Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_06.04.2002MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 4. 2002, 6:00 P.M. Chair, Marjorie Herbert, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Members present: Marjorie Herbert, Robert Seamans, Chris Aadnesen, John Kirby, Audrey McDonald, Linda Turner and Harry Gibbs, Alternate. Members Absent: Richard Glasco and Johnny Anderson, Alternate Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services, Bobby Ray, Chief Planner of Current Planning, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa McCollum, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Steve O'Neal, Commercial Building Planner, and Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary. 1. Action from Executive Session - None. 2. Introduction and swearing in of Harry Gibbs. Gibbs read his oath and was sworn in. Herbert invited Gibbs to sit in for Glasco at this time. Consent Agenda 3. Consideration of the Minutes of the May 7, 2002. Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Items # 4 and 5 were pulled off Consent and put on Regular Agenda by Kirby. Seamans made the motion to approve the minutes on the consent agenda. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0. Herbert and Gibbs abstained from the vote. Regular Agenda Kirby was concerned about making sure the Commissioners, especially the newer members, understood the differences in policy of these two developments when approved. One (Cimarron Hills) had the developer pay for infrastructure, while the other (Escalera) had the City develop the water main and the lift station, all costing 2 million dollars, thus causing a the burden on the tax payers. Kirby asked staff if the items in question were approved, would it result in a further burden on the tax payer, and his second question was if his characterization of the results of these two developments was correct concerning the tax payers. Benton said that the cost would be consistent with the development agreement that was approved - costs and calculations, which are a part of the agreement, got Council approval - but as to what portion this item (#4) would have on the taxpayer, she had no answer. Amelia Sondgeroth addressed the second question by explaining that the staff used the subdivision regulations to review these PUDs, and that the review was subject to being reviewed in accordance to the development agreement that had been Council approved. Appreciation from Herbert and Seamans was given to Kirby for his effort. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat of 21.45 acres out of the Campbell Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Escalera Ranch, Section Three, located on Leander Road. Aadnesen made the motion to recommend approval to the City Council for the Public Review Final Plat, provided the Technical issues are addressed prior to the City Council consider- ation. The technical issue was to revise the mayor's name from Nelson to Nelon, and that would be addressed by June 12, 2002. Kirby seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat of 43.137 acres out of the A. H. Porter Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills, Phase 2, Section 1, located off SH 29 and Goodnight Drive. Aadnesen excused himself from voting. Seamans made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the Public Review Final Plat, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, In which Seamans read for the record to be included in the motion. Kirby seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0. 6. Consideration and possible action on a public hearing for a Detailed Development Plan for Lot 1, Russell Subdivision, located at 104 Western Trail, with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. Benton gave the staff presentation. David Bessent, architect for the applicant, was available for questions. The plan to cut down a 13" post oak that was close to the property line on Williams Drive for the sign visibility was a concern of Seamans. Seamans would like the applicant to have a different designed sign that would be able to allow the tree to be saved. Herbert made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the Detailed Development Plan with the approval of a variance to allow the reduction to 10 ' of the rear building setback along the common property line with Mesquite Flats Subdivision, provided the technical issues were addressed prior to City Council consideration. Motion was to be contingent on Council knowing that the Commission would like to save the 13" post oak that is located on the property line on Williams Drive from being cut down. Turner seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 7. Consideration and possible action on a public hearing for a Detailed Development Plan for the City of Georgetown, Division A, 4.34 acres out of Outlots 9, 45 & 46, with variances of the Subdivision Regulations. Benton gave the staff presentation. Herbert asked the number of times the driveway was Used and by what types of vehicles. Jim Cummins, Steger & Bizzell, and representative of the applicant, answered that use was once a day, and by a delivery van. Seamans voiced his concern for applicant to be sure that there were no unnecessary removals of existing trees from the lot, if at all possible. Aadnesen made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the Detailed Development with the approval of a variance to Table 33030A of the Subdivision Regulations, to allow the proposed separation between driveways, located on Railroad Avenue, and read the Findings of Fact for the record to be included in the motion. