HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_02.04.2003
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 1
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown, TX
Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Richard Glasco, Chair, Robert Seamans, Vice-Chair, Christopher Aadnesen, Audrey McDonald, John Kirby, Linda Turner,
Harry Gibbs. Alternates, Johnny Anderson, and William Moore
Members Absent:
Jennifer Shield
Staff Present:
Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development, Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, David Munk,
Development Engineer, Melissa McCollum, Development Planner, Steve O'Neal, Building Plan Reviewer, Patricia Carls,
City Attorney, and Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary
Commissioner Richard Glasco, Chair, called the January 7, 2003, Planning and Zoning meeting to
order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Action from Executive Session - None
On the Consent Agenda.
Regular Meeting
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Call to order: 6:02 p.m.
(Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request
of the
Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
1. Action from Executive Session
Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act on with one
single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any item from the Consent
Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular
Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be
consistent with the staff recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted.
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the January 7, 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Public Review Final Plat for 120.59 acres
out of the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Walnut Springs, located at the intersection of CR 261
and FM 3405, with possible variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Short Form Final Plat for a resubdivision of
Shell Addition, the northeast portion of Block 6, to be known as the LMA Subdivision, located at 807
3rd Street, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 2
5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Short Form Final Plat for 9.2719 acres out
of the Garcia Survey, to be known as the Markham Tract, located at 2620 CR 152, with variances to
the Subdivision Regulations.
6. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Public Review Final Plat for 1.064 acres in
the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, Phase 2, located on Williams Drive,
west of Shell Road.
Commissioner Seamans made the motion to accept the Consent Agenda as it. Commissioner Gibbs
seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Regular Agenda
At this time, Chairman Glasco asked if the staff could present agenda items number 7 & 8, and then the
Commission would vote on each one after presentation, speakers and deliberation.
Bobby Ray gave staff presentation on item number 7, the Rezoning, and Melissa McCollum gave the staff
presentation on item number 8, the Public Review Final Plat.
Lee Weber and Shawn Breedlove, owners, were present to give their presentation and answer questions.
Weber explained their desire to have as many trees as possible, reduce the impervious cover to less than
40% (streets, sidewalks, buildings), to keep property with green area, the lot sizes and the process in picking
where the parkland would be. Weber said they had met with the Berry Creek residents to answer questions
that there would be a Homeowner's Association, where and what landscaping would be done, especially with
the parkland. Commissioner Aadnesen said that with the combination of the parkland and bigger lots, the
applicants could have accommodated both of the requirements without a variance. Weber said yes, if they
had not given away the 2 1/2 acres. McCollum said that the parkland, water quality and detention ponds are
on 7.7 acres, with the flood plain is a little over 1 acre. The parkland is 4.4 acres, and the ponds are
separate, with 1.6 acres. Weber addressed surrounding property owners' concerns: 1) changed the name of
the project; 2) showed the lots backing up to CR 190 were very limited, and would be buffered by parkland;
3) parkland was not going to be in the flood plain; 4) have requested from the Berry Creek Country Club a
social membership for each household; and 5) want to work with the City to put parking for the parkland.
Weber discussed Morrison Homes and the type of homes that would be built on the site. Commissioner
Kirby confirmed from applicants that the project would have a Homeowner's Association and deed
restrictions would go beyond what the City normally requires, with the Association being able to act upon the
restrictions. Commissioner Kirby confirmed that the green areas would be kept up by the Association.
Weber confirmed that there would be rod-iron fences around the land adjacent to the parkland.
Gary Onyett, 123 Champions Court, had concerns that project would devalue the existing residences in
Berry Creek, and the issues dealing with the Airport and the surrounding properties - air traffic and airport
development not being resolved as of yet.
