HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_12.02.2003Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown, TX
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 6:00 P.M.
Members Present: Chairman, Christopher Aadnesen, Johnny Anderson, Harry Gibbs, Audrey
McDonald, Jennifer Shield, and Will Moore.
Members Absent: Linda Turner
Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning & Development Services, Bobby Ray,
Chief Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Melissa McCollum,
Development Planner, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Patricia Carls, City Attorney, and
Tammye Sharpe, Planning Specialist/Recording Secretary.
Chair, Commissioner Aadnesen called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. Action from Executive Session – None;
At this time, Chair, Commissioner Aadnesen, excused himself from voting on the Consent
Agenda due to the Cimarron Hills agenda items, and asked Commissioner Anderson to take
over.
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the November 4, 2003, Regular Meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Anderson asked for item number 5 of the November 4, 2003 minutes to
reflect that he made the motion to deny the variance request.
3. Consideration and possible action on Public Review Final Plat for 11.626 acre tract to be
known as Replat of Cimarron Hills, Phase 1, Section 4, Lots 15 and 16, and 6.556 acres
out of the A. H. Porter Survey, located on Cimarron Hills Trail West.
4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 9.621 acre tract to be
known as a Replat of Cimarron Hills, Phase 3, Section 1, to include 6.117 acres out of the
A. H. Porter Survey, located on Cimarron Hills Trail West.
5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 73.19 acre tract out of
the A. H. Porter Survey, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills,
Phase 4, Section 1, located off SH 29 and Cimarron Hills Trail East.
6. Consideration and possible action on Public Review Final Plat for 133.688 acre tract out of
the A. H. Porter Survey, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills,
Phase 5, Section 1, located throughout the subdivision.
Commissioner Anderson requested the changes to the minutes. Commissioner Shield made
the motion to accept the Consent Agenda items 2-6, with the change to the Minutes.
Commissioner McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0, with
Commissioner Aadnesen excused from voting.
Regular Agenda
7. Public Hearing and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding an
Amendment to Section 4.09 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay District.
Before presentation Benton gave Commissioners an updated report for item number 7 which
included definitions and the Height Calculation Formula (see attached). Benton gave the staff
presentation, stating staff was proposing that after the site was identified as being in one of the
view Corridors, applicants would provide a site plan, along with submitting a request for height
determination, to staff. Applicant’s surveyor would provide to staff the elevation on the property,
the proposed height of the building, the distance from the roadway to their site, and distance
from the point of view to the Courthouse. In turn, staff would provide applicant the exact
allowable height for their building on the site. Benton said staff is proposing the Director can
make the final determination, notifying the applicant by writing. Benton said that appeal should
be in conformance of Section 3.14, the Standard Appeal of Administrative Decision provided in
the Unified Development Code. Commissioner Aadnesen clarified where the southern point
was located - being the low points on each end of the overpass.
Before his presentation, Don Martin, 3345 Bee Caves Rd, suite 212, Austin, Texas, gave
Commissioners a “suggested amendments” package to review. Martin, representing himself as
a Georgetown builder, had these concerns: not having looked at the definitions that were
provided to Commissioners at this meeting; having a momentary view of the Courthouse (visible
for 7/10ths of a second at 35 mph) for his proposed Comfort Suites site; the Ordinance having
no ability for discretion for momentary view; and, allowing a one-story building that blocks the
Courthouse view and not able to build a two or three story building. Martin suggested the
Director of Planning & Development have the authority to make the final decision if view was
momentary or not.
Mark Thomas, Director of Economic Development for the City of Georgetown, 720 Clarence
Drive, has concerns relating to industrial sites located on South Austin Avenue. Thomas said
the view corridor would impact a key industrial site - the property adjacent to the Manitex
manufacturing facility owned by Georgetown Railroad. Thomas said that there was a concern
from Economic Development staff that somehow a prime industrial site could somehow be
compromised for development, since manufacturers buildings are usually 35’ in height. For the
record, two members of the Economic Development Commission were present to support
Thomas - Ron Swain, Chairman and Henry Carr, a Commissioner. Commissioner Anderson
confirmed that the maximum allowed height on the industrial site in discussion would be 26’.
