HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_11.06.2001
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 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 6:06 p.m.
Other commissioners present were Gabe Sansing, Vice-Chair, Richard Glasco, Marjorie Herbert,
Audrey McDonald, and Robert Seamans. Absent from the meeting were Chris Aadnesen and Audrey
McDonald. Staff present were Amelia Sondgeroth, Development Services Director, Tammye Sharpe,
Staff Recorder, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, Jim
Babcock, Development Technician, and Patricia Carls, City Attorney.
1. Action from Executive Session - None
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the October 2, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
3. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 27.36 acres in the John Berry Survey,
to be known as Chisholm Park Subdivision, Phase 1, located on County Road 152.
4. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for a Variance to the Subdivision
Regulations for Shell’s Addition, Block 18, Lot 1, located a 603 East 7th Street. Patrick Walsh
informed the Commissioners that this item was removed from the agenda per the request of the
applicant.
5. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for an Amendment to the PUD Standards for
the Planned Unit Development Escalera Ranch Concept Plan, to include Escalera Ranch,
Section One, and Escalera Ranch, Section Two, located on FM 2243 (Leander Road) four miles
west of IH 35.
Gabe Sansing made the motion to approve the consent agenda items, 2, 3 and 5. Robert Seamans
seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0.
Regular Agenda
6. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for a Detailed Development Plan of
Williamson County Criminal Justice Facility, Block , Lot 1, and City of Georgetown, Block 22,
part of Lots 1, 2, & 3, known as the Williamson County Criminal Justice Facility, located
at 405 Martin Luther King Street, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Carla Benton
gave staff presentation. Judge John Doerfler, whose work address is 710 Main, Suite 201,
Georgetown, TX, was in favor of the Detailed Development Plan. Doerfler said that the County
had been looking for other sites, one in Taylor, and the second at the Inner Loop, but felt that the
expansion of the existing site was the best. Jim Broaddus, employed with the firm that is
managing the project for Williamson County, gave commissioners a hand-out (attached). Broaddus
brought out that the impervious coverage was going from 20% to a minimal 34%, the parking
garage could be used by the public after hours and would accommodate 465 cars, and a
neighborhood compatibility study was done by the County. Don Greer, in favor of the expansion at
the existing site, said the new proposed courthouse addition would be the public entry and
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 2001
Page 2
explained the look of the pedestrian plaza and the enhanced landscaping. Greer confirmed the
plan to remove the pedestrian bridge required by the Fire Marshall to allow better vehicle access
and the replacement by an underground tunnel for secure prisoner transport. Broaddus said that
the garage and the jail will be construction on the side where there are commercial buildings (east
side), and the courthouse would be constructed on the residential side (west side). Sheriff John
Maspero, Williamson County Sheriff, who lives at 510 E 15th Street gave his presentation in
support of the additional building of the jail at its present location. Maspero pointed out that the
existing jail is the central booking facility, and all prisoners would be released out of that facility
regardless where they had been housed. Transportation of all prisoners would be less of a risk
with the new facility’s design because the prisoners would never leaves the building by taking a
tunnel path to the courthouse and back after Court appearance, said Maspero. Maspero said there
were measures being taken to present the safety issues to residents for them to understand the
process and the safety measures involved with dealing with the prisoners. Broaddus said the
parking for jury call would be a problem during the construction phase, but the garage would be
where the jury would park when finished. Greer said that it was inefficient to build upward because
it would split court departments. Broaddus said because of the future construction, the economist
said the residents that are adjacent to the site (11 residents) could be impacted by $140,000.00 by
not being rented. Broaddus said that the creation of additional local jobs created would be 23.2
million dollars (additional payroll) over 3 years. Broaddus said there had been a meeting with the
neighborhood focus group in late July and found that the neighborhood wanted to stop the project,
but the County was willing to discuss the findings of the neighborhood study with them anytime.
Sheriff Maspero said the site should be good for 13 to14 years. Glasco has concerns that the
impact study was incomplete and for the neighborhood’s children living and playing so close to the
jail. Maspero said the existing site was the safest place as far as he was concerned because the
prisoners are self-contained with the new facility, and would not see the light of day until released.