Arnold V, Weider, 30100 Briarcrest Drive, vice-president of the Berry Creek Neighborhood Association, said
that the applicants have acted upon the concerns they had at the beginning, have enhanced the park, with
the detention pond being very natural and fitting in with the existing environment; the issue of cul-de-sacs
and the lights from the cars being a distraction was taken care by the City's experts saying not enough traffic
to be a nuisance; the landscaping and fencing issues have been discussed and addressed; this variance and
setback between homes is a separation of 11', which is a reasonable request. As to the accessibility to the
parkland, it was originally to be from Airport Road (CR 190), and now there is discussion of access from
another road that would be on the western side, and allow more people to gain access - this would lean
concern to have parking be on Briarcrest, between Airport Road and the service road, causing emergency
vehicles a too narrow access through there. Weider suggested striping of the curb on one or both sides of
the street at that point. Weider is against having an 8' wall, and compared the homes to being in the price
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 3
range of the townhomes already existing. Weider asked the Commissioners to approve the development of
this project.
Doug Cota, 30302 Berry Creek Drive, a member of the Berry Creek Neighborhood Association, discussed
problems with the association not including all the neighborhood with issues, and talked about the petitions
that were signed against the variances. Cota is not against the development, but is against the variances,
and had concerns about the airport issues. Cota said that if the Commissioners give the variances, then
there needs to be a wall built. Cota passed out pictures of different walls built around developments - Round
Rock site, Cedar Park site, Georgetown site. Cota said that most of the Morrison Homes were 3-sided brick
or stone, with the back of the house being hardy board. Cota said that the fence could be 8' - and the reason
is to protect the value of the homes in Berry Creek. Commissioner Seamans told Cota that he had no rights
to have the adjacent landowners to build a wall to protect his rights, and suggested that the neighbors
concerned build a wall if they so choose. Cota said that the parkland the applicants are dedicating will be
marshy because of flooding, and with this site surrounding the Airport, there is significant noise, if an airplane
goes down, it would be a major disaster.
Weber confirmed that the homes will be 75% masonry (brick or stone) and 25% hardy board. Weber said
that when the Century Plan Amendment was done with Ed Polasek, the airport noise and the traffic pattern
were examined and the site showed to be no closer than 3000 to the outside of the noise cone, and are
outside of any and all airport traffic patterns. Parking for the park will be worked out with the City and the
Neighborhood Association, and that the parkland is not the lowest part of the land, and does not feel that it
would be marshy as the narrow creek is rocky. Weber said that on the devalue of the properties - over the
last 5 years, 136 houses were sold for under $250,000 in Berry Creek, and 71 under $200,000. Weber
discussed the type of fences for the backyards that do face CR190 and Briarcrest - stained, sealed wood
fence, and maintained by the homeowner's association, along with a natural buffer between the street, a
dedicated 25' of right-of-way to CR190. Weber suggested an additional 20' on Briarcrest to be dedicated to
parkland - another green strip, providing a buffer and provide access along that stretch of land.
Georgia Turner, 312 Champions, had concerns about the materials used to build the homes, traffic on CR
195, the airport flight patterns, and the facilities at Berry Creek being filled up with all the new memberships.
Ron Van Bruwsene, 30517 Berry Creek Drive, asked if a community center would be built within the
development, and has a concern about the impact on the school.
7. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Rezoning from A, Agricultural to RP,
Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, for 70.32 acre, more or less, out of the William Robert
and John Berry Surveys, to be known as Villages at Berry, located on CR 190.
Commissioner Kirby made the motion to recommend to City Council to approve the rezoning of 70.32 acres
out of the William Roberts and John Berry Surveys from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more
restrictive district, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Airport Road and Briarcrest Drive, with
an additional 20' buffer along Briarcrest Drive. Commissioner Aadnesen amended the motion, keeping the
addition for a 20' buffer, and adding to re-enforce the fact that a Homeowner's Association will be involved in
this development that can police the maintenance of the buffer areas along the streets, the fences, the
landscaping, the parkland, and maintain it for future generations, and also that the deed restrictions include a
standard fence that is maintained by the Homeowner's Association on the back lots that front CR 190, and
asked that the developer meet with the Neighborhood Association and the neighborhood at large to explain
all the work that has been done and how it fits in with the work that Mr. Cota has done. Commissioner Kirby
verified at this time that the City would be maintain the parkland - to which Commissioner Aadnesen
withdrew that portion of the amendment. Commissioner Seamans seconded the amended motion made by
Commissioner Aadnesen. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
8. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Public Review Final Plat of 70.32 acres out
of the William Robert and John Berry Surveys to be known as Village at Berry Creek, located on CR
190 and Briarcrest Drive.
