Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_10.02.2001 P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 1 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown, TX Tuesday, November 6, 2001 AT 6:00 P.M. Patrick Walsh, Chair, called the October 2, 2001, Planning and Zoning meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Other commissioners present were Gabe Sansing, Vice-Chair, Chris Aadnesen, Richard Glasco, Marjorie Herbert, Audrey McDonald, and Robert Seamans. Staff present were Amelia Sondgeroth, Development Services Director, Tammye Sharpe, Staff Recorder, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Ed Polasek, Long Range Planner, and Patricia Carls, City Attorney. 1. Action from Executive Session - None Patrick Walsh informed all present that University Park, Phase Two would not be on the agenda because there was improper notification, and that it would be on the agenda of the November Planning and Zoning meeting. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the September 4, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. There was a typographical error on the minutes, and changes were made to reflect that Gabe Sansing called the workshop meeting to order, and Patrick Walsh arrived at the meeting at 4:30. Changes were made, and copies passed out to Commissioners before the beginning of the meeting. Gabe Sansing made the motion to approve the minutes. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0, with Richard Seamans abstaining from voting. 3. Public Hearing for Rezoning of 14.194 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches & Ruidosa Irrigation Surveys, from A, Agricultural to RM-2, Dense Multi-Family, or more restrictive district, to be known as Madison Oaks, Phase Two, located on South Austin Avenue, north of Inner Loop Road. No public response. Consideration and possible action for Rezoning of 14.194 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches & Irrigation Surveys, from A, Agricultural to RM-2, Dense Multi-Family, or more restrictive district, to be known as Madison Oaks, Phase Two, located on South Austin Avenue, north of Inner Loop Road. Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0,with Richard Seamans abstaining from voting. Regular Agenda 4. a. Public Hearing to consider amendments to Section 80000 entitled Interim Subdivision Regulations. This Item moved to the end of agenda. b. Consideration and possible action on amendments to Section 80000 entitled Interim Subdivision Regulations. This item moved to the end of agenda. P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 2 5. a. Public Hearing for the Public Review Final Plat of 5.54 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Airborn Subdivision, located on Royal Drive. No public response. b. Consideration and possible action for the Public Review Final Plat of 5.54 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Airborn Subdivision, located on Royal Drive. Melissa Murphy gave staff report. Murphy said that per the application requirement procedures, the applicant gave a tree survey and traffic impact analysis to staff for review. Robert Seamans said he was concerned with the applicant having to build Patti Lane and disagreed with the recommendation of the staff to do so. Gabe Sansing agreed strongly with Seamans opinion of thinking it was unfair for the applicant to be responsible for Pattie Lane to be development. David Munk said that the Subdivision Regulations require roadways to be extended to the perimeter of the subdivision, and therefore the dedication of the remainder of Patti Lane and the improvement of the roadway is required. Jim Cummins, with Steger & Bizzell, gave his presentation that brought up issues concerning the extension of Patti Lane stated in the August 6, 2001 letter distributed to the Commissioners (attached). Cummins said that the applicant does not wish to construct Patti Lane, although he would dedicate the remainder of Patti Lane. Walsh asked if the applicant had been in touch with the Wolfs, and Michael Cuff, owner of Airborn, said no. Glasco and Walsh clarified with Cummins that the owner of Airborn would be ready to put up money to help with part of the building of the road, but only the part that is Airborn's property. There was a discussion of a fund account for Patti Lane development. Murphy said staff would have to go through a Development Process to hold funds for the building of the road. Sansing asked about the 32” oak tree mentioned in the letter from Steger & Bizzell to City, to which Cummins said that the item was not an issue anymore. Herbert said there was no legal basis to recommend to council the applicant’s concern. Sansing said he would like to recommend that Wolf, Airborn and the City help to build Patti Lane. Herbert made a motion to recommend to City Council for the approval of Public Review Final Plat of 5.54 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Airborn Subdivision, located on Royal Drive, provided the technical issues are addressed and denial of the requested variance to Section 33030.B, and Section 41030, for the construction of Patti Lane. Richard Glasco seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-2, with Robert Seamans and Gabe Sansing voting against the motion. Marjorie Herbert left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. 