HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.13.2002 CC-SOF OF
GOVERNING BODY OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
A Public hearing and consideration and possible action on the following policy issues
associated with the Unified Development Code (UDC), Draft #1.
Mayor Nelon noted that this meeting was a continuation of the previous two meetings on the
Unified Development Code, saying this meeting was posted to finish the discussion items
that were not handled due to the lateness of the hour on Thursday, August 8, 2002.
Yantis explained there are no Planning and Zoning recommendations for the following items.
He noted that the first five items on this agenda were suggested by Councilmember Sam
Pfiester and turned the meeting over to Pfiester.
1.) Open Space (UDC Section 13.5)
Pfiester said the Parks and Recreation Board approved additions to this section, and he
suggested that this section include an "acquisition and improvement fee" separate from
fee in lieu of. He suggested under (1) (a) Dedication of Public Park Land, add the words
'° and/ " after public park land and add "and improvement" after the word acquisition in
(3)(e). Sansing confirmed that the fee would have to go through the Parks and
Recreation Board and the Council for approval.
Motion by Pfiester, second by Snell to direct staff in the second draft to add those words,
namely, after "public park land," put in the words "and/" and after the word `°acquisition,"
put "and improvement." Approved 6-0.
Pfiester spoke about a provision for a maintenance fee. Yantis noted that Trish had
suggested that a case is pending in Arlington, so it would be the recommendation to wait
for the outcome of the Arlington case.
Pfiester said that Page 201 specifies an exact "fee in lieu of as recommended by Parks
and Recreation. Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble to direct staff to change the fee
payment "in lieu of from specific dollars to direct staff to make it a fee schedule which
would be attached and changed as needed. Approved 6-0.
2.) Parking Space and Parking Lot Design (UDC 9.3)
Pfiester noted that the staff is proposing very small aisles.
Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, told Council she is also concerned about aisle
width.
Yantis noted that the staff proposal is the current standard.
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting
August 13, 2002
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Motion by Pfiester, second by Smith to direct staff to use the aisle dimensions consistent
with the first draft of the UDC, as drafted on the chart for parking comparisons and not
the ones on the staff proposal. Approved 6-0,
3.) Vehicle Circulation (UDC 12.3)
Pfiester directed Council's attention to page 179. He questioned the values in the
column entitled Residential Collectors. He said the speeding problems in Berry Creek
are always on the residential collectors. He said the wider streets promote speeding. He
suggested traffic flow within the neighborhood could be calmed by making those streets
more narrow.
Yantis suggested that Council provide policy direction to staff, perhaps suggesting that
the width of the street be based on whether there is driveway access.
There was further discussion with Jim Briggs regarding calming traffic.
Jim Brown, 117 Randolph Road, told Council that all traffic -calming devices are very
hazardous. He said you can't force people to do what they don't want to do, they'll do it
anyway and it creates a hazard.
Motion by Noble, second by Pfiester to direct staff to develop alternatives to slow down
the traffic. Approved 6-0.
4.) Road Adequacy Standards (UDC 12.5)
Motion by Pfiester, second by Smith to remove word "internal" from page 187, (2) (d)
concerning rough proportionality. Approved 4-2. (Noble and Sansing opposed)
5.) Infrastructure and Public Improvements (UDC 13.2)
Motion by
Pfiester, second
by Noble on
page 195 to add the words "as amended" to the
end of the
paragraph at (7).
Approved
6-0.
6.) Other UDC Items for Discussion
Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, referred Council to Section 5.2 Educational
facilities. She said she thinks private schools should be allowed only with a special use
permit as in the zoning ordinance currently. Smith clarified with Hanson that day cares
are separate from private schools.
Motion by Noble, second by Noble *Evans to direct staff to include that language.
Approved 5-1. (Sansing opposed) *as determined by listening to the audio tape of the meeting
after notification by Smith at the Council Meeting on August 27, 2002.
Hanson referred Council to Notification for Public Hearing on page 135, suggesting that
the mail notice be 15 days because of the slowness of the mail at certain times. Motion
by Snell, second by Sansing to make that change. Approved 6-0.
Hanson noted that the next two items are not in the UDC.
Hanson suggested there be fees charged for legal review and that fee should be passed
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting
August 13, 2002
Page 2 of 3 Pages
back to the applicant. She said her biggest concern is for the architectural consulting
review for the HARC Commission. She said she has discussed this with the consultant
and he told her he would have no problem drafting the language. Snell confirmed that
the applicant could spend the money and still be turned down. Hanson said the
applicant would need to be informed at the application stage that they would be
responsible for paying any consultant fees.
Yantis pointed out page 190 under Road Adequacy Standards, Section E that says the
City may require that an independent consultant be hired by the applicant to perform
traffic impact studies or to review all or part of a study prepared by the applicant's
consultant.
Motion by Pfiester that with the word "may," that should be done.
There was much further discussion. Briggs noted that it should be pointed out to the
applicant, that although the applicant pays for the consultant, the consultant actually
does not work for the applicant. The consultant works for the City.
Pfiester's motion died for lack of a second.
Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to direct staff to develop language that would deal
with the need for consultants in relation to all applications. Approved 5-2. (Sansing and
Noble opposed) Sansing later asked to change his vote to support the motion.
Hanson said, at the present time, there is no termination of a special use permit even
though the use is no longer there. She proposed that the same time limit as for non-
conforming use should be applied. If later the same type of use was proposed, they
could reapply for a special use permit.
Pfiester confirmed that currently the special use permit runs with the property.
Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble that special use permits have an expiration the
same as non -conforming uses. Approved 7=0.
Hanson thanked the Council and staff for their hard work.
Glenda Overfelt, representing the Downtown Georgetown Association, provided a
handout to the Council and read the suggested changes to the Unified Development
Code from the Downtown Georgetown Association.
Motion by Navarrette, second by Evans to direct staff to look at each of the suggestions
from the Downtown Georgetown Association. Approved 7-0.
Approved:
y
� Ne fff
Gary N Ion, Mayor
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting
August 13, 2002
Page 3 of 3 Pages
5:00 p.m. -- adjourned
A I I
Sandra D. Lee, City