Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_06.05.2001June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 1 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 5, 2001 Chair, Patrick Walsh, called the June 5, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Gabe Sansing, Marjorie Herbert, Chris Aadnesen, Robert Seamans, Richard Glasco and Audrey McDonald. Staff members present were Amelia Sondgeroth, Director, Janis Russell, Recording Secretary, David Munk, Development Engineer, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa Murphy, Development Planner and Cathy Riedel, Assistant City Attorney. 1. Action from Executive Session - None Consent Agenda 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the May 1, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 3. Consideration of a Century Plan Amendment for 10.84 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, to be known as Womble Commercial Park, from Intensity Level 2 to Intensity Level 3, located on County Road 193 (NE Inner Loop Rd.). 4. Consideration of a Rezoning from A, Agricultural, to RP, Residential Planned, or any more restrictive district, of 72.217 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Texas, Phase 4-E, Neighborhoods 24A and 24B, located along Texas Drive. 5. Consideration of a Public Review Final Plat of 72.217 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Texas, Phase 4-E, Neighborhoods 24A and 24B, located along Texas Drive. 6. Consideration of a Public Review Final Plat of 61.647 acres in the A.H. Porter Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills, Phase 2, Section 2, located 7.8 miles west of Georgetown on SH29. Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. Regular Agenda 7. Discussion of the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Overlay District. Renee Hanson addressed the Commission and gave the members an amendment to the map, not included in their packet, and the Master Plan recommendation from the Consultant. Richard Glasco asked what prompted the NE boundary change. Renee Hanson responded that it would be more consistent with other boundaries and to exempt solely residential properties out of the district. Patrick Walsh commented on the definition of terms for the words “consider” , “context” and “guideline”. He suggested using more definitive words such as shall, should and may when intending an imperative. Gabe June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 2 Sansing stated that when he sees the whole thing as a package, he’ll see that the ordinance has “punch” when it needs to and allows alternatives as well. Patrick Walsh asked for clarification of the application and review process. He stated that the process may cause a bottleneck and should be looked at to expedite applications. Amelia Sondgeroth responded that these applicants will follow the same procedures as other applications. Renee Hanson stated that the Commission may have to meet more than once per month to consider some applications. Patrick Walsh noted that there was no mention of parking requirements in the downtown area. Renee Hanson responded that the Historic district will be exempted from parking, and the outlying area will use the parking standards in the ordinance now, knowing they are outdated, but an applicant may be able to prove that they don’t need that much parking and they will be allowed to include shared parking, valet parking and off-site parking to try to accommodate more flexibility in the downtown area. There will also be a “fee-in-lieu of parking” provision. 8. Consideration of a Century Plan Amendment for 31.10 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, from Intensity Level 3 to Intensity Level 4, located on Northwest Boulevard. Melissa Murphy gave the staff report. Robert Seamans asked if there had been a study on how this project will affect the surrounding neighborhoods and the impact with increased traffic. Melissa Murphy responded that Northwest Boulevard. is a minor arterial and Riverbend will be extended. Patrick Walsh asked if there had been a traffic impact study that incorporates this site. David Munk responded that a study had not been conducted. Matt Marshall, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant will extend Riverbend from Westwood to Northwest Boulevard at their expense to alleviate traffic. Robert Seamans asked if it is prohibitive to do a traffic study at this point for the surrounding residents. Matt Marshall responded that the developers had met with residents and addressed their concerns and have had no negative feedback from them. Patrick Walsh voiced his concern also regarding the traffic in this area. David Munk explained that the Century Plan acts as a traffic study. Robert Seamans asked if there is talk about widening Lakeway. David Munk said no. Chris Aadnesen stated that he supports additional housing. He suggested that the Commission approve the project but also suggest a traffic study for the good of all neighbors in this area. Gabe Sansing said that he supported the application but would like to see the City do a traffic study for the area. Robert Seamans stated that he felt it would be remiss to do the study after the fact. He would like to know what’s going to happen to Lakeway and the light at Williams Drive and Lakeway. Amelia Sondgeroth stated that the City does not have a Traffic Engineer and they contract out studies like these. She stated that we are constrained because the Century Plan is our only planning tool at this time. Marjorie Herbert stated that her concern is traffic impact and infrastructure, but the development department needs to be equipped to deal with these questions. Audrey McDonald agreed that the study after the fact didn’t make sense. Richard Glasco stated that we need more family and housing units, and felt that the traffic impact was out of the Commission’s hands so he would vote in favor of the request. Patrick Walsh stated that it needed to be communicated to City Council that some mechanism needs to be in place to address traffic problems. After the discussion, Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve a Century Plan Amendment for 31.10 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, from Intensity Level 3 to Intensity Level 4. Chris Aadnesen seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. 