Ronald Swain, President of the TRG Neighborhood Association had concerns about the
neighborhood impact study being made by someone who was not impartial, and that the study
itself was not comprehensive. Swain’s other concerns were about the safety of the surrounding
area of the jail, the released prisoners into the neighborhood, escaped prisoners, and
neighborhood preservation. Edward Lee declined to speak. Joyce Perry, 405 W 2nd Street,
opposed any variances to the Standards. Perry said the neighborhood was being “boxed in” and
that there would be more than 11 homes to be impacted by the noise of the construction. Perry
asked the commissioners support to move the facility, and informed the board that there was over
132 years of heritage in their neighborhood. Both Perry and Della Green, 1901 Vine Street, had
concerns of the scale of the project and the traffic problem that would have an impact to the
neighborhood and to Austin Avenue, and did not support the variances requested by the county.
Don Martin, a downtown landowner and a consultant with Williamson County, pointed out that the
county was building on land that they already owned, that they were building out to blend in with
the City’s structures, and the county would make a jail that fits into the historical design. Doerfler
said he was open to any solutions. Walsh suggested that everything be moved to another site.
Doerfler said the facility had be somewhere there is water and sewer. Herbert said she understood
the neighborhood’s concerns about future building of the justice facility and where it would go, and
sees a real need for an avenue of healing that would address the impact to the subdivision.
Sansing brought up that the function of the Planning and Zoning commission was to deal with the
request for variances, only. Seamans said that he was in favor of variances D, but did not fully
support the other requests. Herbert said that in regards to the variances, they were minimal
compared to the impact that this was to the neighborhood - the location itself is the problem here.
Sansing said he was in favor of the variances. Walsh made the motion to approve the Detailed
Development Plan for Williamson County Criminal Justice Facility, Block 2, Lot 1 and City of
Georgetown, Block 22, parts of Lots 1, 2, and 3 with approval of the variances of the Subdivision
Regulations to allow 1) a driveway width to exceed 30 feet, 2) driveway separation between
driveways to be less than 125 feet, 3) driveway separation between driveways and intersections to
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 2001
Page 3
be less than 50 feet, and 4) an increase to the building coverage to 34%, after making the required
findings of fact, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration.
Findings of fact being 1) the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served because
the expansion is designed to minimize the impact on residential neighborhood; and 2) the
appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or
diminished because the variance will locate the greater portion of the expansion and development
closer to the C-2 (commercial) district to the east; and 3) the applicant has not created the
hardship from which relief is sought because the development is being designed to provide an
efficient traffic flow which meets emergency access needs and state standards for a criminal justice
facility; and 4) the variances will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not
commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property because
circumstances surrounding a governmental development of a criminal justice facility are not
comparable within the community; and 5) the hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of
an economic nature because the expansion of an existing facility is not an effort to eliminate cost;
and 6) the variance is not contrary to the public interest because it is crating an efficient co-
location of related governmental services and providing a parking garage to alleviate on-street
parking in the single family district; and 7) due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship in trying to provide an efficient design while
also meeting state requirements; and 8) in granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion. Motion passed
with a vote of 4-1, Richard Glasco objecting. City attorney verified the vote was valid.
7. Joseph Fish Survey, from A, Agricultural, to RS, residential Single Family, RM-3, office and
Service District and C-1, Local Commercial, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, located
along RM 2338 (Williams Drive) from Shell Road. Carla Benton gave staff presentation. Tom
Watts, who represents the applicant, and employed at Ralph Harris Surveying Co., said the
northern part of the tract is the only part that is in question with the staff. Watts said the land has no
neighbors to effect, Williams Drive is an major arterial urban street, there are plans for a 5 lane
street, and the area above this property was going to be zoned C-1. Watts said that the applicant
does not have a market for RM-3, but has commercial interests already. Watts said that the
applicant has complied with the ordinance in telling the City what he was proposing to use, and he
has followed that up with his rezoning request after the property was annexed, and the owner was
in compliance with all the various requirements, and should be zoned as the applicant requested.
