HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_08.07.2001
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 1
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown, TX
Tuesday, August 7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.
Chair, Patrick Walsh, called the August 7, 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, and Audrey McDonald. Richard Glasco arrived after consideration of the minutes. Staff
members present were Amelia Sondgeroth, Director, Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary, David
Munk, Development Engineer, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa Murphy, Development
Planner, Leane Heldenfels, Development Planner, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, and Cathy
Riedel, Acting City Attorney.
1. Action from Executive Session - None.
Consent Agenda
3. Consideration of a Public Review Final Plat of 15.09 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, to be
known as Crystal Knoll Terrace, Unit Four, located along Jefferson Lane. Melissa Murphy gave
staff report indicating that the applicant asked to table this application until future meeting. The
Item #3 was removed from the agenda.
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the June 5, 2001 and July 3, 2001, Planning and Zoning
Commission Meetings. Gabe Sansing made a motion to recommend approval of the two
meetings’ minutes. Richard Seamans seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0 on
the July 3rd minutes; Marjorie Herbert abstained from voting on the June 5th minutes because
of her absence at this meeting, and so these minutes passed by a vote of 5-0-1.
Chair, Patrick Walsh, addressed Doris Griffith to find out what agenda Item she was interested in. He
clarified that her concern was not on the agenda.
Regular Agenda
4. Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish the Downtown Overlay District and
amend the Zoning Map to include the location of this district. Creation of the overlay district wil l
also establish authority and use of the Design Guidelines for the development and alterations to
structures within the Downtown Overlay District. Renee Hanson, being appointed by City
Council as the Chair of the Downtown Business District Signs Steering Committee, gave staff
report to the Commissioners, and explained the reasons and process in developing the new
ordinance. After her presentation, she introduced Ron Emrich of Urban Prospects of Dallas.
Ron Emrich, a member of the consultant team, gave a presentation on the building guidelines.
Ron handed out brochure entitled Historic Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy to the
Commission and the Recording Secretary. Patrick Walsh asked where the handout could be
found, and Ron Emrich gave out the Texas Historic Commission website – www.thc.state.tx.us,
informing Patrick Walsh that this report was on the website. Doris Griffith, a citizen who signed
up to speak, asked her question regarding Code Enforcement issues in the city. Mr. Walsh
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 2
informed her that the Commission had to stick to the agenda at this time. Amelia Sondgeroth
requested that Ms. Griffith come to the Development Services and her concerns would be
addressed. Mr. Randy O’Dell, who owns the house at 214 W. University, and Jim Cummins,
consultant for Steger & Bizzell addressed the Commission with the following questions, with
Renee Hanson and Ron Emrich responding:
Randy O’Dell – 214 W University (remodeling)
How does this zoning affect residential property? There are residential properties that
are included in the District; the majority of them are already zoned commercial. And, there
is a section in the guidelines that deal with how you approach residential properties. Yes,
the residences would be subject to the same review process as all the other properties
within the Historic Overlay District. But, in Mr. O’Dell’s case, who already has an existing
building permit to remodel, this does not apply. Once the ordinance is passed by City
Council, then anything after that will have to comply to the ordinance guidelines.
Jim Cummins – Steger & Bizzell
If you are developing a piece of property in the downtown area for a park or parking
lot, something other than a building, are these under the guidelines? Parking lot
information is not included. Any property within the Historic Overlay District would be
subject to the guidelines, however, a parking lot would really be subject only to the
screening requirement that is in these guidelines which is identical to the Urban Design
Guidelines already in place. It would require a Historic & Architectural Review Commission
review.
What is the application process concerning what materials need to be submitted
versus may be submitted; who decides how that works? This is site specific.
Who is the application submitted to? The application is submitted to Development
Services Department. Development Services has been designated to handle this process.
There will be a staff person designated to be a liason with the Historic & Architectural
Review Commission. This is all in the budget process. Also, there will be training required
to assist the citizens through the process.
What building elevations are covered concerning front, side, rear and the like? For a
totally new construction, all elevations are covered. If it is an addition to an existing
building, only the new elevations of the new part would be subject. If it is a rehabilitation of
an existing building, then the elevation of the proposed affected part would be required.