Discussion by staff and Commissioners regarding how the height was determined, and the
consistency and differences in properties around the site, and the height of one-story buildings.
In answer to Commissioner Aadnesen’s question, Thomas answered that he had not been
aware of the potential restrictions in the ordinance when talking with TASUS (subsidiary of
Toyota).
Steve King, 315 Bowie Street, Austin, Texas, donated his time to Bill Nahay.
Bill Nahay, 203 Norwood Drive, Georgetown, Texas, had the same concern about the
momentary view of the Courthouse regarding the Comfort Suites site, and gave figures of the
economic impact it would have if not able to be built on the proposed site – would preclude a
payroll staff of 15 people; the estimated amount of 1.4 million dollars in annual sales revenue;
and with estimated $40,000/yearly property tax to the City by this site. Nahay asked for a
formula that would help builders avoid going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to appeal being
denied of building what they want, and that the view of the Courthouse from IH 35 corridor
needs to be reasonable and practical.
In answer to Commissioner Anderson's question, Benton said that the variance process for the
zoning overlay districts would be the Zoning Board of Adjustment. In regards to Commissioner
Moore's question, Benton said that for an exemption, the determination of the height study
provided would be used for that determination. Sondgeroth said that the exemption paragraph
was simply the process by which a calculation is done based on the formula to determine that
the site was exempt. Moore verified that the exemption paragraph comes into play when the
height proposed would block the view of the Courthouse. Commissioners discussed their views
of why and why not they supported the amendments. Commissioner Aadnesen brought out that
there were existing developments that were built by City, County and developers that block the
Courthouse view. Commissioner Aadnesen feels the Ordinance requires too much work to use,
and there are too many things in process that are effected by it.
Commissioner Gibbs made the motion to deny the approval of the proposed Amendments to
Section 4.09 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Courthouse View
Protection Overlay District. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, which passed with a
vote of 5-1, with Commissioner Anderson voting to approve. Proposed amendments were
denied.
Sondgeroth asked for clarification on the motion as to how the Commissioners address the
existing regulations at this point in time, and/or does this require a separate agenda posting.
City Attorney, Patricia Carls, said that if the amendments are not recommended to Council,
there is still the Section 4.09 that needs to be dealt with. Commissioner Anderson clarified that
the existing UDC did not include the southern corridor - only the corridor from SH 29 to,
roughly, Austin Avenue, and the northern corridor along IH 35. Commissioner Anderson verified
that any industrial site would not be effected under the existing UDC, Section 4.09. Staff and
legal council said the Commissioners could recommend to Council to do away with the existing
Ordinance, and that an ordinance could be developed that protects the Courthouse view and is
consistent with the development designs of the City. Thomas said that EDC would be very
interested in working with staff and the Commission to review the proposals that were made and
information that has been developed so far, and to be part of the discussions for what could be
developed for a future proposal. Commissioner Aadnesen, Shield and Gibbs discussed why
they would not support the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District amendments. Carls said
that the Amendments were brought forward to give clarification to the Amendments, and if these
amendments don't do that, perhaps some rethinking needs to be recommend to Council for a
review of the section. Commissioner Gibbs suggested that Section 4.09 of the Ordinance be
repealed and get a Task Force that includes the Economic Development folks to come up with a
suitable plan that would work for everyone. Martin made the suggestion to leave the Ordinance
in place and adopt some language such as that which he gave to Commissioners during his
presentation, and said that by giving discretion to the Director would solve Martin's and EDC's
problem. Commissioner Aadnesen got verification that if they repealed the Ordinance that both
the Comfort Suites and the TASUS developments could go forward.
Commissioner Aadnesen made a motion to recommend to City Council to repeal Section 4.09
of the Ordinance that pertains to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District and
form a Task Force that includes the current Economic Development group to come up with a
new integrated package that suits the City best for where we want to go, knowing that the
projects that are currently on the books are able to go ahead, and any others that come along,
until they have another Section 4.09 of the Ordinance. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the
motion, which passed with a vote 5-1, with Commissioner Anderson voting against.