Robert Buffkin declined to speak unless there was any opposition to clear up. Marjorie Herbert said
she was in favor of the staff's recommendation of not allowing the C-1 zoning because she sees the
wisdom in not wanting any more commercial for the total community - wants residential and
commercial mix. Watts said that the land should be zoned to what it can be developed at so the
properties around can be aware of what it will be like before buying, and that Georgetown should
have establishments that service the community. Robert Buffkin, President of Andice Development,
said that if he put a bank on the corner, that would take C-1 zoning. Glasco asked what was
allowable under the RM-3. Benton read the RM-3 and the C-1 uses. Herbert brought up the traffic
problems that could possibly be brought by having endless commercial establishments up and
down the road with such a long strip of land, and feels by giving this property C-1 zoning, there
would be loss of control over the land and it's uses. Herbert voiced her concern of the future of what
Williams Drive and what downtown Georgetown was going to be like, and the vitality of downtown
usage being strong. Glasco, Seamans and Sansing all agreed with granting C-1 zoning, and would
like to see restaurants on Williams Drive. Seamans and Walsh agreed that the best usage of the
larger tract would be to build a more beneficial establishment. Sansing said that he hoped that
Buffkin would encourage proper development and follow the design guidelines. Sansing made the
motion to approve the rezoning of 118.34 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey to be known as
Woodlake Subdivision from A, Agricultural to a combination of RS, Residential Single Family, RM-3,
office and service and C-1, local commercial as drawn in Exhibit A-1 of the staff report, located on
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 2001
Page 4
Williams Drive across from Shell Road (attached). Robert Seamans seconded the motion. Motion
passed with a vote of 4-1, with Marjorie Herbert voting against.
Walsh called for a recess at 9:00 p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.
8. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 131.02 acres out of the
William Addison Survey, from A, Agricultural, to R-HD, Residential High Density, to be known as
University Park, Unit Two, and located on Southwestern Boulevard. Melissa Murphy made the
staff presentation. Seamans asked about the traffic study. Murphy said that they do not need a
traffic study, but they were planning connectivity by bringing SummerCrest Boulevard through the
subdivision, which will be a collective street, and they will tie into Churchill Farms by Churchill
Farms Drive. Walsh clarified that the staff's primary objection was the mass of the homes and also
the high density of the development. Seamans asked what kind of homes that they were talking
about in this area. Murphy said that they would be Lennar Homes, KB Homes, and Main Street
Homes. Sansing asked the R-HD lot side. Murphy informed Sansing that the R-HD lot size was as
small as 3,500 sq. ft., but the applicant was proposing a minimal lot size of 5,000 sq. ft., and said
that RS lot size was 6,000 sq. ft. Applicant and owner, John Biggar, said that affordable housing
was something that Georgetown needed, with housing that starts from $110,000 and goes up to
$140,000. Biggar said that all 549 lots are under contract by three of the largest builders in the
United States. Biggar brought out that he felt like Murphy used wrong calculations to calculate
parkland area. Murphy said that the calculations he was referring to changed on April 25, 2001,
being 1 acre dedication per 50 lots. Walsh asked if the Parks Board had reviewed and approved
the current figuration of the parkland. Murphy said that they had approved it with all the
subdivision having R-HD zoning. Sondgeroth apologized to the applicant that he had not received
the information that was new to him until now, but confirmed that all his calculations and procedure
up to now for residential high density were correct. Biggar said that he did not understand the
comment of #3 under the Bases of Denial of the staff report. Sansing said that all that it meant
was that he wanted a 6,000' lot, but wanted to still maintain the setbacks that applied to R-HD,
zoning. Biggar said that they have exceeded all of the minimum requirements for R-HD zoning.
Craig Biggar, co-applicant and owner, pointed out that they were making their lot sizes larger than
required. Jena Walker and Linda Turner were in opposition to the subdivision because of the
stormwater run off causing flooding and the traffic on Southwestern Boulevard and Hwy 29 being
heavily congested. David Munk said that at this process level the applicant was not required to do
a drainage study, but he will be required to do a study before any plats are developed, along with a
detention pond built to regulate the water flow of any water running off properties. Munk said that
the state owned State Highway 29, and so the State would control any traffic lights put on the road.
Cummins and Murphy said that the data on Exhibit A of staff report did not depict an accurate
account of the flood plain area. Sondgeroth said that the City was currently doing an updated
stormwater study and would be available in near future. Cummins said that site wise, it would be
hard to find a better suited piece of property for this development, when you look at the sewer line
in the front (18' wastewater line), a 12' water line that runs through the site, and the applicants
would extend Southwestern Boulevard past Raintree. Cummins said that if the R-HD did not exist,
then the Biggars would be asking for variances on side setbacks and parkland dedication.