6&7a. Public Hearing for Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Four, or any more restrictive classification, and the Rezoning from A, Agricultural, to C-1, Local Commercial, or more restrictive district, of a 4.76 acre tract in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and Williams Drive, and of a 4.75acre tract in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and Williams Drive. Pete Dwyer, relative of applicant, said the applicants are asking for a zoning request due to the City’s growth, the issues of Penny Lane being extended, and the burden of tax expense in keeping the lots. Dwyer said that the applicants wanted to see some sort of commercial endeavor, but not sure what specifically. Cindy Ridge, owner/applicant, was in favor of the C-1 zoning and Century Plan Amendment, mentioned the desire to get things going because of the increased expenses for upkeep and increased taxes since the lots were annexed into the City. Robert Pasciak, who lives at 126 Penny Lane, was opposed to the rezoning, and wanted a study on the type of development that would be best suited for the area. Pasciak was concerned with the impact on the infrastructure P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 3 of the highway, as he has only one way to get in and out of his subdivision. Vickie Acosta, who lives at 100 Teri Court, was opposed to the application as submitted with a C-1 zoning. Acosta had a petition she brought to the Commissioners for review, and stated that she disagreed with a C-1 zoning, but would consider a RM-3 zoning, as it would keep retail out, like 7-11 and fast food establishments. Walsh clarified that there were 23 signatures on the petition, and that Acosta was representing them as well as herself. There was no other citizen response. Public hearing was closed at 7:10. Marjorie rejoined the meeting at this time. 6.&7b. Consideration and possible action for the Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Four, or any more restrictive classification, for 4.76 acres, more or less, in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the northeast corner of the intersection Penny Lane and FM 2338 (Williams Drive) and for Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Four, or any more restrictive classification, for 4.75 acre tract in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the southwest corner of Penny Lane and FM 2338 (Williams Drive. Ed Polasek gave the staff presentation. Walsh asked why staff recommended the increase to Intensity Level 4 since there was no wastewater availability for 5 years or more. David Munk said according to the Subdivision Regulations, if the wastewater extension had to go over hills and be pumped, and site was more than ½ mile, even with platting, it was not a requirement to extend. Walsh clarified that extending Penny Lane was part of the concept plan, and said the extension was opposed by everyone that lived on Penny Lane per pervious proposal by the owner of the Campbell tract. Dwyer said with a C-1 zoning, the applicants would consider buffers between the lots and the properties backing up to the lots, and working with lighting and other issues to help the residents behind the lots. Audrey asked for clarification about dealing with century plans and rezoning. Sondgeroth explained that it is correct to deal first with the century plan, and then the zoning, because state law requires that your zoning be in accordance with your common use of property. Walsh disagreed to changing the intensity level because intensity level two was assigned to this area long time ago and that should be significant, and there was no particular plan from the property owners. Glasco asked why the staff recommended the level increase. Murphy explained that the intensity level decides what size building could be on the property, and the applicants could not have any substantial sized building to put on the property with level two - a 40,000 square foot building could be on the property with level four intensity. A motion was made by Gabe Sansing regarding Item 7b and 6b of the agenda to recommend to the City Council to approve the request to Amend the Century Plan for 4.75 acres, more or less, in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and FM 2338 (Williams Drive), and for 4.76 acres, more or less, in the Joseph Fish Survey, located and the northeast corner of the intersection, from Intensity Level 2 to Intensity Level 4, conditioned on wastewater hook-up and impact fee when available. Seamans seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 6-1, with Walsh opposing. 