Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.07.2002 CC-SMINU ES OF y OF 1 HE GOVERNING :•! CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS t AGENDA Regular Session — Called to order at 6:00 p.m. A Public hearing and consideration and possible action on the following policy issues associated with the Unified Development Code (UDC), Draft #1. The Mayor opened the meeting with the explanation that Council would review and consider the suggested policy issues in Draft #1 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that their recommended revisions would be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and would come back to the Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission as Draft #2 for Council's consideration. 1. Bed and Breakfast (UDC Section 5.2) Amelia Sondgeroth briefly explained the item and gave the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. Mel Pendland, 50207 Oak Tree Drive, spoke against restricting the owners of Bed and Breakfasts. Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, defended the restrictions, saying they would not apply to those Bed and Breakfasts already in business. Noble clarified with Hanson that the special permit is to be administered by the staff at Development Services for each individual event. Evans clarified that the new code would not affect existing B & B's. Pfiester clarified that the special use permit runs with the property. Consultant, Lee Einsweiler, of Duncan Associates, explained that the temporary use permit would be needed on a case-by-case basis prior to each event. Einsweiler suggested that the B & B's in residential areas be treated like "houses with people in them." He spoke about outside wedding receptions with bands not being allowed in residential areas although they could be allowed with limits as to the number allowed per year. Snell suggested time limits in the evening. Sansing suggested no amplified music. There was further discussion. Einsweiler clarified that Council was suggesting that some things could occur by" right" and if that is exceeded, then they could occur by temporary use permit with time limits. Pfiester suggested, since it is unenforceable, leave out the number of guests for food service. Motion by Evans, second by Snell to modify the Planning and Zoning recommendation to change Item 4 from "denying the use of bed and breakfast" to a permitting process to be prepared by staff and presented to the Council for Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 1 of 16 Pages approval Motion by Pfiester, second by Smith to amend the previous motion to allow food service but to remove the head count number. Approved 7-0. 2. Housing / Lot Variety (UDC Section 5.3) Einsweiler asked that Items 2 and 5 be handled together. He explained that the Planning and Zoning recommendation was to establish a committee to discuss some possible solutions. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission asked the committee to look at "anti -monotony" and garage sizes. He said a final answer, in terms of language, has not been presented at this point. He asked for direction regarding (1) deleting the current lot variety requirement and (2) replacing the single-family standards which are with a combined standard which treats both issues by dealing with the similarity to adjacent houses. He said they are talking about a process to be dealt with by the staff, perhaps requiring photographs to be brought in at the time the housing plan is brought forward if other houses already exist. He said it needs to be determined whether the City desires to constrain the worst "cookie-cutterism." Nelon clarified with Sondgeroth that this would take Item A-2 "off the table." Nelon clarified with Sondgeroth that this will require more staff time. Building Official, Dave Hall, agreed that this would require more time of the inspectors. Jack Hunnicutt, 26 Meadows End, said it is a complex issue and asked Council to consider that there is a cost involved. He asked Council to support staff regarding this issue. He said the great majority of homes built in Georgetown today exceed the standard that they are proposing. Pfiester commended Hunnicutt, Einsweiler, Kirby and Gavurnik for making this item practical while not avoiding monotony. Jim Powell, developer of TerraVista, complained that the code is micro -managing all development to avoid allowing a few builders to build monotonous housing. He went on to describe several items with which he takes issue. Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to accept the Commission recommendation and direct staff accordingly. Approved 7-0. 3. Block Length (UDC Section 6.5) Einsweiler explained the P & Z recommendation and displayed a drawing regarding restraining the lot pattern to 25% of the amenity. Sondgeroth told Council that this would be reviewed in context with the parkland dedication ordinance, and the trails on the Master Plan, and if the City were not interested in receiving the amenity as parkland, then the lots might go down to the edge or the centerline of a creek and therefore the property would not be open to the public. She said this standard would make it possible to review the property with the developer in order to consider the possibility of parkland. Yantis said this also applies to protecting views. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 2 of 16 Pages Paul Linehan, :502 Lost Creek, Austin, told Council he is a land planner and said the 1300 feet is good but asked that block -length variances be allowed along topographical standards to keep it in conjunction with connectivity standards. He said he thinks the 25% is too much, suggesting 10%. Don Martin, told Council he is a property owner and tax payer in Georgetown. He said he wants to make a point that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff have done an incredible job, especially when streamlining the process, but it is extremely prescriptive and restrictive, and difficult to apply to small subdivisions. He suggested setting policy goals but allowing variances. Jim Jenkins, told Council he is a property owner and tax payer in Georgetown, with Newland Communities, developing TerraVista. He said he meets virtually none of the requirements being proposed. He said the proposed standards will allow great vehicular connection access, but his studies have shown that what people want is quiet, calm neighborhoods. Bill Smalling, 30 Sundown Parkway, Austin, told Council he is a property owner in Georgetown. He told them he is Don Martin's partner, and said he is most concerned about the requirement to give the amenity package to the public. He said people in residential areas are looking for privacy, and the application to a small subdivision is difficult. Jim Powell, Newland Communities, clarified the block/lot widths, saying that is too repetitious for continuous traffic flow. He suggested longer block lengths. He questioned who would maintain the required mid -block pedestrian crossing and said they were areas where undesirable activities could occur. Jack Hunnicutt, 26 Meadows End, said he disagrees with staff on the 25%. He said the access lot provided on River Down Road is high in Johnson grass all the time. He said it would be too expensive for the City to maintain, not only mow but also landscape in keeping with the neighborhood. There were further comments from the Council. Smith spoke about the steep trail down the bluff in River Ridge saying the homeowners do not want it to be maintained because that would bring people who would park in front of their houses. Sondgeroth suggested dealing with this issue in the parkland dedication and take this provision out of this section. Sansing said he agrees with visual access, but has a problem with physical access to amenities. The other two speakers agreed that their comments would be redundant and waived their opportunity to speak. Motion by Evans, second by Sansing to reject the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on all of Item 3, direct staff to revisit in view of the comments made tonight, and come back to the Council with another approach. There was further discussion about block length. Approved 7-0. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 3 of 16 Pages EA F C Non-residential Design Standards / Articulation (UDC Section 7.3) Sondgeroth explained the item, saying that the Planning and Zoning recommendation is that staff review and provide greater flexibility in the implementation of this provision. There were questions and comments from Council. Ercel Brashear, 4204 Verde Vista, said this is one of those changes where the unintended consequences begin to magnify themselves later on in the ordinance. He said this extends the urban design standards to the sides of the buildings. He said this issue effects non -conforming uses which will be discussed later. He said in his opinion every non-residential structure in Georgetown is a non- conforming use. He said while attempting to address the "big box" issue, retrofitting to an existing structure causes concerns. Nelon confirmed with Sondgeroth that this doesn't apply to existing buildings and they will clarify the language. Don Martin, said he specializes in retail development and understands that this is important but the unintended consequences of solving one problem create other problems. He said the Victorian look would not work with this item. He sited a couple of buildings that are board siding that would have to be clad in masonry and would lose their Victorian appearance. There were comments from the Council. Motion by Snell, second by Evans to accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to direct staff to review the articulation standards and propose language that may provide greater flexibility in the implementation of this provision. Approved 7-0. Single Family Residential Design Standards (UDC Section 7.4) This item was item was handled previously with Item 2 Housing / Lot Variety, Multi -family Residential Design Standards (UDC Section 7.4) Einsweiler explained