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 8. Consideration and possible action on public hearing for a Short Form Final Plat for 13.544 acres out of the Clement Stubblefield and the Ruidoso Irrigation Survey, and vacation of a part of Lot 1, Block 4, part of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 3, and part of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7, Block 2, Highland Park Revised to be known as the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Boulevard. Melissa McCollum made staff presentation. Sondgeroth made the change in the request for the word "vacation" to be changed to "replat" for the record. Herbert asked about the 4 public comments of objection referred to in the report. McCollum said that the comments were regarding wanting more information and not given enough notification time. Aaron Pesek, with Garrett Associates Engineering was on hand to answer any questions. Vic Flores, who lives at 2403 Highland, had a number of questions concerning the building, its use, storm drainage, retention pond, fencing, and trees. McCollum pointed out that all of his questions pertain to the Detailed Development Plan, and staff would be happy to meet with Flores at the office on 904 S Main Street to answer all of his questions/concerns. Seamans asked about the requirement of sign posting, and made a suggestion that Planning look into obtaining different signs of better quality that would be able stay visible during the posting time. Sondgeroth said that the department goes way over the State requirement in notification, but would be happy to look into the cost of different signs, and/or the possibility of not having to post them at all. McDonald and Kirby asked when signs are to be posted and who puts them out. McCollum said that the signs are posted 15 days before the meeting, and the applicant usually posts the signs. Aadnesen made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the Short Form Final Plat for 13.544 acres out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey and the Ruidoso Irrigation Survey, and replat of a part of Lot 1, Block 4, part of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 3, and part of Lot 6, and all of Lot 7, Block 2, Highland Park Revised to be known as the Georgetown Municipal complex, located at 300 Industrial Boulevard. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 9. Consideration and possible action on a public hearing for a Rezoning of Crestview Addition, Unit 1, Block 2, Lot 7, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service Use, or more restrictive district, located at 1614 Williams Drive. Bobby Ray made the staff presentation. Fritz Stelzer, applicant, who lives at 1614 Williams Drive, passed his written presentation to the Commissioners and read it out loud. Gwen Lierman, who lives at 1603 Oak Lane, was concerned not getting proper notification of the rezoning requests, the parking on the property, getting in and out of her driveway safely, the dooming of any future of Oak Lane; and gave suggestion for City to revise and keep the R-O classification. Toby Lierman, who also lives at 1603 Oak Lane, declined to speak . McDonald was very concerned about the parking issue and asked if there would be sufficient parking on the lot in question. Ray said he saw no problem because of the size of the lot and the rear property area. Ray explained that under the Mini-Detailed Development Plan, the applicant would not be required to bring parking into compliance. Turner asked about the number of employees and the parking for them. Stelzer said that he had an over large driveway in and out of his property from Williams Drive, and a large circular driveway on his property, along with a room to have 9 car parking lot in the side rear of the property. Discussion on the Williams Drive study conducted by the City. Turner suggested for the Commissioners to make a recommendation to ask that Council address the parking carefully and make it a requirement. Herbert made the motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the requested rezoning to RM-3, Office and Service Use, contingent that parking be the choice of the improvement to come into compliance with the Mini-Detailed Development Plan. 10. Consideration and possible action on a public hearing for a rezoning from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, for a 29.90 acre tract in the Burrell Eaves, the Frederick Foy, and the Daniel Monroe Surveys, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Thirty-Four, located along Sun City Boulevard. Bobby Ray presented the staff report. Todd Jansen, Del Webb representative, spoke to the Commissioners, showing a map of the area in which Neighborhood 34 existed with the surrounding properties. Jansen said