6&7c. Consideration and possible action on for the Rezoning from A Agricultural, to C-1, Local Commercial, or more restrictive district of 4.75 acre tract in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and FM 2338 (Williams Drive), and of 4.76 acre tract in the Joseph Fish Survey, located the northeast corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and FM 2338 (Williams Drive) Seamans said C-1 was reasonable for the tracts and was in favor of the applicants. Aadnesen, Herbert, Glasco and McDonald support the staff on 6c and 7c with the RM-3 zoning. Sansing was in agreement with Seamans to approve a C-1 zoning because he felt it would be hard for the applicant to come back for a C-1 zoning later if P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 4 the Commission approved it as RM-3. Dwyer said the applicants would consider having RM-3 with subsequent application for a corner to be zoned C-1. Herbert said it was obvious the applicants were not going to develop the property commercially, so there was no way of knowing who the developer might be, and without knowing what plans they want to do with C-1, there could be more trouble down the road. Herbert said that RM-3 is more compatible to the surrounding area, and would still give some developer the opportunity to develop hard corners, if that is the future for the property. Walsh brought out the cost issue for the applicant and suggested that they could market to a potential buyer. Sansing said he would like to see Penny Lane and Olde Oak realigned. Dwyer said that the applicants go along with the staff’s recommendation of being zoned RM-3. Gabe Sansing made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve the rezoning of a 4.76 acres tract and a 4.75 acres tract, both in the Joseph Fish Survey, from A, Agricultural, to RM-3, Office and Service Use, or more restrictive district, located at the northeast corner and southwest corner of the intersection of Penny Lane and Williams Drive. Aadnesen seconded the motion, which passes with a vote of 7-0. Patrick Walsh called for a brief recess at 7:52. Meeting was reconvened at 8:00 p.m. 4.a. Public Hearing to consider amendments to Section 80000 entitled Interim Subdivision Regulations. Amelia Sondgeroth gave short presentation. Sondgeroth said that the City Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment process and during the last month have been getting comments from property owners and developers. Sondgeroth introduced Teri Morgan. Morgan, with Morgan and McCool in Dallas, clarified that these amendments were not an emergency, and would be treated as an usual motion. Commissioners had a copy of the ordinance with most of the suggested changes and a short form with a couple of other changes. Staff reporter, Sharpe, passed around an original draft of the ordinance adopted by the City so Commissioners could refer back to the changes being proposed. Morgan referred to the first level of change, which he referred to as a frame work change, which involves minor changes to the formatting or numbering of paragraphs. Morgan said the first general change was on Section 80010, Applicability, where the statement had been eliminated to be less confusing, and an applicability statement for each of the three main subject matters of the ordinance (the roads, traffic and impervious coverage) now have an applicability statement for clarification at the start of each section. The second general change was the addition of definitions to the ordinance. The third change was on the Exemptions revision, Section 80060, which has been changed to 80050, has been updated. Morgan pointed out specific changes on Section 80020 (was 80030) Road Adequacy Regulations and all that falls under this section, according to the addition and elimination of the wording. (See changes on red-lined ordinance attached). Sondgeroth made her presentation on the Section 80030 (was 80040) Impervious Cover Limitation, and on the Section 80040 (was 80050) Preservation of Natural Features and Trees. (See changes on red-lined ordinance attached). Aadensen asked the question as to why the Commissioners were given different documentation to look over and examine right before the presentation, and said he did not believe there was enough time given to understand what the changes really were. Seamans said he had the same concern, and brought up the Downtown Georgetown Ordinance, when the Commissioners were given changes on the night that they voted on it. Seamans said this is a bad pattern, and the Commissioners cannot do service to a good decision. Sansing had the same feeling about not being given enough time to read over and understand the changes made. Don Martin, a real estate developer (San Gabriel), who lives at 3345 Bee Caves Road, Austin, asked the Commissioners to consider postponing the decision of passing this ordinance now so there can be more input by the community. Martin suggested eight (8) specific changes to the ordinance. (Refer to the 10/2/01revision copy of the ordinance):  Section 80030, Item C.2. Dedication and Improvement of thoroughfares. Martin did not feel P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 5 this requirement was fair that the developer must, shall build the roadway in each instance  Also on Item C.2– last sentence. Martin is in disagreement with the developer having to pay for a road that might be part of IH35 or a roadway like an interstate, and feels that is not fair and reasonable  Section 80030, Item C.5. Participation in costs of improvements. Martin said there was no other City that required the developer to fund for all the cost of the roadway in a development – and, this was a fundamental change  Section 80030, Item D.5 Cash Contributions. Martin suggested that the word “cash” be taken out, and have the item be called contributions. Martin said there are other contributions besides cash, such as parkland or hike and bike trails.  