Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_01.02.2001 P&Z Meeting January 2, 2002 Page 1 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown, TX Tuesday, January 2, 2001 AT 6:00 P.M. Patrick Walsh, Chair, called the January 2, 2002, Planning and Zoning meeting to order at 6:-3 p.m. Gabe Sansing, Vice-Chair, was present. Other members present were Chris Aadnesen, Audrey McDonald, Marjorie Herbert, Richard Glasco and Robert Seamans. Staff present were Tammye Sharpe, Staff Recorder, David Munk, Development Engineer, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, and Patricia Carls, City Attorney. 1. Action from Executive Session - None On the Consent Agenda. 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the December 4, 2001, Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 1. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat of 50.85 acres in the John Sutherland and Lewis P. Dyches Surveys, to be known as The Woods of Fountainwood, Phase 3, located on Wood Croft Trail, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Gabe Sansing made the motion to approve the consent agenda as is. Robert Seamans seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0. On the Regular Agenda 2. Consideration and possible action on a Public hearing for a Rezoning of a Resubdivision of Lost Addition, Block 66 & Block 67, from RS, Single Family, to RM-3, Office and Service use, located at 1104 Rock Street and at 312 West 11th Street. Leane Heldenfels gave the staff report, and passed out a copy of a letter of concern from the Wades, a surrounding property owner. Seamans questioned why the Commission would want to approve a RM-3 zoning in this residential area when a RP zoning would very adequately serve the appliant’s use with the property, and felt that the request was too broad and unnecessary. Walsh agreed with Seamans, and both were concerned about the hours in which different facilities could keep with the requested zoning. Seamans brought up the fact that the RM-3 zoning would allow day care centers, which would increase noise level and traffic flow in the area, nd he could see the financial aspect being better to grant a RM-3 zoning, but still felt this zoning would not protect the neighbors/community from unfavorable allowed uses of the property. Heldenfels said that in this case, with the externalities of the uses that were probable to go in there, it would be so similar to Office use proposed, and with the additional Overlay review, the staff felt comfortable to recommend the request for RM-3 zoning. Heldenfels suggested that the Commissioners could ask the applicant if he would agree to a RM-3 zoning subject to the condition that it be used as an office. Carls said that if the applicant would be in agreement to such a condition, thin it would not pose a legal problem. Seamans asked for the reading of the uses of RP zoning. Section 2.08.2.0801 of the Zoning Ordinances was read. Chris Stanley, applicant and owner of subject property, who has been practicing law in Georgetown for about 9 years, on the Board of Directors for the Chambers of Commerce, and a Georgetown resident, said that he had been conversing with the Wades on his intentions to use his property for P&Z Meeting January 2, 2002 Page 2 office use from the beginning. Stanley said that he was not ready to abide to a time restriction. Seamans again said he felt that it was in the best interest to grant zoning based on what the applicant was going to use it for, and not to put properties under an umbrella that could encompass things down the road that would be undesirable. Herbert asked Stanley if it was his understand that if he was to agree to the Office Use as the consent to getting the RM-3, that a future buyer might choose another use, and would have to come back to Planning and Zoning and go through a process in order to get that use. Herbert also asked if he understood that to obtain consent to this zoning it would be with the agreement that it would only be used for office space under Stanley’s ownership. Stanley said yes to both questions. Herbert asked if Stanley was willing to accept this restriction of Office Use. Herbert asked Stanley if he would like to take a few minutes with the staff and the City Attorney to look at the motion very carefully and then bring it back before the close of the meeting tonight. Stanley said he would. Herbert said that she was concerned about what Carls said that the ordinance is written in such a way that the Commissioners could not set restrictions, but they could with an applicant’s agreement. Herbert asked if Stanley would go on record to state that this was a consent agreement, and not in any spirit a violation to the ordinance itself. Stanley said if after reading the definition and getting an understanding of it, and if he could use the office the way he wants, he would go on record and say yes to Herbert’s request. They departed to converse at 6:43 p.m. This item came before the Commissioners again at 7:07 p.m. Stanley said that he had spoken with the Wades and had their consent to agree to a RM-3 zoning with a office limitation as defined in the City Ordinance. Office building uses were read. Todd Wade, Stanley’s