HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_01.04.2001MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, January 4, 2001
Chair, Patrick Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Other Commissioners present were
Sarah Milburn, Charles Parker, Gabe Sansing and Jack Noble. Marjorie Herbert was absent. Staff
present was Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager, Dave Hall, Building Official, Cathy Riedel, Assistant
City Attorney, Melissa Murphy, Development Technician, Carla Benton, Development Planner, David
Munk, Development Engineer and Jim Babcock, Development Technician
1. Action from Executive Session. None.
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the December 5, 2000, Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting.
3. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 17.09 acres in the Williams Roberts
survey to be known as The Reserve at Berry Creek, Section 1A, Phase Two, located along
Sarazen Loop, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
5. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 6.317 acres in the William Addison
Survey, to be known as Georgian Place, Phase III, located on Maple Street and Georgian Drive,
with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
6. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 18.76 acres in the William Addison
Survey, to be known as SummerCrest, Section One, located along SH29 East, with Variances to
the Subdivision Regulations.
7. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 37.09 acres in the John Sutherland
Survey, to be known as Westlake of the Woods, Phase 1B, located along Silverstone Drive, with
Variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
8. Consideration and possible action on a Amendment to the standards of the Planned Unit
Development of Georgetown Village.
Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 16.25 acres in the Leroy B.
Lord Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Georgetown Village, Section 5,
located on Westbury Lane and Redbud Ct., along Village Commons Boulevard, with Variances to
the Subdivision Regulations.
9. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 7.42 acres in the Rivery
Subdivision Conveyance Plat, Lot 3, located on S. IH35 at the proposed Rivery Boulevard, to be
known as The Rivery Park, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
Jack Noble asked if this is the last time the Commission will see this item. Patrick Walsh
stated that they would see a DDP if there were variances requested.
10. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of Crestview Addition, Unit Two, Block 3, Lot 7,
from RO, Residential Office with a Site Plan, to RO, with a revised Site Plan, located at 2004
Williams Drive.
12. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of the Resubdivision of
P&Z Meeting
January 4, 2001
Page 2
San Gabriel Village, Section One, Block 1, Lot 1, to be known as San Gabriel Village, Section
One, Block 1, Lot 1A and 1B, located at the southeast corner if IH35 northbound frontage road
and Waters Edge Circle, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
15. Consideration and possible action on a Amendment to the Standards of the Planned Unit
Development of Sun City Georgetown, Texas.
Items # 4, 11, 13 and 14 were pulled from the Consent Agenda to be considered individually by the
Commission.
In reference to agenda item #8, Gabe Sansing asked why there seems to be fewer alleys in the
Georgetown Village applications. The applicant of Georgetown Village explained why there were no
alleys in this section and stated that there would be alleys in Section 6, which they would be submitting
soon.
Patrick Walsh noted a clerical error in the Technical Issues of Agenda Item #9. The Technical Issue
should read “...prior to City Council consideration” instead of “.....prior to Planning and Zoning
Commission consideration”.
Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda (Items #2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12 and 15). Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0.
Regular Agenda
4. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 12.83 acres in the William Roberts
Survey to be known as the Woods at Berry Creek, Section 2, located at north of Brentwood
Drive and Meadow Green Drive, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations . Tracy Dubcak
and Glen Watkins addressed the Commission. They explained that they did not object to The
Woods at Berry Creek project. They wanted to inform the Commission that the drainage system
that this section of The Woods ties into which exists in Berry Creek and occurs between their two
homes, has unresolved problems. Ms. Dubcak and Mr. Watkins informed the Commission that
for over 3 years, the Development Engineer of The Woods at Berry Creek, Section One, Charles
Wirtanen, has been promising to pipe the storm water drainage underground. In their opinion, the
existing system is at the maximum that it can take and if this system is tied into The Woods at
Berry Creek, Section 2, it’s going to exceed its capability. Mr. Watkins stated that the 2 things
that need to happen are 1) the pipe be buried 36" deep and a fence be built on the common
property line for safety reasons and 2) this needs to be done before Section 2 is tied into the
existing system. Also, Ms. Dubcak informed the Commission that the existing drainage system
is not within the drainage easement and does not meet the current As Builts that are on file at
the City. Chris Overstreet, Project Manager for Parker-Kirby, addressed the Commission and
stated that they would assist in any way to resolve this issue and that they are 9-10 weeks out
from final completion and tie-in. Erik Nesbitt, the development engineer for The Woods at Berry
Creek, Section 2, was present and responded to questions from the Commission. Extensive
discussion followed regarding responsibility, timing and coordination of the new project in
conjunction with the existing drainage problem. After the discussion, Jack Noble made a motion
to table this item until the February P&Z meeting. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion w hich
passed by a vote of 5-0.
11. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 17.91 acres in the David
Wright Survey, to be known as Georgetown HEB #2, located at 4500 FM2338, with possible
P&Z Meeting
January 4, 2001
Page 3
Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Charles Parker made a motion to approve the Public
Review Final Plat of 17.91 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as Georgetown
HEB#2, provided Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council Consideration. Gabe
Sansing seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0.
Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan of 17.91 acres in the David
Wright Survey, to be known as Georgetown HEB #2, located at 4500 FM2338, with possible
variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Carla Benton gave the staff report and
recommendation. She stated that staff supported the overall project except for the variance
requests regarding driveway separation between driveway and intersection and driveway
separation between driveways on Cedar Breaks Road, based on the fact that in the future this is
proposed to be a major intersection with very intense traffic and staff could not identify a hardshi p
that would justify a variance in this case due to concerns for safety. Jeff Barton with Doucet and
Associates was present and introduced members of the project team for HEB #2. Mr. Barton,
Mike McInturf and Kathy Osmond addressed the Commission, giving illustrations and justification
for the requested variances. Mr. Barton stated that this site has unique characteristics that
provide reasons to grant the variances: human safety, the underlying spirit of the City’s vision as
set forth in the Century Plan, environmental preservation, efficiency and public safety and
convenience. Mr. McInturf stated that in granting the variances it would allow to separate the
types of vehicles, and provide a way of entering and exiting the site so as to minimize pedestrian
and vehicle conflicts and keep separate those that have operational limitat ions. Extensive
discussion followed regarding traffic movement and driveway separation and placement.
Ercel Brashear and Don Martin addressed the Commission and expressed their support for the
project. Both encouraged the Commission to approve the requested variances stating that 450'
driveway separation is excessive and the regulations need to be changed. Mr. Martin pointed out
that this will eventually be a “medianed” road and will be a “right -turn-in and “right-turn-out”
situation.
Gabe Sansing stated that he liked the site plan and suggested a raised triangular concrete island
at the first driveway until which time TXDOT constructs the median on Cedar Breaks Road.
Sarah Milburn agreed that the right-turn-in and right-turn-out driveway was important and should
be required by the developer.
Jack Noble stated that he hoped that our regulations were being looked at if our standards are
too high. He also agreed that movement should be restricted to right -turn-in and right-turn-out.
Charles Parker commended the developer on a good design.
Patrick Walsh supported the applicant and stated that he thought the developer did a great job
on designing around the trees and complying with the Urban Design standards.
Mike McInturf responded that a raised concrete island could be built in the interim to
accommodate the right-turn-in and out only situation. After the discussion, Charles Parker made
a motion to approve the Detailed Development of Georgetown HEB #2 Subdivision, provided the
Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of variances to
Section 33044A of the Subdivision Regulations, for driveway access separation between
driveway and intersection to less than the required 400 feet and between driveways to be less
than the required 450 feet after making the following findings of fact::
The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served because three entrances will
better serve the traffic flow and safety of this site. The appropriate use of surrounding property
will not be substantially impaired or diminished because no property is effected at this time. The
P&Z Meeting
January 4, 2001
Page 4
applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought because the granting of these
variances will create a better traffic flow than our regulations require. The variances will not
confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to owners
of similar surrounding properties because we have granted variances similar to this before. The
hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature because the cost is the
same whether according to the design or the City’s standards. The variances are not contrary to
public interest because no public safety concerns are created; and by granting the variances, the
spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. Gabe Sansing seconded the
motion which passed by a vote of 5-0.
13. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 19.769 acres in the Burrell
Eaves Survey, to be known as the Worship Sites in Neighborhood 14 of the Planned Unit
Development of Sun City Texas, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. I.J. Patterson
addressed the Commission and asked that Del Webb be required to continue the type of fencing
that they have used historically from Williams Drive, down Del Webb Boulevard to protect the
residents and that it be extended from Texas Drive, north on Sun City Boulevard to act as a
buffer between the residents and the proposed Worship sites. David Munk informed the
Commission that Rick Getter had agreed to a privacy fence as required in the Type C bufferyard.
