fees-in-lieu instead of providing park land.
The motion also included the increase to 80 feet in the buffer zone adjacent to Lot 15. Chris
Aadnesen seconded the motion. Gabe Sansing stated that he is not in favor of the park
instead of fees because he believes that when pocket parks are created it puts a drain on
the Parks and Recreation budget because of the maintenance of these parks. Robert
Seamans stated again that there should be a degree of integrity about what is required of
the developer. Jack Noble withdrew his motion, then made a motion to recommend
approval the Public Review Final Plat of 125.34 acres of Rivery Subdivision, Lot 1 and a
portion of Lot 1, River Hills, Section 4 to be known as The Rivery, Phase One, provided the
Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, with an increase in the
buffer zone to 80 feet on the Rivery property that is adjacent to River Hills, Block E, Lot 15.
The Commission expressed opposition to the 60 foot right-of-way dedication to Hillview
Drive. Chris Aadneson seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Gabe Sansing
made a motion to forward to the Council the opposition to connectivity as a general
statement by the Commission and inform the Council that there are members concerned
April 3, 2001
P&Z Minutes
Page 4
with consistency of the park land dedication requirement and the fees-in-lieu of park land
requirement. Jack Noble seconded the motion. Patrick Walsh proposed a workshop with
the Parks and Recreation Board. Gabe Sansing withdrew his motion.
8. Staff Comments and Reports
a. By-laws – Patrick Walsh stated that the by-laws were re-written and the chief change
was that the Chairman of the Commission would be selected by the Council. Legality of that
was discussed. Cathy Riedel stated that since the P&Z is an advisory board the Council
has the discretion to appoint or not. Chris Aadnesen asked that a comparison or summary
sheet be provided to them of the changes that were being made. Richard Glasco ask about
getting their packets sooner than they are getting them. Amelia Sondgeroth stated that the
staff would look at ways to accomplish that and the new consultants would be looking at it
also. After the discussion, Chris Aadnesen made a motion to accept the revisions to the by-
laws. Richard Glasco seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
b. Carla Benton updated the Commission on the March City Council meetings. Patrick
Walsh informed the Commission of the joint workshop with the City Council on March 11,
2002, and encouraged the Commissioners to attend City Council meetings.
c. April 20th APA workshop—Patrick Walsh stated that he would be interested in attending.
With no further business, Jack Noble made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Gabe
Sansing seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
/jmr