the item and the Planning and Zoning recommendations. Paul Linehan, 3502 Lost Creek, Austin, told Council he is concerned that it is restrictive as far as the parking and will create one type of design throughout Georgetown. He said it micro -manages site design. He said the code should focus on landscaping and saving trees instead of how to design the building configurations. Don Martin said he recommends supporting the Planning and Zoning recommendations along with two additional ones. He said 30 units or more not having the same architectural design conflicts with the previous provision that said that primary facades must be of a consistent architectural style. He said he doesn't think that is what was intended and asked that they revisit that issue. He also took exception to the provision prohibiting parking between the street and the building. He said it is pretty hard to design multi -family units where all the Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 4 of 16 Pages buildings are on the outside, around the streets, where all the noise is, and the parking is in the center. Pfiester asked Einsweiler to explain the 30 units not having the same architectural design. Einsweiler said in the next version, that paragraph will be clearer. He said parking on the exterior would be allowed for guests and lease parking with residential parking being interior. There was further discussion regarding the parking requirements. Motion by Navarrette, second by Noble to accept the Planning and Zoning recommendation to allow greater flexibility for exterior design standards of the complex, delete the courtyard requirement, and bring back language adding exceptions to the parking standards to allow parking for the leasing office and guests be located adjacent to street right of way, and grant an exception to this provision for lots with more than two right of way frontages. Approved 7-0, 7. Accessory Units (UDC Section 7.4) Sondgeroth explained the item and the Planning and Zoning recommendation, saying that residents of Old Town had expressed concern about increased density, increased demand for services, and parking. Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, told Council about people in Old Town being concerned about the items mentioned by Sondgeroth and in addition that the accessory units might be turned into rental units. She said there is also a fairness issue, saying many other subdivisions in Georgetown have deed restrictions prohibiting additional residences and this puts City regulations in conflict with the deed restrictions. She proposed to allow a kitchen only with a special use permit in the RS district, and as a matter of right in the RE district, as proposed by Planning and Zoning. There was further discussion and clarification, regarding whether an additional kitchen in a structure should be allowed in a single-family residence. Jim Dillard, 1404 Maple Street, told Council he is a member of the Heart of Georgetown Neighborhood Association, and said the recommendation that they took to the P & Z was the exclusion of the secondary unit simply because the streets are not there to handle extra traffic. He said they were also concerned about the utilities and the size of the lots. He said he is concerned that the special permit would not be enforced. He said there are a lot of garage apartments and secondary units already in Old Town that are not permitted, and unless the neighbors complain, they are allowed to exist and are rented out. Motion by Navarrette, second by Smith to accept the P & Z recommendation as stated in Item 7 to allow the accessory units in the residential estate zoning district and that a full kitchen not be allowed as part of the extra living quarters. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to amend the motion to expand the ordinance to allow an accessory building anywhere in the City, with a full kitchen only with special use permits, and with the proviso that the unit not be used as a rental unit. Approved 4-3 (Navarrette, Snell and Smith opposed) Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 5 of 16 Pages illi lillillililill!lilli 11 IF 11111 •' • a • •: • I •' •' F31••• '•• • III 8. Tree Canopy (UDC Section 8.2) Bobby Ray explained the item and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne Marie Dorsa, 3017 Gabriel View, cautioned Council to take care of the trees and hold the developers accountable. Pfiester asked for and received clarification regarding the measurement of the canopy. Motion by Noble, second by Snell to accept the P & Z recommendation. Approved 7=0. 