8. Public Hearing and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding an
Amendment to Sections 4.08 and 8.06 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining
to the Gateway Overlay District.
McCollum gave the staff presentation. Aaron Duncan, a member of the Task Force for the
Gateway Overlay District, gave his presentation. Duncan explained each of the three
Gateways: 1) Highway Gateway district needs to have large scale development broken up with
landscaping and create view windows into open space areas; 2) Scenic/Natural Gateway district
needs to be rural, with native landscaping (i.e., informal planting); and 3) Downtown Gateway
district needs to enhance the street tree pattern (i.e., urban setting). Duncan said that there
were 3 issues that the Task Force was concerned about: 1) Parking - the visual impact parking
would have on the gateways; 2) Utilities - detention ponds and water quality ponds within the
gateway overlay district buffer needing to be designed to conform to the natural terrain of the
land; and locating utilities underground to reduce the clutter or any negative view; and 3) Street
Plant Palette that would create a more cohesive and uniform appearance using the specific
plants within the palette for the Gateways landscaping.
Don Martin, member of the Task Force of the Gateway Overlay District, wanted clarity on 3
points: 1) that the intent of the Ordinance was to have the developer put his utilities
underground, and not to make City go back and put the existing utilities underground; 2) that
staff would still allow a reduction of the 25' setback to 10' or 15' because of the additional right-
of-way - this does not change; and 3) that the Planning & Development Division would set a
yearly evaluation due to the complexity of the Ordinance. McCollum verified that point #2 would
stay the same within the Gateways. Sondgeroth said that another way dealing with that would
be to allow for a credit for right-of-way that is left in its natural state - i.e., as long it is located in
landscaped area, then it could be credited towards the 25' area, which would not require the
variance process. Point #1 would have the developer only to put utilities underground.
Sondgeroth said regarding point #3, the year review, that Council has already requested for a
yearly update, and that the landscaping provisions of the UDC will require more work in the
future.
McCollum closed with the comment that the design standards complied to commercial and
office sites, not single family residential subdivisions. Commissioner McDonald brought up the
problem detention ponds and quality ponds are causing by being built in the front, with the
chain-link fence around it. Sondgeroth said that the Gateways were the only areas that are
looking to use the restrictions, and fencing is for a safety issue. David Munk, Development
Engineer, said that what has been built are vertical wall detention ponds because the sites are
small, and it is the developers call - vertical wall detention ponds are treated like a swimming
pool; that's where the chain-link fencing comes up. Munk said that with a bern detention pond,
the fencing would not be used. Munk said that every lot has to have their own detention pond,
or have a regional one. Munk said that the two types of ponds are detention and water quality.
The detention pond is easier to regionalize - the water quality has to go through the TECQ, and
you don't project the amount of impervious cover for each site and get a regional pond.
Sondgeroth said that the requirements to design the detention ponds could be revised. Martin
spoke about a site putting their detention underneath the building. In answer to Commissioner
Anderson’s question, McCollum said that signage was not addressed here, as it is handled in
Chapter 10, Sign Ordinance, of the Unified Development Code..
Commissioner Shield recommended to City Council to approve the proposed Amendments to
Section 4.08 and 8.06 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Gateway
Overlay District. Commissioner Aadnesen made a friendly amendment to include that the city
installed utilities be exempt from the underground equipment. Commissioner Anderson
seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0.
9. Public Hearing and possible action on a recommendation to the City Council regarding an
Amendment to Section 13.09.030 (B) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining
to Oversize Facilities.
Glenn Dishong, Water Service Manager for Georgetown Utilities Service (GUS), gave the staff
presentation. Dishong said that any time a facility is oversized, defined as one that exceeds the
size that is needed by the specific developer subject to the utility minimum, then the City could
participate in the cost of that infra structure. Dishong said there is a WIN-WIN situation with the
5-year CIP (Capital Improvement Plan), as the developer gets his line in much earlier than the
City was planning on putting it in, and the City wins by not having to pay the full cost of line
installation. Dishong said that on the 10-year CIP, a contract would be used to tell City when to
pay for something that is out further out than 5 years. Also there is the opportunity to recapture
impact fees.