neighbor on both sides, said that he was in agreement with the restricted use request. Herbert asked Stanley, for the record, if he waived the provision in the ordinance that says the RM-3 cannot be limited. Stanley said that he did waive the provision for the purposes of limiting it to the office building definition under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.137, Office Building. Gabe Sansing made the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the requested rezoning of Block 66 and Block 67 of Lost Addition, to be known as Stanley Addition, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service Use, restricted to Offices and Office Buildings as described in Section 2.030(3)(d) as defined by Section 18.137 of the Zoning Ordinance and Single Family dwellings as described in Section 2.0201(1) Office Building – A building designed for or used as the offices of professional, commercial, religious, public or semi-public persons or organizations provided that no goods, wares or merchandise shall be prepared or sold on the premises. And, further requested that the chain-link fence be allowed to remain in the spirit of good cooperation between the neighborhood and the proposed use of the property. Herbert asked that the motion be amended with the applicant’s agreement. Second by Seamans, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat of 131.02 acres out of the William Addison Survey, to be known as University Park, Unit Two, Section 1, Phase A, and located on the eastside of Southwestern Boulevard, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Melissa Murphy gave the staff report. Glasco asked about the analysis of the Pecan Branch Creek Watershed. Munk said Raymond Chan, City’s consultant, had the study completed, but Munk had not seen the report. Seamans said that he was still concerned about the Smith Branch Watershed, and felt like accepting this request was premature without seeing the study. Seamans also said that not requiring a traffic study was not answering his traffic concern issue with this request. Walsh was in agreement with Seaman regarding the water study not being reviewed by Munk. Murphy assured Commissioners that all the drainage issued would have to be addressed and approved, along with all the other technical issues requested, before this item would go forward to City Council. Walsh brought out that in a prior meeting, there was an issue of the parkland being deferred, which then became a problem for every body. Murphy said that the Parks and Recreation Board have approved the location and size of the parkland – it is planned for Phase E (fifth phase) of the entire development. There would be an agreement between the parks and the applicant to assure there would be parkland, even if the developers do not develop the fifth phase of the project. P&Z Meeting January 2, 2002 Page 3 Murphy said that this would be agreed upon before going to City Council. Seamans suggested that the parkland should be along Smith Branch to be a buffer for the houses in the case of flooding. Murphy said that the parks and Recreation approved the location that they had because it was more readily assessable to the entire development, once it was totally built out. John Biggar asked that Jim Cummins answer any technical questions. Jim Cummins, Steger & Bizzell, said that the water study done by Chan was being made to see if detention would be required or not on the property, and that Steger & Bizzell would be doing their own study to see how to convey waters down to the Smith Branch. Walsh asked what the design criteria was for the Southwestern Boulevard as it is currently construct4ed in front of the subdivision. Cummins said minor arterial. Walsh asked what the State’s plans were for a traffic control out on Highway 29, either by the Church or by where Southwestern Boulevard intersects. Cummins said he did not know. Munk said that he was sure they would have to meet the warrants as they happen, and other conditions, before a light would be considered. Seamans voiced his opinion against even voting on this item. Cummins said prior to the acceptance of the revised subdivision regulations or the Interim Subdivision Ordinance, the staff relied upon Intensity Levels and the Century Plan was the Plan that took into account the levels of service as to existing streets and demand that would be placed on those streets. As for traffic at Southwestern Boulevard and highway 29, Cummins said that he did not know if it was a problem area, as he has not studied the area. Craig Biggar declined to speak. Sansing said that if the technical issues are met, he wanted to go with the staff’s recommendation. Herbert agreed with Sansing, saying that leaving the water issues to the experts at the City was comfortable for her, and that the traffic issue is just a black hole in the sense that there are very few roads that a driver can pull out freely on at certain times of the day. Herbert said that she trust the City Planning Staff to watch the water report and report differently if need be. Gabe Sansing made the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Public Review Final Plat of 16.79 acres out of the William Addison Survey, to be known as University Park, Unit Two, Section 1, Phase A, located on the East side of Southwestern Boulevard, provided the technical issues are addressed. The Technical Issues were read. Chris Aadnesen second the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-1, with Robert Seamans opposed. 1. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Request for Access or Additional Driveways to be located on FM 1460, for the 3.16 acres out of the Ruidosa irrigation Company Survey and the Lewis P. Dyches Survey, to be known as 1460 Commercial Park, and located at FM 1460 and Quail Valley. Carla Benton gave the staff report. Walsh asked how was the enforcement of this provision for the shared driveway access enforced at the City office. Benton said that that happens at the Detailed Development Plan stage. Benton said that the applicant would come back to the City with a Detailed Development Plan for a commercial site development, to which staff would be checking for compliance at that time. Benton said that it would also be with the Building inspections Department when they come in for construction. Jim Cummins, Steger & Bizzell Engineering, who was present to represent the applicant, asked if there were any questions for him. There were not. Marjorie Herbert made the motion to recommend to city Council approval of the requested access or additional driveways to be located on FM 1460, for the 3.16 acre tract in the Ruidosa irrigation Company and the Lewis P. Dyches Surveys, to be known as 1460 Commercial Park, located at Quail valley Drive, High Tech Drive and Fm 1460, provided that Lots 2 and 3 have shared access. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 7. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat of 10.07 acres out of the Lewis J. Dyches Survey, to be known as Inner Loop Commercial Park, Section Five, located at CR 155 and Cooperative Way, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Chris Aadnesen asked to be excluded from discussion and voting concerning this agenda item. P&Z Meeting January 2, 2002 Page 4 Carla Benton made the staff report. Walsh asked about the buffering between the proposed commercial use and the adjacent residential use in the Rabbit Hollow area. Benton said there is a 20’ setback and the site plan will be required to meet the City’s most stringent buffer yard requirements based on when the Detailed Development Plan was admitted to staff. P.J. Stevens, Steger & Bizzell Engineering, who represented the applicant, asked if there were any questions he could answer. There were none. Gabe Sansing made the motion to recommend to City Council to approve a Public Review Final Plat of 19.14 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches Survey, to be known as Inner Loop Commercial Park, Section Five, and the approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow Lots 2 and 3 to have lot widths of less than 150 feet, provided that Lots 2 and 3 have shared access, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. The Finding of Facts were read. Seamans seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Chris Aadnesen abstaining. 8. Staff comments and reports. Carla Benton gave the Council Action update.  1st Reading of the rezoning of University Park Unit II, was approved by a vote of 6-1  Variance to Shell Addition, Block 18, Lot 1, at 603 E. 7th Street, was approved by council by a vote of 7-0.  2nd Reading on a rezoning of 67.179 acres out of 118 acres on Woodlake, they considered separately the districts so the RM-3 and RS districts were approved on 2nd Reading for Woodlake, which left the commercial district along the front which will go back to Council for a 1st Reading on January 8, 2002. Director’s report.  Leane heldenfels gave an update on the progress of the Ordinance. A copy of the Ordinance, depending on the way it is given back to staff, might be able to be sent in a couple of weeks to the Development Ordinance Committee. Then, in terms of public hearing process, there will be a P&Z and Council workshop in early March, and then public hearing through P&Z in April, and then adoption in May. Walsh asked for specific dates. Monday, March 11, 202, was “penciled in” for a workshop with the Council regarding the Ordinance. The alternative date would be March 25, 2002, if not on March 11th. Heldenfels said she would put the March 11, 2002 date down with the Council.  Ed Polasek gave information on the Open Houses on the Land Use. Open House will be January 10, 2002, meeting, which will give the public a chance to participate. The DOC and Economic Development Commission have taken an interest in this, and will be showing up at the Thursday, January 10, 2002, meeting. Polasek said that there was a draft report of the telephone survey (409 people responded), and that is being presented to City Council at the workshop next Tuesday. The second meeting will be on Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., at St. Helen’s Catholic Church, located at 2700 E. University Avenue, in the Frizelle Hall. 9. Commissioners comments and reports. There were none. Herbert made the motion to adjourn. Glasco seconded. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:32. p.m. /tas