Each project will probably be a little different, so asking would be a good idea.
Concerning materials and samples, what’s appropriate, what’s required; who decides
how that works? Depends on what type and the extent of the project proposed. In a new
construction project, though, it would be a good idea to bring samples of the materials going
to be used for review before starting to build.
Who answers questions concerning unclear provisions and the like, so the planner
can do a good planning job? Development Services Division. The Historic & Architectural
Review Commission members are going to be trained to answer many of the technical
Historic building questions.
Does the plan review process run concurrently with other plan review processes
required elsewhere? Yes. It will be as concurrent as the City can make it by having
citizens to be able to do all the required procedures simultaneously.
How are the parking requirements going to be clarified in terms of the criteria that
apply to the amount of fees and calculations related to that? Area 1 has no parking
requirement. In Area 2, the parking requirement applies, but gives ways to mitigate those
parking requirements with off-site parking, street parking alike, that aren’t available
elsewhere with suggestions of creativity to reach the same goal. Many cities allow for a fee
in lieu of parking. As to what the fee would be would depend entirely upon the specific
issue and the specific development. Fees really have not been contemplated at this time,
therefore, the City has not developed a plan on how to calculate fees. But, the suggestion
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 3
is given as an opportunity for property owners to redevelop in Area 2 in a constricted area
where it may be otherwise impossible to meet the current zoning requirements, and yet,
encourages it by giving these alternatives Another alternative, is shared parking
agreement.
What is the appeal process? Applications that are denied by the Historic & Architectural
Review Commission would be sent to District Court for appeal.
When will the design guidelines ordinance go into effect? It is suppose to go to City
Council on August 14th for the 1st reading; then on to City Council on the 28th.
The Planning and Zoning Commission then had questions/concerns of their own that they
brought to Renee Hanson’s attention to be addressed. There were:
Is there a provision for inspection to preserve the integrity of the structure? There is
no continuous, pro-active provision for inspections at this time. This is really relied on by
complaints by citizens, by city staff, by tenants, or by commission member. There is a
stronger set of rules that is called Demolition by Neglect, and the Historic & Architectural
Review Commission is empowered to instruct the City to initiate formal legal action against
a homeowner.
How much is the submittal fee for a Certificate of Architectural Compliance? At this
point there are no submittal fees, but there will be an effort to look into it. Many cities in
Texas with Historic Ordinances waive any submittal fees for the Certificate of Compliance
or Appropriateness – it is considered an incentive for owners of historic buildings.
The Ordinance states that an application for a Certificate of Compliance should be
given to the City Manager. It was brought up that Development Services was going to
handle this. Are you already designated by the City Manager? The provision in the
Ordinance does state that this goes to City Manager. City Manager will delegate to
Development Services, but an official designation has not been made.
To alleviate going to Court, should there be a discussion for an appeal process or
review process, even some kind of mediation process? In some cities, the City Council
appoints a Committee to review the Commissions decisions before any action was taken to
take to Court.
Where will the monies for the “in lieu of parking” go? Most cities use the monies to help
to provide for parking needed.
Does a change of ownership of a residential house trigger anything on the part of the
new owner? Just with ownership, no. But, yes, with basic maintenance (roof, planting of
shrubs, etc, painting the exterior of the home), or with an addition to the exterior of the
home. Applications for anything is voluntary initiated primarily by the property owner.
How does the City educate property owners by what process, how fast, and how
completely the back and forth process is to be done? Who decides what is
appropriate?
The Historic & Architectural Review Commission is empowered by the City Council and by
the State law to be the ones to decide what is appropriate. This Commission is made up of
highly qualified members, and will be trained to be able to apply the principles set out in the
Design Guidelines. There could also be workshops for the citizens to be able to attend to
learn more about how the process works.
Renee Hanson pointed out the different boundary change that was made by the Committee.
Staff provided Virgil Buell a copy of the ordinance upon his request. There was a d iscussion
about having minutes within guidelines for Public hearings. It was established that the eleven
(11) questions and responses would be typed up as part of the minutes. These questions and
responses are to be emailed to each of the Commissioners for review before the Monday
meeting. The Commission decided that the Overlay District item would be postponed until a
special meeting set on Monday, August 13, 2001, at 6:30 p.m., at the Development Services
large conference room, located at 904 Main Street.