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 4
Commissioner Kirby made the motion to recommend to City Council to approve the Public Review Final Plat
of 70.32 acres out of the William Roberts and John Berry Surveys to be known as Villages of Berry Creek,
located on CR 190 and Briarcrest Drive, providing the Technical Issues are addressed before City Council
and the subsequent rezoning to RP, Residential Planned is approved. Seamans seconded the motion,
which passed with a vote of 7-0.
Meeting was recessed at 7:35 p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 7:48 p.m.
9. Consideration and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the
proposed Unified Development Code.
Amelia Sondgeroth was present to give staff presentation. Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager, and Patricia
Carls, City Attorney, were present to answer any questions, along with development staff.
1. How a review of the UDC be implemented, and what procedures would be followed, and what would be a
reasonable review period. With an open process, with workshops with public input and public review by
using the website, and a review one year from the adoption date of the code.
2. Need additional information and justification for Section 11.06 ("Indemnification").
Carls explained that an applicant hires a professional engineer who is required to seal his/her designs and
plans and specifications, and the indemnity and release language was recommended because there were
some cases that came in from the metro-plex area where the Cities have been held liable, and is working
itself through the Court of Appeals - this is to protect the City from being liable for the errors of the applicant,
and will somewhat protect the City against Negligent Claims. The other way to handle this is to make it clear
that the staff's approval or release of the plans authorizing construction does not constitute a complete
review and approval of the plans.
3. The inclusion of a sunset provision for the UDC to be explained and address what regulations would
apply should the time period elapse, and what potential effects such a provision would have upon the
City's ability to review and issue permits.
Discussion about the sunset provision. Patricia Carls gave explanation. Commissioner Aadnesen said he
did not really understand the sunset provision, and was comfortable with the review in a year. Commissioner
Glasco gave an example of the importance of having scheduled review. Commissioner Seamans said he felt
like the revision was really a scheduled time review rather than an actually sunset provision in the legal
sense. Commissioner Glasco said that if there is constant review, then there is no need of a sunset
provision.
4. Concern with Section 11.01.1040 (A) regarding toxic / hazardous materials over the Edwards Acquifer
Recharge Zone.
Songeroth explained that City Council voted this section in and explained that it was included through the
policy hearings, and will be deferred to a committee to streamline requirements and procedures. Yantis said
that there should probably be a study on standards and regulations of other agencies, such as TECQ, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the like. Commissioner Turner asked about the minimum
requirement needed and, in the meantime, what will the policy be until the committee has set something up.
Songeroth confirmed that we currently did not have regulations at this time, with Yantis adding that the City
would be relying on the State and the Federal government's regulations of how to handle toxic/hazardous
materials, which is currently in force.
5. Concern with Section 3.08.050 (B) regarding the sale of a preliminary plat of land.
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 5
Sondgeroth said this section is concerned with the wording of the prohibiting of the offering of a sale of
property prior to plat approval, and suggested that the offering of the sale language simply needs to be
removed. Carls said that it was made plain at the public hearing that commercial property is often offered for
sale without the final plat. Carls said that the local government code does prohibit diving a tract of land by
metes and bounds or by using a Contract for Deed or Contract for Sale - that language was copied into the
code. Carls said that if there is a true division of property, then it need a plat. The portion that references to
lease can be taken out and the offering for sale can be taken out. Commissioner Gibbs verified that this also
pertained to Section 3.08.050 (D).