9. Street Trees (UDC Section 8.3) Einsweiler explained that there is no current requirement for street trees. He explained the reason for including this requirement and gave the P & Z recommendation. Todd Jansen, 112 Ridgewood Drive, asked for clarification regarding collector streets. He said he is concerned that this is a "one size fits all" issue. He said this item shouldn't be applied throughout. Anne Marie Dorsa, 3017 Gabriel View, said she is greatly in favor of street trees. She sited the Walgreens Store as an example of what not to do. Earl Broussard, 906 Live Oak Ridge, Austin, told Council he serves on the City Council of Westlake. He applauded Council's efforts, but said he is concerned about visual monotony that could be created by the continuous placement of one type of tree used in a repetitive mode. Mel Pendland, 30207 Oak Tree Drive, said the issue is not whether we want trees, but that trees should not be used in all places, especially if the trees block the view. He encouraged that Council ask staff for an estimate of the cost to implement this requirement. Don Martin suggested taking this out of the UDC for now to allow a special committee to look at it separately, suggesting that it not be applied "across the board." He said he supports street trees for Georgetown, but thinks it needs to be worked out very carefully. Mark Baker, 16417 Pocono Drive, Austin, with SEC Planning Consultants, said there are different landscape architectural styles and suggested that a number of trees be specified in a given distance to allow more flexibility of design. P. J. Moore, 507 Walnut Street, told Council that trees are valuable. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 6 of 16 Pages [us 11 Paul Linehan said he is concerned about who plants the trees and who maintains them. He said he thinks there should be flexibility, such as rather than lining the street, using massed plantings. He suggested giving credit for designing to protect trees. There was discussion about adding flexibility to the language of the requirement, particularly regarding preserving vistas. Motion by Snell, second by Smith to accept the P & Z recommendation and direct staff to add flexibility to the language. Motion by Pfiester, second by Sansing to amend the previous motion to include local streets in the requirement. There was further discussion about the positioning of the trees and the timing for putting in the trees. �, ..MW 47630-. Identification / Directional Signs (UDC Section 10.3) Bobby Ray explained the item and explained the Planning and Zoning recommendation. Jim Jenkins, Newland Communities, told Council he supports deleting the allowance for weekend directional signage. There were comments and a discussion regarding the different right of way distances. Yantis said there will be an ordinance on the next Council Agenda to clear up the enforcement mechanism. Sansing said he is of the opinion that weekend signs could be allowed but the number should be limited to one, two or three. Motion by Pfiester, second by Smith to accept the P & Z recommendation. Noble said he feels there are directional signs for churches that don't apply to the special event process and therefore, he can't support the motion. Approved 5-2. (Noble and Sansing opposed) Off -premise Signs (UDC Section 10.4) Bobby Ray explained the item and the P & Z recommendation. Tim Harris said he likes the multi -subdivision directional signage and multi - commercial tenant signage but limiting it to having to go beyond 250 feet of an intersection is not good. He said it should be reduced to be within the line of sight of the intersection. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 7 of 16 Pages Einsweiler saia the P & Z just wanted to make sure that the signage was outside the public right of way and clear sight triangles. He said they were fine with deleting the 250 -foot provision. Motion by Navarrette, second by Pfiester to approve the recommendation by the P & Z. Approved 7-0. 12. Impervious Cover (UDC Section 11.2) Nelon noted that this item would be delayed until Thursday night because there are 16 people signed up to speak on this item and he had announced at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting would end at 9:00 p.m. He suggested that some of the people get together and appoint spokespersons to speak in order to save time on Thursday night at 6:00 p.m. when this item will be considered. Mayor Nelon opened the meeting and noted that the purpose of the meeting is for the Council to continue to work on the wording of the second draft of the Unified Development Code, 12. Impervious Cover (UDC Section 11.2) Sondgeroth explained the change from the previously adopted interim ordinance, saying there are now standards for all uses, residential, commercial and industrial, and it provides for waivers to increase those standards. She directed Council to Table 11.2 of the UDC and a chart regarding approved waivers. She gave the Planning and Zoning recommendation. Iva McLachlan, 520 Wolf Road, told Council she is a landowner and said she objects to the 50% impervious cover restriction. She said she has been told that restricting to 50% is not needed to protect water quality. She said the 50% restriction would reduce the property value and increase development costs. She urged Council to maintain the previous restrictions in effect prior to the interim ordinance. Jim Powell, Newland Communities, asked for and received clarification from Sondgeroth regarding residential use being 40%. Sondgeroth noted that is the current standard. Powell urged Council to consider the impact that this provision will have on development and on the tax base for the City and the school district. Mark Dameron, 101 Pecan Vista Lane, encouraged Council to approve the 50% impervious cover. He said he thinks its fair and it allows for waivers. Judy Hindelang, 570 Wolf Road, spoke to Council about the need to allow flexibility and "logical leeway" in the ordinance. She particularly disagreed with the 50% impervious cover. Jerry Heaney, 157 Ridgecrest, agreed with the 50% impervious cover and encouraged Council to adopt it. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 8 of 16 Pages MaryEllen Kersch, 1903 19th Street, said impervious cover has many aspects, but the primary aspect is water quality. She said the UDC is the method for sustaining Georgetown's future. Linda Turner, 111 Vivian Lane, said impervious cover is a water quality issue and said she is convinced the UDC is an example that people want something more than what they've been getting. Judy Shepherd, 2918 Gabriel View, said she also believes that impervious cover is vital to water protection. She said no exceptions should be allowed over the Edward's Aquifer. Ann Marie Dorsa, 3017 Gabriel View, said she agrees with the standards that the Council is attempting to adopt. She encouraged Council to take a strong stand against the developers. Todd Jansen, 112 Ridgewood Drive, told Council he has lived here for five years and hopes to die here, saying he is not an "out of town" developer who doesn't care about Georgetown. He said he is very proud of the work he has done with Del Webb as a developer here in Georgetown. He said he would like to see an increase in the residential impervious cover on a lot -by -lot basis allowing up to 60%, but on a neighborhood basis allowing only 50%. He said there is a growing age demographic that is looking for a home on a smaller lot and it would be extremely difficult to provide what they are looking for if the proposed restrictions are adopted. Sansing asked if staff has considered what Jansen was talking about. Sondgeroth explained what is shown on Table 11.2 is calculated regarding overall gross site area. She said over the Edwards Aquifer, the basic requirement is 50% on a gross site area and can be increased to 58% on a gross site area so that would take into account the open spaces, green belts, common areas, and parkland that would be included in the overall gross calculation. Ercel Brashear, 4204 Verde Vista, said he is a developer, lives and works here, his family grew up here, and has been a councilmember. He said if this is a water quality issue, it doesn't make sense to allow 50% for one type of development and 80% for another. He said whatever restriction is decided upon should be applied "across the board." Marvin Dorsey, 801 Fairview Road, said he is also a developer who is living here with his family. He said there has been no demonstrated evidence of a water quality problem now or predicted in the future. He said this restriction will decrease property value and increase cost for development. He asked Council to vote to return to the 70% impervious cover. Greg Strmiska, told Council he is an engineer who lives in Austin and has had the pleasure of working with staff in preparation of the UDC. He said the issues of impervious cover should be separated from the issues of erosion. He said silt is a result of bad drainage plans in general. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 9 of 16 Pages Pfiester askea and Strmiska confirmed that Simon Properties is in agreement with the 50% impervious cover issue. Scott Smiley, 4366 Shadow Oak Lane, Austin, told Council he is a civil engineer and has worked with water quality issues for several years. He said a road is from 60% to 70% impervious cover and therefore every lot will have to sacrifice some impervious cover to account for the amount of impervious cover that would be allowed in the road the way the UDC is written, so the actual restrictions on each lot will be less than what the actual cap is. He said the city is headed for an administrative nightmare and the calculations will be a tremendous burden on staff. He said Georgetown is already controlled by the TNRCC rules which require stringent water quality controls on stormwater. He suggested making the TNRCC controls effective, such as making the detention ponds operate efficiently. Mark Allen, 5012 Fountainwood Circle, said he takes offense to developers being characterized as greedy parasites on the community. He said his family developed a subdivision west of town, and he is still here and has reinvested in the city. He said 50% impervious cover affects any development his family will do and he said he doesn't see a need since it is not based on water quality. He asked Council to leave it at 70%. John Noell, told Council he lives in Austin and has a masters degree in environmental engineering. He said he