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