9. Consideration of a Rezoning of Highland Park Revised, Block 1 Lot 2B (east 65 feet of Lot 2), from RS, Residential Single Family, to C-1, Local Commercial, or any more restrictive district, located at 206 W. 23rd Street. Melissa Murphy gave the staff report. June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 3 Patrick Walsh asked what the mechanism would be to deal with the other residentially zoned properties along 1460. Discussion followed regarding residents surrounding this property. Melissa Murphy responded that each property will have the ability to request rezoning. Vic Flores, 2403 Highland, addressed the Commission. He stated that his school-age children ride the school bus and wanted to know that if a Highland cul-de-sac is made, can a school bus turn around there. He also asked about emergency vehicle access. Melissa Murphy responded that she wasn’t sure if a cul-de-sac was going to be built or not, but if so, it would be built to accommodate a school bus or emergency vehicles being able to turn around. Gabe Sansing stated that he believes that ultimately everything there will go commercial in that area and we need that extension, so he’s in favor of the request. All Commissioners stated that they were in favor of the request since no adjacent property owners were there to speak in opposition of the request. After the discussion, Marjorie Herbert made a motion to approve the rezoning of Highland Park Revised, Block 1, Lot 2B (east 65 feet of Lot 2), from RS, Residential Single Family, to C-1, Local Commercial, or any more restrictive district, located at 206 W. 23rd Street. Robert Seamans seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. Gabe Sansing left at this point of the meeting. 10. Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for River Ridge Three, Section E, Lot 16, located at 104 Riverview Cove. Melissa Murphy gave the staff report and recommendation and explained the handout showing other pools in the area. Marjorie Herbert asked if the main concern regarding impervious coverage is drainage. Melissa Murphy stated that it also concerns water recharge. Chris Aadnesen asked if there was record of declined permits. Melissa Murphy stated that in most cases we work with the applicant to comply, but we don’t keep record of declined permits. Robert Seamans stated that he didn’t see a down side to the project from a recharge stand point and noted that the applicant had the support of surrounding neighbors. Chris Aadnesen stated that he was aware of several permits denied because of this issue in his neighborhood and asked about consistency in this instance. Patrick Walsh and Marjorie Herbert responded that it’s important to be extremely circumspect when considering variance requests and the integrity of the ordinance needs to be considered. Chris Aadnesen stated that if the proper permitting had been done, this problem would not be here. Mr. McKenzie, the applicant, addressed the Commission and responded to questions. He compared Georgetown’s impervious coverage regulations to those of surrounding cities. Richard Glasco stated that he felt that consistency is the bottom line and he would vote to deny because there are other alternatives for the applicant. Audrey McDonald stated that other applicants were able to cooperate within the system and she would vote to deny. Marjorie Herbert stated that she was not swayed by the applicant’s comparison to other cities. Robert Seamans stated that he was in favor of this request and compared this request to the consistency of the application of the fees paid in-lieu of park land dedication arena. Chris Aadnesen stated that the dilemma was caused by an unfortunate chain of events, but because he was aware of other applicants being denied similar variances, he would vote to deny. Patrick Walsh stated that this seemed like too much on too small of a lot and he was in favor of consistency above convenience. After the discussion, Marjorie Herbert made a motion to deny the requested Variance to Table 34020, Design Standards for Lots, to allow greater impervious coverage of 45% which exceeds the 40% impervious coverage limit allowed by the code for River Ridge Three, Section E, Lot 16, located at 104 Riverview Cove. Richard Glasco seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5-1 (Robert Seamans was opposed). June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 4 11. Consideration of a Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level 1 to Intensity Level 4 and Concept Plan for 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, located along Williams Drive, across from Shell Road. Carla Benton gave the staff report and recommendation. Robert Seamans asked why the City looked at water, wastewater and traffic for this parcel and there was not the same scrutiny for the previous applicant on Northwest Blvd. Carla Benton responded that it was the same process and explained that process. David Munk further explained the use of the Century Plan model is in place for water and wastewater and explained that we do not re-run the model for traffic because we don’t have that requirement in the ordinance. Tom Watts, agent for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant agrees that commercial development should be located at main intersections of major arterial roadways of the City, but they disagree with the size of the ultimate node of the commercial development located at the intersections. He handed out copies of the City’s Intensity Map. He stated that the applicant disagreed with the staff’s recommendation of Office and Multi-family uses for Blocks J, K and L. The applicant wishes for those lots to be designated for commercial use, so they will ask for C-1 zoning. Robert Seamans asked Mr. Watts if he sees this as an Arboretum type complex. Mr. Watts said yes this would be an Arboretum type complex. Chris Aadnesen stated that the concept is desirable for Georgetown, but cautioned that Williams Drive needs to be upgraded before this is built. Mike Mersiovsky addressed the Commission regarding wastewater and asked about connectivity for emergency services to his site. Carla Benton responded that that would be addressed at the time of Public Review Final Plat. Carla Benton gave the staff report for the Concept Plan. She stated that staff approves of 45 acres of commercial land use which consists of the first two Blocks and not the entire width of the property along Williams Drive as depicted on the Concept Plan. She informed the Commission that the Parks Board has not looked at this yet but because of the school's timeline, the applicant wanted to go forward this month. Marjorie Herbert stated that she was bothered by pre-empting the Parks Board and asked if they should delay consideration of these proposals. Carla Benton explained that it was brought forward to expedite the process in order to have wastewater available by November for the school district’s need. Patrick Walsh asked about the mini-warehouses shown on the concept plan and Carla