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