Answering Commissioner Aadnesen's question on "sole discretion, Dishong said that the City
likes the language that preserves the City's ability not to open it's checkbook up and be forced
into participation of a project. Commissioner Aadnesen stated that he felt like the City owes it to
the citizens and the developers to have established decision making criteria. Dishong said that
the Utilities Systems Advisory Board recommend that the City not use the subsequent user fee
type arrangement because of the complexity of figuring out exactly how much a subsequent
user would pay. Dishong said the only two places he knew had a subsequent user fee
arrangement was Round Rock (checked 9 months ago) and a place in Illinois. Dishong said
with the existing Subdivision Regulations, regarding oversized facilities, the builder builds out
the required pipe size with no participation. Dishong said the only participation now is, for
example, when a builder is required to install 8" pipe, an the City sees that a 12" would be
better, then the City helps to upgrade. Dishong answered Commissioner Anderson’s question
thet the iaw in Section 13.09.030 B.1 meant "in accordance with".
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the
Proposed Amendment to Section 13.09.030 (B) of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
pertaining to Oversized Facilities, conditioned on the City Council receiving and understanding
from the City staff what the definition of sole discretion is and what criteria will be used to decide
when and when not to participate in a project, which does not have to be part of the Ordinance
wording. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, adding that he liked the way the
Ordinance was written as is. Motion was passed with a vote of 6-0.
Meeting was recessed at 7:50 p.m. for short break.
Meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m.
10. Consideration and possible action on Public hearing for a Century Plan Amendment for
2.42 acres out of the David Wright Survey from Multi Family and Residential Future Land
Use designations to Office district, located at 3606 and 3608 Rocky Hollow Trail.
Commissioner Aadnesen asked that agenda items #10 and #16 be heard together, and then
voted on separately.
Benton gave staff presentation on agenda items 10 and 16. Philip Wanke, with Hall/Bargainer,
Inc., Round Rock, representing Jimmy Jacobs Homes, was present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Anderson got confirmation that this was to be a Garden Office complex, single-
story, limestone rock all the way around, pitched roofs, small building complex with parking
throughout.
Sue Smith, 113 Wagon Wheel Trail, had concerns about drainage becoming worse; the trees at
the back of her property pushing her fence down; storage building staying as part of this
complex; and, the underground fuel pump. Benton said the required site plan would deal with
the drainage problems. Munk said that Smith could come in and talk to him directly about the
problem, and assured her that he would be addressing the downstream problem in relation to
the required pond. In answer to Commissioner McDonald’s question, Munk said the detention
pond should be located in the rear or side of the property since the water flow was running
toward the site from Williams Drive. Don Jansen, Fire Inspector, Fire Marshall's Office, said that
if the fuel storage tank was abandoned, it would have to be removed. Jansen agreed to follow
up on investigating the tank. Wanke said that the storage building would not be staying. Wanke
said that he would look into the tree problem by Smith’s fence, and assured her that the site
would be cleaned up.
Bettie Millar, P.M.B. 38, P.O. Box 3000, Georgetown, Texas, who owns 3701 Rocky Hollow, has
concerns about the location of the pond, her view being blocked, the easement turning into a
building property, and increased traffic on her street.
Benton said that road easements are typically done by plats, and this area was platted with the
public right-of -ways. Benton said that the uses would be changed only by Public Review of
rezoning, if it were residential going to multi-duplex. Benton told Millar that she would research
her individual situation, and work with her to see what the City can do if would like. Millar said it
was too late for that. Commissioner Shield confirmed that the City was recommending that
Rocky Hollow Trail would not be opened up for egress and ingress. Benton answered
Commissioner Anderson’s question by stating that the applicant has not proposed to change the
C-3, at this time. Benton said that the City recommendation was to down-zone the C-3 to C-1 in
the future. Benton verified that a portion of the site would be retail, which would not be allowed
in the OF zoning. Benton reiterated that it was to be a Garden Office complex with associated
retail, which will only be allowed in the front.