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 4
Public hearing closed at 8:02 p.m.
Reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
8. Consideration of a Rezoning of 10.985 acres in the William Addison Survey, from RS,
Residential Single Family, to R-HD, Residential High Density, or any more restrictive district, to
be known as Windridge Village, located east of Holly Street, between 2nd and 3rd Street. Melissa
Murphy gave staff report and recommendation. Robert Seamans asked about the parkland
dedication. Ms. Murphy stated that platting would decide where the parkland would be. Tom
Nichols, agent for the applicant, gave a presentation on size, color, type of material, street
layout and landscape. Patrick Walsh opened floor for speakers. John Hauser, land owner on
other side of the Railroad tracks (address is 2446 CR 152), was concerned was about the water
flow of the water retention pond, and suggested that the retention area should be moved to the
east end. Mr. Hauser also asked if Mr. Gavurnik would put up a fence against property to North.
Laura Whitley, who lives at 1103 East 7th Street, has a concern about the delinquent behavior
in cemetery and the density with the 2-story structures. Third speaker, Gretchen Johnston, who
lives at 1102 Pine Street, was concerned with the density this would cause in this area, and th e
traffic congestion and traffic control. Anna Diver, whose address is
801 E 13th Street, was concerned about the Old Train depot. Tom Nichols responded with the
following: 1. Professional engineers will address drainage, flow of water, and make sure th at
retention is the same or improved. 2. Cemetery would benefit from lighting and development
of the units so it would be easier to watch over. 3. There are an extra 20 parking spaces along
with the already planned 2 parking spaces per unit, and the looped street would promote good
traffic flow. 4. The question about the old train depot should be addressed to the owners, the
Georgetown Railroad. 5. The building of a fence behind the units is feasible, but not every
where due to uneven topography. Mr. Gavurnik addressed one request from Mr. Hauser stating
that he would consider putting up a fence once the units were up and things were able to be
cleared out. Mr. Gavurnik stated that the traffic situation across the low water bridge is out of
his hands. Patrick Walsh asked if there were any plans to do anything with 2nd street. Mr.
Gavurnik indicated his understanding that 3 rd Street would extend, but 2nd street would end
where it is. Richard Glasco gave his opinion that the police should be brought in concerning the
delinquency at the cemetery. David Munk made the summarization that Mr. Gavurnik’s
engineers had to make sure that the flow of the water into the detention pond would be as good
as it is now, or improved, and a second detention pond could be considered. Mr. Munk
informed the Commissioners that Mark Miller, the City Street Department Superintendent is
working on the Holly Street extension. Laura Whitley asked the builder if his intent was to
remove the tree line that buffers the cemetery. Mr. Gavurnik replied that every effort would be
made to save any trees. Marjorie Herbert stated that she would support the development, but
would hate to see a fence put up to obstruct the site line. Gabe Sansing made a motion to
recommend approval of a Rezoning of 10.985 acres in the William Addison Survey, from RS,
Residential Single Family, to R-HD, Residential High Density, or any more restrictive district, to
be known as Windridge Village, located east of Holly Street, between 2nd and 3rd Street. Chris
Aadnesen seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
9. Consideration of a Revised Concept Plan for 263.34 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, known
as Woodland Park, located on Williams Drive at FM 3405. Carla Benton gave staff report and
recommendation. Chair, Patrick Walsh, opened the floor for the speakers. David Blair, who
represents the homeowners with properties that back up to this property, informed the
Commissioners that a number of homeowners, himself included, have started a lawsuit against
the developers, and there is a settlement agreement being negotiated. David Blair requested
that this be tabled to next meeting to give time to go over agreement and get signatures. Jimmy
Jacobs stated that everything that was requested by the homeowners to settle is in the
agreement and that the desired 175’ would be deeded to the homeowners, and that since this
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 5
was tabled once before, that it should be approved. Gabe Sansing asked about the 175’, and
Jimmy Jacobs showed him where it was. It was established that the 175’ was part of the
parties’ agreement. David Blair voiced his concern that the agreement is not ratified. Joe
McMaster, applicant’s attorney, stated that if this request has been properly submitted, then it
should be granted. Cathryn Bryant, who lives at 103 Canyon Road, wanted to remind the
Commissioners how important church’s are to Georgetown, and to approve the Concept Plan.