6. Question of the limitation on the number of special events associated with Bed and Breakfasts in
residential districts.
Songeroth said that the provision now allows for 12 special events, weddings, receptions, parties per year.
Staff came up with the provision to allow 6 instead of 12 - one every 2 months. Commissioners brought up
that he felt like these events should be held inside, not outside the site, also the number of people allowed to
attend. Sondgeroth said this section does require a temporary use permit, and that section addresses all the
issues the Commissioners are bring up.
7. Question on the purpose and intent of Section 14.04 (2) regarding the reconstruction of non-conforming
structures
Sondgeroth that the answers will be on non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses. Bobby Ray
gave the definition of a non-forming structure as a legally structured building which complied at the time it
was constructed, however due to the changes in the development standards and regulations, the building no
longer complies with the duly adopted regulations, such things as parking, height, setbacks, landscaping
screen - things of that nature - the development code allows non-conforming structures to remain and
continue operation, additionally it allows for 50% enlargement or expansion of the non-conforming structure
as long as the new construction applies to the newly adopted regulations. A non-conforming use is use of
the property that was legally entitled at the time that it began operation, however due to changes in the
zoning districts and the allowed uses within those districts, it no longer permits the use. If the structure has
damage greater than 50%, reconstruction of the building would have to comply to the newly adopted
regulations. Ray discussed this provision in reference to surrounding cities. Ray discussed the issue with
the transmission shop - 224 E. 8th Street. Ray confirmed that this issue was concerned with the rebuilding
the structure, and currently the code requires that the reconstruction would have to comply with the
provisions of the development code to be proposed. Commissioner Aadnesen asked that if this ordinance
gets adopted, and in a year from then, if Mr. Conway (224 E. 8th Street), establishment burned down, can he
rebuild it using the same foundation, and operate the business the same way as it is operating now. Ray
said he felt like Mr. Conway could still use the existing pad, and complies with the setbacks, the coverage
requirements - he would have to comply with the other site design issues - parking, access, and some sort of
buffer between the properties to the south of the site. Yantis said that it is important to recognize the intent
of non-conforming provisions in the code, that is while recognizing that there is value in the businesses in the
community, there is also over time a desire in the community to change the look or change the types of uses
that are allowed in certain parts of the community - this allows an area to revitalize over a period of time.
The time of a sale or destruction of property is the time to implement these changes. Yantis said that the
code says now that the lawful change to tenant or ownership to a non-conforming structure shall not cause
the loss of non-conforming rights. Yantis also confirmed that there was an appeal process to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment for particular instances, so maybe that is the right way to handle these individual cases
that are being discussed at this time. Yantis said that since these provisions are going to apply across the
board, there should be great care in what changes we want to see over time in these particular areas and the
small businesses.
8. Requested information regarding the staffing and budgetary needs that would be involved in full
implementation of the UDC.
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 6
Sondgeroth said that there are quite a number of new provisions, and would like to ask for future positions -
such as a transportation planner, a drainage engineer, a landscape architect, and an automotive tracking
system software. Yantis confirmed that the service level to have the implementation of the UDC was fine as
it was now. Aadnesen confirmed from Yantis that the new UDC would be implemented with zero additional
cost.
9. Requested information regarding the provisions for Property Owners Associations.
Sondgeroth referred to the handout on this question, and said that Commissioner Kirby had asked for
specific citations where it is required that there will be Homeowners Associations and the language
associated with that. A notation will be put on the mylar plat to be recorded that will say "Lot "X" will be
owned and maintained by Homeowners' Association.
Sondgeroth also brought up that the aviation easements were a concern in the subdivisions around the Berry
Creek area, and the current Subdivision Regulations requires under Section 26033.F.3 all record final plats
which lie within two (2) miles of the Georgetown Municipal Airport have a height restriction imposed by the
Georgetown-Williamson County Joint Airport Ordinance. These restrictions shall be indicated as aviation
easements in a manner acceptable to the Commission. Sondgeroth said that this provision would be
brought over to the new UDC.