wants Georgetown to have good public policy and have regulations that promote good developments. He agreed with Scott Smiley about the lack of difference on water quality between 50% and 70% impervious cover after the TNRCC regulations. He said there is a big economic impact. He said the impervious cover restriction of 50% is not needed. P. J. Moore told Council of a lot of other environmental qualities that are diminished by higher impervious cover. She said common sense would suggest that the higher the impervious cover, the more severe the impact. Kristen Seales, 704 Oakcrest Lane, urged Council to support the maximum for impervious cover. Tim Harris waived his time, saying Ms. Wolf (McLachlan?IHindelang?) had covered his issues. Jack Hunnicutt, 26 Meadows End, suggested a goal of acceptable levels of impervious cover applied to a gross site area, removing the issue on a lot basis. Hunnicutt explained that the calculations shown now should be inverted, the gross site area impervious cover should be lower than the per -lot impervious cover. There was further discussion with Greg Strmiska, an engineer, regarding the identification of drainage problems vs, impervious cover. Earl Broussard, 906 Live Oak Ridge, Austin, told Council he lives in Westlake and is a landscape architect. He said the waivers will be a good tool to use along with the definitions of aggregate impervious cover such as decks and swimming Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 10 of 16 Pages pools. Smith said he feels there are three issues on impervious cover. He said restrictions are needed to maintain and improve the character and ambience of Georgetown. He said the economic issue and tax base issue are a little complex but impervious cover restrictions may actually increase the property value. Regarding the water quality issue, he said he feels it is better to take a conservative approach and think long-term about the water supply in Georgetown. He said he agrees with the Planning and Zoning recommendations. Pfiester said he agrees with Smith that quality development will actually enhance the property value. He said the three things about water quality are: what kind of water is in the Aquifer, stream degradation, and flooding. He said he thinks it is correctly broken into two zones, for over the Edwards recharge and outside the recharge zone. He said there should be very strict standards over the Recharge Zone. He described the Edwards Aquifer and said it is highly susceptible to contaminants. He said he agrees with Brashear and suggested using 50% "across the board" for developments that are five acres or larger, particularly to property over the Aquifer. He said there should be one difference made in the waivers. He suggested to change the wording on the waivers from "the developer may" to "the developer shall," so what is really being talked about is 5% which will cost a little more money to do a parking lot design and a little more money for what TNRCC recommends as a best management practice. He said he doesn't think the economic argument is pertinent. He suggested further clarifications. There was further discussion by the Council Motion by Smith to recommend impervious cover limitations no less restrictive than the Commission recommendation and that impervious cover limitations be considered on a gross site basis not lot by lot. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Pfiester, second by Snell for commercial/industrial development over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, that the maximum on a gross basis be limited to 50% for all categories with waivers as specified that shall be granted up to 65%. Motion by Smith, second by Navarrette to amend that industrial be 55% and no higher, with waivers to 70%, Motion to amend failed 4-3 *tEvans, Noble, Pfiester and Snell opposed) *as corrected by Councilmember Smith at the August 27, 2002 Council Meeting. Motion by Pfiester to support Hunnicutt's recommendation for residential percentages over the Aquifer to be lower for gross and higher for individual lots. Pfiester asked for a committee to revise the language. Hunnicutt agreed to chair a committee. Sondgeroth asked that engineers be on the committee. Motion died for lack of second. Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to amend by affirming the numbers to allow no more than are present in the current recommendation, keeping it at no more Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 11 of 16 Pages than 50% with variances ranging from 58 to 64. Approved 7®0. Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble that Council accept as presented for "off the aquifer" non -recharge area as presented and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Approved 5-2. (Navarrette and Sansing opposed) Pfiester asked Amelia to explain about roads. Sondgeroth told Council that the Planning Commission recommendation was that major arterials and collectors not be included in the calculation for impervious cover, that the definition in the UDC should include roads, but she said she thinks the definition of impervious cover needs to be improved. Pfiester suggested including major collectors and thoroughfares as impervious. There was further discussion. Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to include major roads in impervious cover calculations. Jim Briggs questioned how much property the City would have to purchase to build a road in order to comply with the UDC. It was determined that municipalities building roads do not come under the subdivision application. Vote on the motion% Motion failed 4-3. (Navarrette, Noble, Smith, and Sansing) opposed Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans that no hazardous and toxic materials be manufactured or used on site in an industrial subdivision over the Aquifer Recharge Zone. Nelon noted that Georgetown doesn't have a Groundwater Management District. Vote on motion: Approved 4-3 (Noble, Smith and Sansing opposed) 8:21 p.m. — recessed 8:31 p.m. —resumed 13. Cul-de-sac Length (UDC Section 12.3) Bobby Ray explained the item and noted the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission eliminates the regulation of length of cul-de-sacs, discourages the use of cul-de-sacs, and encourages other alternatives to cul-de- sacs. Jim Jenkins of Newland Communities, distributed an exhibit for his remarks and told Council that he supports the P & Z recommendation, but one thing that was not addressed was the repetition of the location of cul-de-sacs. He said he believes that residents want cul-de-sacs. He asked for reconsideration. Snell asked for clarification of the issue. Sondgeroth noted that it is a public safety issue regarding getting the fire trucks to the homes. Lincoln explained that anything over 500 feet would be difficult for fire apparatus. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 12 of 16 Pages Scott Smiley said the length of street limitation is not needed. He said he would like to see the language removed in the UDC that cul-de-sacs are discouraged. It was pointed out that the language had already been removed. Jack Hunnicutt said he thinks this is about the relationship of land use to community style. He asked for flexibility to create different styles. Jim Powell urged Council to accept the P & Z recommendation with variance language on the 500 -foot length. He asked for a clarification on reserve strips at the end of streets. Todd Jansen said market forces should be looked to for what people want to live in. He said connecting the streets doesn't create interconnectivity within a community. He said consistently in Sun City, people want to live on quiet cul-de- sacs. He thanked Amelia, the Development Services staff, and the Council for taking the time to go through this process. Earl Broussard said Westlake has many cul-de-sacs and said the recent Urban Land Institute statistics show that people prefer cul-de-sacs. Smith confirmed with Amelia that the issue is a public safety issue. Yantis said cul-de-sacs make it difficult for pedestrians to move through neighborhoods. There was further discussion. Motion by Snell, second by Evans to accept the P & Z recommendation and direct staff accordingly. Jim Briggs said lengthening the cul-de-sacs will lengthen the distance to water mains and there could be a water quality problem due to the neighborhoods are length. Vote on Motion: Approved 6-0. (Navarrette absent from the dais) 14. Connectivity Ratio (UDC Section 12.3) Bobby Ray said this provision requires a fixed ratio that must be met. He suggested that Council direct staff to explore the possibility of scaling the required connectivity ratio. Jim Jenkins with Newland Communities said none of his neighborhoods meet the connectivity requirements. He described the way his neighborhoods are laid out. Jim Powell said the word "anticipate" on page 183 gives him great concern. He said connectivity might subject his neighborhoods to traffic from undesirable use such as movement of manufactured homes. Earl Broussard said the Urban Land Institute has said that what people want is large, uninterrupted green areas. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 13 of 16 Pages Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to accept the P & Z recommendation to direct staff to explore the possibility of scaling the required connectivity. Smith and said connectivity has a lot of pluses, especially safety. Vote on Motion: Approved 6®0. (Navarrette away from the dais.) 15. Traffic Impact Analysis — Threshold (UDC Section 12.5) Bobby Ray explained the item and gave the P & Z recommendation. Snell asked and Sondgeroth explained the process for creating an impact fee. Pfiester asked Sondgeroth to give her opinion of road impact fees. Sondgeroth stated that it is an involved process. City Attorney Trish Carls said road impact fees are a funding mechanism and not just a planning mechanism so the focus is a little bit different. She explained that P & Z felt there should be a broader look at the TIA's in order to evaluate the cumulative effects. Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble to accept the recommendation from P & Z with the exception of the road impact fees. Approved 6-0. 16. Oversize Utility Requirements (UDC Section 13.9) David Munk explained the item and gave the P & Z recommendation. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to accept the recommendation of the P & Z with the addition of "and/or extension of utilities" in #2. Approved 6-0. 17. Gateways (General) Sondgeroth explained the item and gave the P & Z recommendations. Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, said there is no protection in the UDC of gateways into and through town for any additional landscaping to buffer commercial and industrial activities from the street. She suggested that "gateways" be defined. There were comments and questions by the Council. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to direct staff to include a provision for gateways in which gateways and landscape buffering is more clearly defined and to determine the City's involvement. Approved 6-0. 18. Courthouse View Corridors (UDC Section 4.6) Sondgeroth stated there is currently no provision for protection of view corridors. She gave the P & Z recommendation. Renee Hanson said she spoke to the consultant who said he could develop language that requires the developer to state that he is not blocking the view corridor. Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 14 of 16 Pages Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to follow the P & Z recommendation with the addition of requesting that the consultant provide language that might allow some interim request of assurances. Sondgeroth asked for clarification about the requested time -frame, saying it will require funding and there is no budget at this time. Sansing suggested that the Design Review Committee be used to develop the view corridors. Motion by Sansing, second by Pfiester to ask Renee Hanson to do a poll of former Design Review Committee members to best determine what the view corridors should be. Approved 6-0. 19. Nonconforming Uses (UDC Chapter 14) Sondgeroth explained the P & Z recommendation saying that the portion having to do with "discontinuation" be redrafted and asked to delete the provision for continuance of a non -conforming use. Ercel Brashear asked for the will of the Council regarding when the developer goes out and spends a lot of money to make a building come into conformance. Sondgeroth explained that there is a difference between change in use and change in non -complying structure. James Draeger said he has just become aware that the zoning of his property downtown has changed. He asked how much time he would have to do something with that property. He suggested that the six-month time frame be eliminated while the property is for sale. There was discussion. Renee Hanson said she thinks the language from P & Z should be reworded and she said the six-month time period is too short and should be extended for another six months. She pointed out other language that she said presents a problem. There was further discussion. Motion by Noble, second by Evans to direct staff to work on the wording of this item, redraft the definition of "discontinuation" and reconsider the time period for non -conforming uses. There was further discussion and questions to City Attorney Carls regarding the scenario concerning the use of Draeger's property. 10MONGTIV10 -. 20. Requirement for Homeowners' Associations (General) City Attorney Trish Carls explained the item. John Kirby, 121 Poppy Hills Cove, said this proposal is very important to the Berry Creek Homeowners Association because at this time it is voluntary and not mandatory. He said a Homeowners Association could be charged with Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 15 of 16 Pages maintenance uncommon the remainder of the areas within the subdivision. He said this would also ensure that the residents night abide Council Meeting. by deed restrictions or covenants. Sondgeroth said staff doesn't have a problem providing language within the subdivision area that requires that a homeowners association be established, but does not want to enforce what the associations put into their bylaws. Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble to direct staff to look into including in the UDC a homeowners association requirement for those subdivisions that have a common area; that the city can review the plat; and that there be a mechanism to transfer from a developer to a homeowners association. It was clarified that this would only apply to new subdivisions with common areas. 19. Other UDC Items for Discussion Approved: Nelon suggested that the remainder of the discussion be conducted at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon prior to the Tuesday night Council Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Attest: Neln, Magor Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Minutes of Special Council Meetings August 7 and 8, 2002 Page 16 of 16 Pages