Rick Fitzgerald wanted to confirm that the desired 175‘ will be deeded to the homeowners. Mr.
George Brightwell, who lives at 4006 Granada Drive, spoke up to assure that the Wellspring
Church would not take away from the tranquility and serenity of the neighborhood – the church
wants that, too. Rev. Nancy Woods, who lives at 411 Deepwood, addressed the Commission.
Rev. Woods by saying that the church is willing to give up 3 ½ acres of the 5 acres that is a
buffer between the church and the neighborhood, and confirmed that Wellspring Church is
going to be a good neighbor, and will make the community a good one. Arlene Wright, who
owns a 5 acre lot that is backed up to the church property, is concerned about the church scale
and size. Eric MacInerney applicant’s engineer, gave his presentation of the project. Gabe
Sansing asked to see the site plan, and questioned the location of the proposed ballfield.
Arlene Wright asked for an explanation of what was going to be going in the area that backs up
to her lot, and what could she do, if anything, about deciding it’s use. Mr. MacInerney
responded that the ballfield would be close to the street, and the part of the area in question
might be used in the future to house a church school, but there is really no set plan at this time.
Amelia Sondgeroth said that the City does not have land use authority in t he ETJ, but on the
Concept plan the land use is designated for planning purposes so that the City can plan for
roads, utilities and infrastructure that is needed for the type of use. Patrick Walsh added that
this property is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction, therefore the Commission cannot make
a judgment on land use. Jimmy Jacobs made the comment that there are deed restrictions for
the subdivision to determine what can or cannot be built within the subdivision. David Blair
commented that the proposal was still not finished, and requested again that the Commission
table this item. Patrick Walsh stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s purpose was
to make recommendations to the City Council. George Brightwell made the clarification in
regards to the parties’ previous meeting, that the church was thinking about building a
retirement home or elder care on some of the property, but needed the homeowners to know
that there will not be a retirement home built. Rev. Nancy Woods wanted the Commis sioners
to know that there has been more than one communication between the three parties, and the
attorneys have been negotiating. Mr. Glasco asked Rev. Woods what it would take for the
Church to ratify the agreement to the homeowners. Rev. Nancy Woods commented that the
contract is ratified as far as the Wellspring Church is concerned. Rev. Woods stated the
contract is signed by the church and Woodland Park, but not by the homeowners. David Blair
stated that the contract was not finished yet. Patrick Walsh asked Jimmy Jacobs if he would
consider holding off until all parties could come to an agreement. Attorney Joe McMaster
stated that there was no valid reason for the delay, and respectfully requested that it be
recommended to the city council. Marjorie Herbert said that she had a tremendous problem
with delaying this. She went on to say that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s ministerial
function is that if this is in compliance with the Century Plan, and affirmed that it is, then they
are suppose to approve the plan and delaying it will only give one side more bargaining power.
Marjorie Herbert made the motion to recommend approval of a Revised Concept Plan for
263.34 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, known as Woodland Park, located on Williams Drive
at FM 3405.. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
Patrick Walsh stated that the Commission had five things left to do, and the by-laws say that they are
to finish up by 10 p.m. There was a discussion of going on or waiting to finish up the agenda Decision
to go ahead was made. Patrick Walsh went to Item 5. Public hearing opened at 9:48 p.m.
5. Public Hearing of a revision to the Subdivision Regulations driveway separation and corner
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 6
clearance requirements. Leane Heldenfels gave the staff presentation. Patrick Walsh
supported the ordiance revision. Robert Seamans asked if this was dealing with all roads. Ms.
Heldenfels affirmed that this motion does not apply to residential; just to commercial in all
classification of streets. Gabe Sansing felt that the separation had too much distance. Ms.
Heldenfels stated that the reason Georgetown had a higher separation than other cities is that it
is a safety issue. Amelia Sondgeroth said that the criteria that they have based their
recommendation on is from an engineer’s study. The Public Hearing closed at 10:00. p.m.