Benton informed him that the applicant has agreed to withdraw that. Patrick Walsh asked Mr. Watts what the impact would be of tabling this for a month to let the Parks Board meet. Tom Watts responded that there would be flexibility on where to put the park land, but there is no flexibility on getting the wastewater line to the school. Discussion followed regarding timing of recommending to City Council before the Parks Board recommendation. Steve Brook, representing Andice Development Company, encouraged the Commission to make a recommendation contingent upon the Parks Board recommendation. More discussion followed regarding a motion to recommend with a contingency tied to the motion. Marjorie Herbert asked if the Commission recommended approval tonight subject to the approval and agreement of the Parks Board, does that in any way circumscribe what the Parks Board can do with this Concept Plan. Amelia Sondgeroth stated that the Parks Board could make a presumption that the P&Z recommended approval with the park land as shown on the Concept Plan. Robert Seamans asked if that presumption wouldn’t be nullified if the P&Z approved the Concept Plan, “subject to” the Parks Board recommendation. Marjorie Herbert stated that her question is: does the action of the P&Z legally limit the Parks Board action in any way. Cathy Riedel stated that the P&Z’s action will not limit the Parks Board action, because both boards are advisory boards and can recommend to City Council individually. After the extensive June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 5 discussion regarding the timing of this project and the urgency of consideration by the P&Z because of the design and construction of the wastewater line which will be provided for the school, all the Commissioners agreed to move forward with a recommendation. Marjorie Herbert made a motion to recommend approval of the Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level 1 to Intensity Level 4 for 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision; and recommendation for approval of a Concept Plan for 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, provided that Land use designations for Blocks J, K and L are revised as per agreement with staff and this motion is subject to the specific proviso that the Parks Board, without any limitation whatsoever, based on this recommendation, do their normal procedure of looking at this concept plan and utilizing their process to either approve or disapprove or work out an agreement. If an agreement with the Parks Board is not worked out satisfactorily then this recommendation should not go to City Council. Richard Glasco seconded the motion. Steve Brook informed the Commission that the developer is in disagreement with staff on its ruling of the zoning issue on Blocks J, K and L and would like to leave this open until the applicant can request C-1 zoning. “Land use” versus “zoning” was discussed. Robert Buffkin, President of Andice Development Company, addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission not to “label” Blocks J, K and L as office and multi-family only at this time. He stated that it would affect the marketing of the property and will close the door to certain commercial businesses looking at this property, such as a bank. He stated that this land use designation would stop growth in this area. Marjorie Herbert stated that her motion had nothing to do with stopping growth and everything to do with controlling growth in a way to maintain a healthy balance in this community. Mr. Buffkin stated that the motion restricts his ability to design a proper plan to bring forward for approval if he can’t market it as a commercial property. Robert Seamans stated that he understands that the restrictions by the motion comes, in effect, carrying RM designation because of staff’s recommendation. Instead of leaving any recommendation like that out, it’s going to look to a possible financial entity as an uphill battle to put their business in a suitable position, from the standpoint of being next to apartments as opposed to a nice restaurant. It already looks like it precludes the idea of the type of investments Mr. Buffkin is talking about when we endorse a certain recommendation for the property, whether it be C-1 or R-M. He asked if the Commission can just leave that out altogether. Richard Glasco asked if the motion could be amended to state “Commercial as deemed appropriate by the Commission”. More discussion followed regarding amending the motion. Chris Aadnesen stated that he didn’t agree with staff’s recommendation of limiting Blocks J, K and L to office and multi-family. Ms. Herbert withdrew her motion. Patrick Walsh then made a motion to recommend approval of a Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level 1 to Intensity Level 4 for 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey to be known as Woodlake Subdivision; and approval of the Concept Plan for 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey to be known as Woodlake Subdivision provided, first, that land use designation for Blocks J, K and L are subject to zoning review in a subsequent application and secondly, the proposed park land dedication for Block D as submitted is supported by the Parks Board. Patrick Walsh amended his motion to state: “…the proposed park land dedication is agreed to by the Parks Board, without restrictions.” Robert Seamans seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0-1. (Marjorie Herbert abstained.) 12. Staff comments and reports. a. Council action update – Melissa Murphy updated the Commission on the May City Council meetings. b. Important dates to remember: June 5, 2001 P&Z Minutes Page 6 1. Thursday, July 12th Open House for the public at Southwestern University, 5:00- 8:00 p.m. to learn more about the issues, concerns and problems with the current ordinances. (You are not asked to attend, but may want to see what public reaction is.) 2. Monday, July 23rd Joint Workshop with the City Council, 4:00 p.m., to hear presentation from Duncan and Assoc. on the critique of the development ordinances and the Century Plan. Chris Aadnesen stated that he will be out of the country on the 23rd. 13. Commissioners comments and reports—Patrick Walsh asked what the Commission can do to spur-on the City Council to address the traffic problems on Williams Drive. Amelia Sondgeroth stated that HDR is working on a study regarding driveway spacing on Williams Dr. and that will provide some information on traffic. With no further business, Richard Glasco made a motion to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Robert Seamans seconded the motion which passed unanimously. /jmr