Loading...
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