Commissioner Shield made the motion to recommend to City Council to approval of a Century
Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map for 2.42 acres out of the David Wright
Survey from Multi-Family, Residential Future and undefined Land Use designations to Office
district located at 3606 and 36008 Rocky Hollow Trail. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the
motion, which passed with a vote of 5-1, with Commissioner Moore voting against.
16. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 1.28 acres out of
the David Wright Survey from RS, Residential Single-Family district to OF, Office district,
located at 3606 and 3608 Rock Hollow Trail.
Commissioner Shield made the motion to recommend to City Council to approve a rezoning of
1.28 acres out of the David Wright Survey from RS, Residential Single-Family district to OF, Office
district, located at 3606 and 3608 Rocky Hollow Trail with the condition that no vehicular ingress /
egress, associated with the non-residential development of the site, shall be allowed on Rocky
Hollow Trail. Commissioner McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-1,
with Commissioner Moore voting against.
11. Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of access to allow an
additional driveway to be located on Waters Edge Circle, for a San Gabriel Village,
Section 1, Block 1, Lot 3, to be known as Comfort Suites, located at the intersection of
Waters Edge Circle and IH 35 Frontage Road.
Melissa McCollum gave the staff presentation. McCollum said that if the dual access were
denied, then the developer would have to revise their DDP at staff level. Commissioner
Anderson verified that the DDP was under the Subdivision Regulations. McCollum informed
Commission that any determinations for the Courthouse View would be processed through the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Moore requested City staff to look at the existing
curb cut again, and asked for verification of what vehicular access meant and how it was going
to improve. McCollum brought to his attention Exhibit B in the report, which showed there was
now access on all three sides of the building, with the second driveway being able to provide
further access to the existing lift station. Moore verified McCollum was talking about traffic
through the parking lot.
Steve King, with Consort Inc., informed Commission that the hotel would be 66 rooms; would
have less than 50 vehicles per peak hour traffic on the street; the island in middle of street
eliminates traffic safety by having traffic move right in and right out only; there would be parking
both in the front and back with the second driveway being established; and the location of the
water quality pond would be in the back. King said the driveway to the northeast would connect
up to Chili’s.
Don Martin, 3345 Bee Caves, Austin, was in support, and said that the original plan for San
Gabriel Village was laid out the way it was in order to minimize curb cuts on the Interstate.
Martin mentioned that two driveways were approved for the bank and Heritage Credit Union,
and this site was approved once before when it was brought to the city as a DDP for an office
building site, but it is now expired. Martin brought up the fact there was an extremely large tree
that the builders worked around to save, and wanted to continue to save it.
Bill Nahay, 203 Norwood Drive, Georgetown, said he would yield any time that he has to Martin.
Commissioner McDonald made the motion to approve the requested access for an additional
driveway to be located on Waters Edge circle, for San Gabriel Village, Section 1, Block 1, Lot 3,
to be known as Comfort Suites, located at the intersection of Waters Edge Circle and IH 35
Frontage Road. Commissioner Shield seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0.
12. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 14.636 acres out
of the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood
Eighteen, from A, Agricultural to PUD, Planned Unit Development, located west of Sun
City Boulevard.
Chair, Commissioner Aadnesen, asked that agenda items #12 and #13 would be heard
together, then voted on separately.
McCollum gave the staff presentation. McCollum said that staff was supportive of both
requests. Shane Schallock, 14205 N. Burnet Road, Suite 64o, Austin, representing Del Webb,
was present for questions.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to recommend to Council to approve a rezoning of
14.636 acres of the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood
Eighteen, from A, Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (PUD), or more restrictive district,
located west of Sun City Boulevard. Commissioner Shield seconded the motion, which passed
with a vote of 6-0.
13. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 14.636 acres, out of the
Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Eighteen,
located west of Sun City Boulevard.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to recommend to Council to approve a Preliminary
Plat for 14.636 acres, out of the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown,
Neighborhood Eighteen, located west of Sun City Boulevard. Commissioner Gibbs seconded
the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0.
14. Consideration and possible action of a Public Hearing for a Rezoning of 121.8343 acres out
of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood
Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, from A, Agricultural to PUD, Planned Unit Development,
located south of Texas Drive and west of Sun City Boulevard.
Commissioner Aadnesen, asked that agenda items #14 and #15 would be heard together, and
then voted on separately.
McCollum gave the staff presentation. McCollum said that staff has received two letter of
support for both requests. Shane Schallock, 14205 N. Burnet Road, Suite 64o, Austin,
representing Del Webb, was present for questions.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to recommend to Council to approve a rezoning a
total of 121.8343 acres out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown,
Neighborhood Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, from A, Agricultural Planned Unit Development
(PUD), or more restrictive district, located south of Texas Drive and west of Sun City Boulevard.
Commissioner McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0.
15. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat for 121.843
acres, out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown,
Neighborhood Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, located south of Texas Drive and west of
Sun City Boulevard.
Commissioner Anderson made the motion to recommend to Council to approve a Preliminary
Plat for 121.843 acres out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown,
Neighborhood Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, located south of Texas Drive and west of Sun City
Boulevard. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 6-0.
17. Consideration and possible action on Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for San
Gabriel Village, Section Two, Phase 2, also known as Waters Edge Apartments IV,
located on San Gabriel Village Boulevard.
Melissa McCollum made the staff presentation, saying that staff was not in support of the
request, as it would impede the Fire Department’s ability to access the condominiums. Don
Jansen, City Fire Inspector said that what was agreed upon in lieu of the sprinkler systems was
to provide a 3’ fence in these front yards, and that there could be setbacks of the fence or gates
in place for easier access for Fire personnel. In answer to Commissioner Anderson’s curb cuts
location, Jansen said there is one roadway that runs through this project, so there are two curb
cuts. Commissioner Moore verified that if the owner was willing to put in sprinkler systems, City
Fire Department would not be in opposition to the 5 ½ ‘ fence.
Gary R. Chiles, 3218 Bridle Path, Austin, Texas, the architect for the project, gave his
presentation. Chiles explained the reasoning Fire Department asked them to sprinkle the two
units in question, and said that they would put as many gates as needed for the Fire
Department.
Mike Michaux, 1600 Fallon Ledge, Austin, gave his allotted time to Chiles.
Don Martin, 3345 Bee Caves, Austin, talked about using wrought-iron fences, along with
landscaping, not blank wall fencing and that the fire hydrants were inside the fire lane between
the buildings.
Jansen said that the Fire Department took the agreement that applicant was going to provide a
3’ fence to assist the fire fighters with access to the structures. Jansen confirmed that the fire
hydrants were located in the interior, but with the way firefighters move the placement of the
water where it needs to be and using large diameter hose, the location of the fire hydrants are
not the issue. Jansen gave information about the locks (Knox locks) that would be used on the
gates – a locking system that only the City Fire Department would have keys to; information
about the knockdown panels. Jansen said that they could probably live with more gates – and
informed Commissioners that on the downside, each locking system would cost $75, and there
would be more chances for failure to be unlocked.
McCollum was asked if the staff had originally been in support of this variance before the Fire
Department issue came up. McCollum said she never said she did or did not support the
variance. Commissioner Aadnesen made the comment that the Commissioners were put into
the position of deciding what is more dangerous – the threat of fire or children’s safety when
playing outside. McCollum told the Commissioners that if they did recommend support of the
variance, they would need to address the findings of fact. Commissioner McDonald asked what
was being planned for across the street from the condominiums. McCollum said that piece was
dedicated to the City of Georgetown as Parkland, except for the Republican Headquarters that
has the ability to be developed.
Commissioner Moore asked about a sidewalk being built along the San Gabriel Boulevard.