6. Consideration of a Public Review Final Plat and Detailed Development Plan of 87.52 acres
in the John Berry Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Pecan Branch
North, Phases II-IV, located along FM971. David Munk gave the staff presentation and passed
out the approved Concept Plan. Mr. Walsh called on the speaker. Dale Mockford, who
represents the applicant, Sun Communities, stated that he did not agree with the
recommendation of the builder going in sequence of the Phases. Patrick Walsh stated that if this
application is approved, it will road block Hwy 130, if the builder builds Phase 4. Mr. Mockford
was against having any rule put on the time the developer starts building phases, or what phase
he started on. Patrick Walsh made a prerequisite that the builder talk to TxDOT about the
proposed Hwy 130 before Mr. Walsh would consider to approve this plan. Cathy Riedel asked
the Chair to convene to Executive Session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Texas
Government Code Chapter 551. Patrick Walsh recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The
meeting reconvened at 10:32 p.m. Marjorie Herbert asked Mr. Mockford what his perception of
the time of the phasing was. Dale Mockford answered that the developer plans to move forward
right now because the economy is right to move on to the next phases. Gabe Sansing said that
he would like to see each Phase completed before another one was start ed. Mr. Mockford said
that the Concept plan and a letter he got from the planner, entitles the developer to develop at
the pace that he chooses. Robert Seamans stated that he would like to see the Phases go in
order so as to not have empty lots and streets that the city will have to maintain. Dale Mockford
made the statement the Commission should not regulate the time the developer wants to start
development of the phases. Marjorie Herbert asked who told the developer he could build
simultaneously all the phases at once. Mr. Mockford referred to a letter written by Wendy
Walsh, a staff planner at that time, giving the developer this entitlement. Ms. Herbert asked Mr.
Mockford if what Ms. Walsh had written in this letter is what he is basing the use of
“entitlements” to the developer on. Mr. Mockford stated he believed that the Concept Plan is
where the developer has his entitlements. Marjorie Herbert told Mr. Mockford that the
Commissioners are not bound by what the development staff says. Cathy Riedel pointed out
that the sentence that Mr. Mockford kept referring to from the letter written by Ms. Walsh was
taken out of context. Copies of the letter were passed to the Commissioners. Ms. Riedel stated
that Mr. Mockford was using the letter to be more important than the Concept Plan itself.
Marjorie Herbert said that she could approve the Public Review Final Plat and Detailed
Development Plan of a PUD with the proviso that there be some substantial provision to
completion of the Phases. Robert Seamans brought out that Phase 1 was not finished. There
was a discussion about market conditions. Richard Glascoe made the summarization that the
Concept Plan allowed the builder 4 months to complete Phase 2. Gabe Sansing stated that he
strongly opposed. Patrick Walsh asked that the legal department have a closer look at the letter
addressed to the applicant and signed by Wendy Walsh. The Commissioners were not willing to
vote on this agenda item. Gabe Sansing made the motion that this be tabled until the legal
department has had a chance to look at the letter for clarification. Cathy Riedel said that she
would have something for consideration at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Chris
Aadnesen seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0.
The following items were left for the Commission’s special meeting scheduled for Monday,
August 13, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. to have possible action on:
P&Z Meeting
August 7, 2001
Page 7
7. Consideration of a Rezoning of City of Georgetown, Division A, a 1.74 acre parcel in Outlot 11,
from RS, Residential Single Family, to C-1, Local Commercial, or any more restrictive district,
located at 1900 Leander Street.
10. Staff comments and reports.
a. Council action update
1. New Ordinance
2. July City Council meetings
b. Joint P&Z/City Council meeting for Special Permit request
11. Commissioners comments and reports
a. Appointment to the HPC, which meets the 4th Thursday.
b. Appointment of BOA alternate member, which meets the 3rd Tuesday.
c. APA Audio Conference – Community Parking Standards – October 3, 2001.
d. P&Z next year
Marjorie Herbert made a motion to adjourn at 11:02 p.m. Robert Seamans seconded the motion,
which passed by a vote of 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 11:02.
Certificate of Posting
I, , City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, do hereby certify that this
Notice of Meeting was posted on the bulletin board located outside of the Council Chambers, a place
readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2001, at o'clock
m., and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said
meeting.
City Secretary