Carls indicated that a letter was received from a property owner in the ETJ asking for what standards apply
and do not apply to the ETJ owners. ETJ property owner had questions on the new UDC putting minimum
lot size requirements, and establish lot widths - owner saying that the City cannot zone in the ETJ or control
density and these two provisions do that. Carls said that these would be looked at and most likely taken out
before sending to the City Council for first reading.
Commissioner Aadnesen asked about the recommended motion on the banners on the light poles -
Sondgeroth said that Steve O'Neal is trying to craft some recommendations by looking at size dimensions,
spacing, and the staff was just not ready yet on this. Commissioner Aadnesen asked also about parkland
suggestion concerned about slope land requirement - staff came up with 50% parkland credit for anything
over a 20% slope.
Recommend to the City Council approval of the UDC and suggested that they take the following items under
their specific consideration:
1. Keep the provisions with regards to the Gateway Overlay District (Sections 4.08 and 8.06) eliminating
the 1/2 mile provision of 4.08.010 (A) and set up a task force of citizens to review this section and
bring forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 6 months
from the adoption of the code;
Keep the provisions with regards to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District (Section 4.09) set
up a task force of citizens to review this section and being forward a recommendation to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council 6 month from the adoption of the code; and
Delete the provisions of Section 11.04.010 (A) regarding the prohibition of hazardous / toxic materials
over the Acquifer and set up a task force of citizens to review this language and being forward a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 6 months from the
adoption of the code.
2. That Section 11.06 Indemnification be deferred for additional legal review and brought back for further
review 6 months from the adoption of the code.
3. That Section 12.03.030 B. Connectivity Ratio requirement be changed to a 1.20 ratio including the
following language: "unless the Director of Development Services determines that this requirement is
impractical due to topography and/or natural features".
P&Z Meeting
February 5, 2002
Page 7
4. That Section 12.03.050 (B) Required Access Points be amended to require the following: 2 access
points for 99 lots or less; 3 access points for 100 to 299 lots; and, 4 access points for over 300 lots.
5. That the issue regarding light pole mounted banners for non-civic uses be brought for review, with the
development of specific standards, within 6 months from the adoption of the code.
6. That Sections 3.08.010 (E) and 3.08.050 (B) having to do with the leasing or offering for sale of
property be deleted.
7. That Section 10.03.020 (G) be modified to remove restrictions in size for political signs.
8. That the number of receptions, weddings, and parties under the Temporary Use permit (TUP)
provision of Section 5.02.140(B)(1)(d) be limited to six (6) per calendar year and clarify that these are
for inside events.
9. That the adopting ordinance require a review of the entire ordinance with possible amendments one
year from the date of adoption.
10. That there be a special provision in Chapter 6 to exempt landscape lots, medial lots, access lots,
utility lots from the minimum lot size requirement.
11. That site plan expiration of Section 3.09.060 be changed from 12 months to 24 months.
12. Look at Sections 6.01.030 (B) to ensure that zoning is not occurring in the ETJ.
13. Section 13.05.020(C)(1) be amended to change the grade slope requirement from fifty percent (50%)
to anything over twenty percent (20%) for parkland credit.
14. Include the requirement for an aviation easement consistent with the existing Subdivision
Regulations, including the required language of the easement.
15. Amend Section 14.04.010(a)(1) to allow the reconstruction of non-conforming structures damaged by
natural or accidental causes to the extent of more than 50 percent (50%) of the value of the structure
on the date of the damage, provided that reconstruction commences within six (6) months from the
date of the damaging event.
16. Eliminate the 110% parking cap of Section 9.02.020.
17. Commend to the City Council that they review the impervious cover provision at First Reading and at
the one-year review
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to adopt the recommendation as read. Seamans seconded the
motion. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
10. Staff comments and reports.
a. Council Action update
b. Director’s report
11. Commissioners comments and reports
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Seamans seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.