Martin said a sidewalk was being built on the south side of San Gabriel Boulevard, and that
about 12 acres of parkland was given to the City when they platted the subdivision. Applicant
worked with Parks and Recreation to come up with a trail system that continues the existing City
trail system by using the property across the street. Martin informed Commission that the
Republican Headquarters property was 1.1 acre, and with setbacks, it would be a hard site to
develop.
Chiles said that the owner would be supportive of putting as many gates as the Fire Department
would like to have, along with buying all the locks needed.
Commissioners discussed why and why not they would be in support of the variance.
Commissioner Aadnesen made the motion to approve the Variance to the Subdivision
Regulations for San Gabriel Village, Section Two, Phase 2, also known as Waters Edge
Apartments IV, located on San Gabriel Village Boulevard to allow a 5 ½ foot fence within the
front yard with the finding of facts as follows, and with the provision that the developer get with
the Fire Department and apply as many mitigating features as they can agree on, contemplating
additional gates, or knock-down gates and locks, and after listening to the testimony presented
at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by
the applicant and the staff’s recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of
fact as required by the Subdivision Regulations: 1) The public convenience and welfare will be
substantially served because of the security and danger at this development; 2) The appropriate
use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished
because the variance will not detract from the aesthetic value and structural soundness or have
any effect on the surrounding properties; 3) The applicant has not created the hardship from
which relief is sought because the variance is economic; 4) The variance will not confer upon
the applicant’s special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of
similar and surrounding property because similar surrounding property owners have put in
facilities that have completely different type of use and don’t house permanent residents of
children; 5) The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature
because the variance is security and safety based; 6) The variance is not contrary to the public
interest because it is consistent with the variance procedures and the governing Ordinance, and
because it is a safety issue mitigating a safety and security problem; 7) Due to special
conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship,
because the safety of the residents would be sacrificed for, at least partially mitigated wall
security and safety issue related to fires. In granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 6-0.
18. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Reata
Trails, Block P, Lot 1, located at 110 Lakeway Boulevard on the corner of Lakeway
Boulevard and Dawn Drive.
McCollum gave the staff presentation, informing the Commission that there were no public
comments received by staff. McCollum said that staff has Lakeway being the busier street,
which would be the one-way in access, and Dawn Drive to be the one-way out access, as it is
less traveled. Commissioner Aadnesen saw an issue of traffic. Munk told the Commission that
there were two driveways because the site was so small, and parking had to be slanted in order
to get the parking on there - a one-way entrance and exit will help to get the traffic quickly on
and off the site. McCollum said that this location would be a hair salon. Sondgeroth confirmed
that the parking lot would have to be reconfigured.
Tim Hunter, Corridor Engineering Co., 307 Sunset Drive, Round Rock, Texas, said that this was
the first time he knew anything about the reverse on the egress and ingress, but stated that he
did not see a problem with it. Hunter did point out that they may lose a parking space because
of not being able to build in the setback areas. Staff felt the better traffic flow would be to have
the right turn off of Williams into the site, and the exit from Dawn Drive, so traffic would have a
stop sign to cue left to return back to Lakeway Drive. Commissioner Shield said she was in
favor of keeping the parking space since it was to be a potential hair salon. McCollum assured
Commissioner McDonald that there would be no grass parking on this site, as it should have
adequate parking.
Commissioner Moore made the motion to recommend to Council to approve the requested
variances to the Subdivision Regulations for Reata Trails, Block P, Lot 1, located at 110
Lakeway Boulevard on the corner of Lakeway Boulevard and Dawn Drive, to allow a driveway
on Lakeway Boulevard and Dawn Drive and to allow the driveway separation to be less than
200’ based on the required findings of fact. Commissioner Shield seconded the motion.
Commissioner Shield confirmed that the direction of the traffic was not the issue for the
applicant. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0.
19. Staff comments and reports. Sondgeroth thanked the Commission and the staff for all the work
on these items and for completing these amendments so that we can move forward to Council.
20. Commissioners comments and reports. Note was taken of the speed in which Commissioner
Anderson read the various motions he made.
Commissioner Moore made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Gibbs seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
/tas