Section 80030, Item B.1. Best Management Practices. Martin does not know if a 95% pollutant reduction of all the element is the right percent  Section 80030, Item B.2. Low Impact Development (LID). Martin said that this was just a concept and that we are not there yet  Section 80040 Preservation of Natural Features and Trees. Martin suggested that “natural features” be taken out, as they are not defined, like the trees are.  Section 80040, Item B.2 Protected Trees. Martin said that a 6” tree was not a large tree, and stated that City of Austin required that developers saw on a circular survey 8” trees or above, and that you must protect trees 19” and above. Martin was confused as to why City of Georgetown needed more stringent ordinance and tree protection than City of Austin.  Section 80040, Item D. Tree Removal Prohibited. Martin said that that there needs to be a start date for this, and gave a example of being a farmer, and not able to remove trees. Martin said that the ordinance said that one is prohibited to remove trees until the site plan was filed. Gordon Baker, a Georgetown business owner, who lives at 1103 S. Walnut Street, and Julia Allen, Chair of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, who lives at 2912 Addie Lane, both concur with Martin’s request for postponement for more open dialogue and public review. Herbert asked what would happen if Commissioners waited on making a decision now. Carls said that as far as she knew the interim ordinance would stay in effect until it is replaced by what changes are going to be made. Herbert made the suggestion that this form of the ordinance go on to City Council and then have workshops to make finite changes later on. Martin said the problem with that would be the continual changes being made, and trying to keep up with them as each one is voted on and passed (the grandfather issue). Morgan said he did not feel there would be a problem with the grandfather issue. Martin said that the limited time to review and the various copies of changes distributed were factors that made him want to suggest postponement. Morgan said the ordinance would stand as is until the changes are made. Seamans said he would welcome a workshop. Aadnesen said he was not able to support the changes with the ordinance at this time. Glasco is also of the same mind of Seamans and Aadnesen, and felt that these changes warrant more consideration from the Commissioners. Public hearing closed at 9:12 p.m. b. Consideration and possible action on amendments to Section 80000 entitled Interim Subdivision Regulations. Sansing made motion to table this item until further study can be done, and set a date for a workshop which may be joint with City Council and invite the public to attend. Seamans seconded the motion. Herbert requested a specific date now. Sondgeroth wanted to pick a workshop date now, and said that the City Council would not need to be at the meeting. Herbert asked that the motion be amended to put in a specific date for a workshop. There was discussion made on what date would be best for all. Herbert asked for a packet before the meeting that would include one document showing the proposed changes to be made in either another color or italicized to show differences. Motion was amended to include a workshop date scheduled for October 11, 2001, Thursday, at 6:00 p.m., at Development Services conference room. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0. P&Z Meeting October 2, 2001 Page 6 8. Staff comments and reports. Melissa Murphy gave report. a. Council action update. Council approved the following applications with the same recommendation as the Commissioners: (1) Special Permit for the HeadStart Facility (2) Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section 6, Block E, Lot 1 (3) Cimarron Hills, Phase 2, Section 1 (4) Madison Oaks, phase One and Phase Two (5) SummerCrest Section Two (6) Pecan Branch North, Phases II thru IV passed with the same recommendation as the Commissioners (7) Public Review Final Plat Woodlake, Phase 1, the Century Plan passed subsequent with traffic analysis (8) Windridge Village rezoning passed with the same recommendation (9) Meadows of Georgetown approval Century Plan Amendment and rezoning (10) 31.10 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey b. APA Audio Conference, October 3, 2001, at 3:00 p.m., at Development Services. Large Conference Room. Topic will be Community Parking Standards. Walsh encouraged all the commissioners that could attend to be there. 9. Commissioners comments and reports. None. Gabe Sansing made a motion to adjourn. Robert Seamans seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. /tas