that the neighbors and he had met and came up with a number of things that Del Webb could do: take out 5 lots, landscaping, leave the nature trail area as is. Herbert asked what was the nature of the agreements; written or covenant with land, or just with Jansen. Jansen said that he was willing to do whatever it takes to make the agreements binding and legal. Herbert verified that Del Webb would cooperate to guarantee the agreements by putting them in the zoning ordinance if legal advised to do so. Kenneth Box, who lives at 182 Great Frontier Drive, said that he was told that there would never be anything built behind his house, and that the area to the left of him (which is Neighborhood 34) would be left as native Texas landscape, and would remain in its natural state forever. Herbert verified that Box was dealing with a 2nd party. Turner asked if any of changes that Jansen had proposed would help with Box’s concerns. Box said that 80% of their concern was taken care of, but wanted to work out the other 20%. Turner asked if there could be further negotiations between them. Jansen said that they could not remove any more lots, but maybe have additional landscaping. McDonald asked if the landscaping buffers were to be maintained or to just to let go in its natural state. Jansen said both. Herbert asked if the negotiations could come to an end by the closing of the meeting. Box indicated more time was needed. Herbert verified that the neighborhood was not asking for more lots to be taken out, but more landscaping to be done, and that Del Webb would do whatever is most legal and binding to the agreements with the Sun City neighbors. Discussion about the results to the applicant if this rezoning was put off to next meeting. Sondgeroth said that she wanted legal advise on some issues with this application, and confirmed that more time was needed. Herbert asked that the item be tabled until the next meeting. Seamans said his understanding of a tabled issue was it would have to be held for more than a month. Herbert stated that, in good faith, the Commissioners have tabled the item until the next Planning and Zoning meeting. 11. Consideration and possible action on a public hearing for a rezoning of approximately 5.7 acres out of the Nicholas porter Survey, from RS, Single Family District to C-2A, Commercial First height District, or more restrictive district, located on the west side of Austin Avenue located (approximately) between Williams Drive (south) and Apple Creek Drive (north) at 1106 North Austin Avenue. Bobby Ray presented staff report. Herbert asked when the application was submitted. Ray Said, February 21, 2002. Bill Warner, of Warner Reality, who represents the Warner family, said that the property would be a good place for a restaurant or apartments. Herbert asked if the applicant was in agreement with the recommended limitation on use. Warner said yes. Seamans wanted the limitations to be listed for the future. Ray said that the specific uses would be listed in the adopted ordinance. Kirby made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of the rezoning to C-2A, Commercial First Height district, subject to the limitation on allowed uses as recommended by staff which are all uses allowed within the RM-3 district, out-door commercial and recreational activities, offices and office buildings, sales of goods and products at retail, except automobiles, trailers, mobile homes, motorcycles, farm equipment and machinery and earth moving and heavy construction equipment. Harry Gibbs seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 12. Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of access to allow an additional driveway on San Gabriel Village Boulevard for San Gabriel Village, Section Two, Phase 2, to be known as Waters Edge Apartments IV, located on San Gabriel Village Boulevard. Melissa McCollum corrected an error, changing the recommended motion from staff’s approval of this additional driveway to denial, along with changing the position of the stop sign and existing access point on the Exhibit B of the staff report. Herbert asked if the plan to cut into Austin Avenue would be dead ended – not access to San Gabriel Avenue from Austin Avenue, except from the north. McCollum said that there were plans to put a light at that area. Herbert confirmed staff’s recommendation for denial was because of the future of San Gabriel Village Boulevard was to have heavier traffic, and that the two cuts, versus the one in the middle is going to increase a lot of traffic turning on San Gabriel Boulevard – to the internal traffic within the complex. Seamans is not in agreement with staff, because of the shape of the property, and is in favor of approving the additional access driveway. John Noell, Urban Design Group, asked if the Commissioners would table this item until the next Planning and Zoning meeting of July 2, 2002. Herbert tabled this item until the next Planning and Zoning meeting of July 2, 2002, with all the Commissioners approval. 13. Staff comments and reports. None. 14. Commissioner’s comments and reports. None. Kirby made the motion to adjourn. Seamans seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. /tas