Todd Jansen stated that the privacy fence will be between the Worship sites and the
neighborhood to the north. He stated that the parking would be to the sides and back of the
Worship sites, with the entrance to the north. He stated that a natural buffer exists with the
trees on the site. He asked that the Commission not require a privacy or buffer fence along the
front of the Worship sites. George Foreman, Chair of the Worship Place, addressed the
Commission. He stated that this site was already zoned for a worship site and the plans are in
accordance with the restrictions that Del Webb has put on them to preserve the property with as
little intrusion as possible to the residents across the street. Harvey Carson, an adjacent property
owner stated that he would still like to see the stone fence. Patrick Walsh suggested that the
citizens get together with the developer and Del Webb and try to come to an agreement. After
the discussion, Jack Noble made a motion to recommend approval of the Public Review Final
Plat of 19.769 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as the Worship Sites in
Neighborhood 14 of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Texas and encouraged the
Worship Center, Todd Jansen and the adjacent residents to work together on the buffering
concerns before consideration of the Detailed Development Plan. Sarah Milburn seconded t he
motion which passed by a vote of 5-0.
4. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of 9.04 acres in the
William Addison and Clement Stubblefield Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit
Development of the Everette Williams Elementary School, located at 507 E. University Avenue.
Ron Matteson, owner and occupant of 1008 and 1010 Ash Street, addressed the Commission.
His concerns and suggestions were:
1. Increased traffic on Ash.
2. Parking be off-street
3. Widening Ash Street - use the basketball court for parking
4. Move portable buildings on to the property and build sidewalks and curbing along the street.
5. Put 22 more parking spaces on the north of the property
6. Need to show elevations and concerned about historic aesthetics: brick and blend with
neighborhood
7. Portables made to look better than they do now
Sarah Milburn responded to Mr. Matteson and stated that there has been a group meeting
regarding Williams Elementary School now for over 2 years and aesthetics and blending in with
the neighborhood was very important to everyone involved.
P&Z Meeting
January 4, 2001
Page 5
Jim Cummins, agent for the applicant, addressed the Commission and responded to Mr.
Matteson’s concerns. He showed the bus traffic route on the site as well as the student pick-up
area. The concept and aspects of a Planned Unit Development was discussed. Extensive
discussion followed regarding parking and the placement of it. Mr. Cummins stated that the
school district wanted to preserve the football field on that site for use by the community. Gabe
Sansing stated that the parking is a valid concern. He suggested reducing the size of the
football field for parking. He also stated that the portable buildings should be made to resemble
the main building of the old school.
Sarah Milburn asked about playground equipment. She stated that she was not happy with the
portable building remaining as it is, but she didn’t feel like any green space should be taken
away.
Jack Noble would like to see as much parking as possible and the portable building not look like
a portable building.
Charles Parker stated that he was not in favor of reducing the football field. He supported the
staff recommendation.
Patrick Walsh stated that he had overall support of the application, but would like to bring the
three encroachments into compliance and renovate the existing buildings on the site to be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
After the discussion, Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Short Form Record Final Plat
of a Planned Unit Development of Everette Williams Elementary School Subdivision, with PUD
Standards to:
1. Allow encroachments of existing buildings and impervious coverage into the front, side
and rear setbacks, and public utility easements (PUE’s), and
2. Allow the location of parking within the front setback and public right -of-way, and reduce
the number of parking spaces required, provided the Technical Issues are addressed
prior to City Council consideration.
Charles Parker seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-1 (Gabe Sansing - opposed).
16. Public Hearing, discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council on an ordinance
revision regarding bufferyards. Carla Benton led the discussion and informed the Commission
that in the Zoning Ordinance, Part 6, it is clearly stated that the intent of buffering is to buffer
residential and commercial property so that the commercial impact on the residential property is
mitigated by the bufferyard. The bufferyard requirements as they are written now, are determined
by zoning district. The proposal is to revise the ordinance to address the bufferyard
requirements by use and not zoning. For instance, the HEB is adjacent to RS zoning, but the use
is not residential. After the discussion, Gabe Sansing made a motion to recommend that City
Council revise the ordinance. Sarah Milburn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 -0.
17. Staff comments and reports.
a. Council action update - David Munk updated the Commission on the December City
Council meeting.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.