Seamans and Walsh were concerned about the flood aspects, and a traffic study that was not
required per the subdivision regulations. Walsh asked if the applicant could table his request for
30 days to be able to do more work with the staff. Walker asked the reasoning behind the no
request for a drainage study yet. Murphy informed Walker of the process that the builders go
through and when the drainage study is required. Cummins asked for the approval of the zoning
and concept plan for Section One at this time. Sondgeroth clarified with the applicant the desire to
proceed with the zoning request for Section One now, and then work on Sections Two and Three
with staff. Sondgeroth made sure that the applicant understood that with the R-HD zoning,
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 2001
Page 5
parkland would be required to be within Section One and approved by Parks Board. Biggar was
willing to postpone his request, but explained that there was financial impact on him by postponing.
Sondgeroth made the suggestion of applicant to postpone the concept plan at this time, and to go
ahead and request the straight zoning for Section One only. Cummins asked if the Commission
would be able to hear the plat next month, and if he could submit the Revised Concept Plan along
with the plat and the rezoning all for Section Two all at the same time. Walsh made the motion to
approve the rezoning for University Park, Unit Two, Section 1, from A, Agricultural to R-HD,
Residential High Density, located on Southwestern Boulevard, and have no action on Section II
and Section III. Richard Seamans seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0.
9. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing from a Concept Plan of 131.02 acres out of
the William Addison Survey, to be known as University Park, Unit Two, located on Southwestern
Boulevard. This item was tabled until the December meeting.
10. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Interim
Subdivision Regulations (Ord. No. 2001-45). Consideration and possible action on amendments to
he Section 80000 known as the Interim Subdivision Ordinance. Patrick Walsh made the motion to
adopt the recommended amendments to the Interim Subdivision Ordinance. Marjorie Herbert
seconded the motion. Seamans and Sansing both felt that there were still a number of things in
the proposed Interim that needed to be changed before it was passed. Herbert said that she felt
like this was a workable ordinance. Seamans was concerned about wording on page 9 of 15, E.1,
and that it should be 30 days. Herbert suggested that Seamans make the motion to approve with
the exceptions that he felt should be addressed/changed. Seamans said there were alot of
suggestions that were made at the workshop that were not addressed. Don Martin said there were
three major decisions that the P & Z should address: 1) the allotted time for filing an appeal with
the Council is 10 days (pg. 9, E.1) - should be 30 days; 2) the developer should pay for the off site
roadways and is responsible for the entire initial costs of road improvements & design costs (pg. 6,
C.6) – the developer should pay for the internal roads, but the Ordinance is putting a large burden
on commercial development that it cannot financially afford; and 3) a protected tree is any tree that
measures 12” DBH or larger. (Pg13, B.2) – Martin said this was a too strenuous of a requirement.
Sondgeroth said that the Ordinance was not a perfect ordinance and there are policy issues to be
resolved, but staff needed an ordinance that could be used to review applications with as they
came in. Herbert said that she felt that the City Council and workshops could address the policy
disagreements. Seamans was very unhappy with the wording in parts of the Ordinance and
thought there was favoritism shown to the City. Glasco said that the Ordinance was a work in
progress. Sondgeroth said that there was a committee set up by the Council with two P & Z
members, Robert Seamans and Marjorie Herbert, on the committee, to outline the zoning and
subdivision regulations. Again, Walsh made the motion to approve the recommended
amendments to the Interim Subdivision Regulations (Ord. No. 2001-45). Marjorie Herbert
seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0, with Sansing abstaining from voting.
11. Staff comments and reports.
a. Council action update. - Not addressed.
b. Director’s report – Future Land Use open house and Round table discussion at Georgetown
ISD Board Room, located at 603 Lakeway Drive, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001, at 7:00 –
9:00 p.m. Amelia Sondgeroth invited all the commissioners to come to the open house
Director's report. Sondgeroth told the Commissioners about the Open House on Thursday, November
15, 2001, at 7-9, at the Georgetown High School cafeteria, the topic is "Future Land Use". There will a
consultant that will be assisting the discussion.
P&Z Meeting
November 6, 2001
Page 6
12. Commissioners comments and reports. None
Marjorie Herbert made the motion to adjourn. Richard Glascoe seconded. Motion passed with 5-0
vote. Meeting was adjourned at 10.34 p.m.
/tas