Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_04.06.2004Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown, TX Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Chris Aadnesen, Johnny Anderson, Harry Gibbs, Jennifer Shield, William Moore, Marlene McMichael, Brian Ortego, Sarah Milburn and Russell Phillips Members Absent: Audrey McDonald Staff Present: Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Melissa McCollum, Development Planner, Patricia Carls, City Attorney, and Tammye Sharpe, Team Specialist/Recording Secretary Minutes Meeting was called to order by Chairman Aadnesen at 6:05 p.m. Brian Ortego led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. Action from Executive Session - None. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the March 2, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anderson made the motion to accept the minutes as is. Shield seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. Regular Agenda 3. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning a total of 38.83 acres, out of the Williams Addison Survey, to be known as St. Helen Catholic Church PUD, from A, Agriculture to Planned Unit Development (PUD), located at 2700 East University Avenue. Aadnesen told public that this item would be continued - Item will not be deliberated on, and there will be a re-notification before the item will come before Planning and Zoning Commission again. Bobby Ray said that the bases for the continuation was due to staff requiring a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in regards to this application. Ray again said that re-notification to the surrounding property owners and notice in the paper would be posted before this item is brought back before the Commission. 4. Consideration and possible action on Public Hearing for a Rezoning of Kelley Trust, Phase Four -A, from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial, located at Kelley Drive north of Westinghouse Road. Aadnesen told public that this item was also being removed from tonight's agenda. Ray said that the applicant had sent a letter to ask for continuation, and staff will be re-notifying the surrounding property owners and posting notice in paper before the rezoning will go forward again to the Commission. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Variance from the following Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations: 34020.G.2.f. (Rear Yard) and 34020.F.4. (Side Setback) to allow the placement of an accessory structure on Lot 14, Block H of Georgian Place, located at 1079 Canterbury Trail. Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation, stating that staff is requesting denial on the basis that: 1) the need for the variance is self created; 2) there are no physical restraints with the property that would make the setbacks feasible, and the structure could be moved to comply, as it does not meet the required findings. Ray informed the Commission that there had been 2 letters in support of the structure sent to the City due to the notification. Ivan Villanueva, 1079 Centerbury Trail, applicant, gave his presentation. Villanueva was concerned with the cost for him to move the structure off the concrete slab it was placed on; the unfairness that other neighbors in the neighborhood have been allowed to have structures placed within setbacks; and said he was trying to maximize the backyard so his young son could practice soccer. Villanueva was not aware he needed a permit to put up his structure. He said that he was wanting to rock the front of the structure, and the dimensions of were 12' x 12 a standard 8' in height, with a 1' pitch. Moore verified that Villanueva had begun building the structure in September, 2003. Questions and answers brought out that this structure placement should have had a permit to build it. Aadnesen verified that a moveable structure would have the same setback requirements as a structure on a slab. Aadnesen informed Villanueva that the Commission could not look at the financial hardship to a person. Villanueva said he just wanted fairness. Ortego suggested that the applicant look into pouring another slab beside the one the structure be on now, sliding the structure over, and using the older slab for a patio. Villanueva said that he had not looked into that, and told Commissioners he was concerned about his neighbor parking her car into the street, and not into their driveway. Shield asked if his neighbor's view was obstructed because of the building placement. Villanueva said he just thought it was because the structure was by their garage. Moore said that the professional that poured the slab for Villanueva should have known he was encroaching into the setbacks, and that he would need a permit to build this structure. Moore informed Ray that he felt the reason this happens frequently is that people do not know what type of structure needs a permit, and has sympathy for the applicant. Anderson felt that the contractor was at fault in not asking for a building permit, and that others encroaching on the building setbacks are a separate issue that enforcement staff should look at. Ortego felt that the benefit for the whole subdivision to uphold the restrictions in this case out- weighed the sympathy and cost issue to the applicant. McMichael suggested that Villanueva talk to the Homeowners Association so all the neighbor's are brought in line with the restriction requirements; and if no association, then the City enforcement should look at the situation in the neighborhood not complying that Villanueva is concerned about. Shield and Gibbs had no comment. Aadnesen was concerned that the Commission needed to keep with the presidencies, and not allow variances in situations like this, and needing consistency. Moore got confirmation that there was no indication that any other homeowner with a shed encroaching in the setbacks had gotten waivers. Anderson made the motion to recommend to City Council to deny the requested Variance to Section 34020.G.2.f (Rear Yard) and Section 34020.F.4 (Side Setback) to allow the placement of an accessory structure on Lot 14, Block H of Georgian Place located at 1079 Canterbury Trail. McMichael seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-3. Shield, Moore and Gibbs voted against the motion. Recommended motion was to deny. 6. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 16.63 acres in the John Sutherland and Daniel Monroe Surveys, to be known as Fountainwood Plaza, located on the south side of Williams Drive at the intersection of Jim Hogg Road. Melissa McCollum gave the staff presentation. Mark Allen, owner, was present to answer any questions. Moore made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of a Preliminary Plat for 16.63 acres in the John Sutherland and Daniel Monroe Surveys, to be known as Fountainwood Plaza, located on the south side of Williams Drive at the intersection of Jim Hogg Road. Gibbs seconded the motion. Anderson made the comment that this was a very important area on Williams Drive and that it should be a quality development and staff should make sure the building standards are met and buffers are in place. Mark Allen, 5012 Fountainwood Circle, owner, said that there would be a Presbyterian Church, and maybe something like a dentist office; a nice scattered white rock wall will be built. In answer to Ortego's question about egress, Allen said there would be 3 shared driveway entrances into Williams Drive, and access onto Jim Hogg. A TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) requirement would be dealt with in the Site plan application and review. Motion passed with a vote of 7-0. 7. Public Hearing and possible action on a Century Plan Amendment, to change from Intensity Level 1 to Intensity Level 3, for 3.11 acres situated in the Pulsifer Survey, to become a proposed subdivision, located on Country Club Road. David Munk gave the staff presentation, recommending approval for this application. Brooks Bouldin, 29003 Oakland Hills, gave his presentation, informing the Commission that his plan was to develop 5 single-family units on this site. Discussion on shared driveway, access, homes being 2000 sq. ft to 3000 sq. ft, history of the land, and difference of Intensity Level 1 to Level 2. Bouldin informed the Commission that he had not anticipated there would be such a turn-out of concerned neighbors regarding this site, and he would be happy to talk with the folks of the Homeowners Association that are interested in knowing what his plans are for the acreage. Bouldin said that he had talked to 4 neighbors. There was a discussion on size of lots and the flood plain. John Bunton, 2606 Gabriel View Drive, was concerned about taking away this nature site from the citizens of Georgetown. Bunton pointed out the hike and bike nature trail planned for this area. Tim O'Neill, 109 Northcross Road, was concerned about the safety aspect of this area, due to the narrow bridge, sharp curves and traffic congestion. Ron Cox, 807 Country Club Road, was concerned about the traffic congestion becoming a complete hazard. Cox brought to the table the question of how this project will improve the quality of the neighborhood. Ann Jenkins, 2408 Power Circle, was concerned about the trees being destroyed and the natural habitat of the birds (owls, hawks and other forms of wildlife); the flooding of this area (flooded 3 times in 32 years); the land staying marshy, breeding misquotes without trees and birds; fill dirt changing the course of the river; the run-off into the river from chemical fertilizers endangering the fish and humans who swim in the river. Alfred Adair, 2506-2508 Gabriel View Drive, pointed out the 40' sewer easement and had concern about having access to the property from easement, and will the taxpayers have to pay for moving the sewer Lift Station. Adair was not a member of the Homeowner's Association. Otis Coufal, 2502 Gabriel View Drive, was concerned that a greenbelt would be destroyed and having chemicals and fertilizers from the run-off of the lawns, pollute the river from the lawns. There was a discussion of Coufal's backyard. Joyce L. Cox, 623 Spring Valley Road, concerned about the sharp turns in this area not having street lights and the increased traffic from the new proposed development could cause increased safety issues, and does not want to see the beautiful area destroyed. David Martin, 2504 Gabriel View Drive, concerned about the shape of the property, it's location not adequate for the development proposed, and going to have to look at tops of houses instead of the beautiful trees. Martin is not a member of the Homeowner's Association. Jo Ella Broussard, 2909 Gabriel View Drive, concerned about destroying the pristine property - against the changing the intensity level. Tex Kassen, 809 Country Club Road, concerned about the beauty of Country Club Road being destroyed, and the excess traffic making it unsafe. Tyler Westrum, 2406 Power Circle, talked about the site flooding in 1991, and he wants the property to stay like it is for recreation for his children. Victoria Varner, 2202 Gabriel View Drive, concerned about the safety, environmental, flooding issues, and the changing of the quality of life - against the intensity level change. LeeAnne Moore, 3000 Gabriel View, was concerned that the development of the property would not be a positive change and benefit for the community, and also concerned about the traffic safety, flooding and environment. Moore pointed out the access road (where the double gate is) for the Commission. Mary Harlan, 1606 Gabriel View Drive, concerned about changing a beautiful, open space. Sarah Milburn, 132 River Road, concerned about the traffic issues, and stated that it is the type of property that the City has bought to protect the river - and believes the intensity level should stay as it is. Otis Coufal was asked to come forward again and answered questions about his property - the location of the bluff and easement road (city owned sewer road). Brooks Bouldin, representing applicant, said that he realized from the comments the neighbors appreciated how beautiful the property was, and their desire that it should be preserved. Bouldin made the comment that the reason that the tract of land was so beautiful, was that the property owners had worked hard to make it that way. He commented that an owner has the right to develop the property as long as it complies with the City regulations, and the beauty of the property should be enjoyed by the people who own it as well as others. The present owners have been paying taxes on the property for years, and should have the right to determine its best use. All the information he had gotten from his engineer on the flood plain indicated that most of this property was out of the flood plain, and would like for the Commission to examine the flood plain map. Bouldin did not think that five house were going to make substantial difference to the traffic flow on that road. Regarding the sharp curve, Bouldin felt, in the future, that the County or City would most likely straighten the road out at some point. There was a discussion about the easement that runs from the Lift Station, all the way down the road frontage, then into the property where the gate is, through the property below the drop off, and goes on into the property of the home owners that own property behind the proposed site - that is the property that was granted to the City to maintain the sewer line, as well as an ingress and ingress to the property owners (per attorney, Dale Illig). Bouldin said that he found the recorded easement that was granted to the City, but di d not find a recorded easement back to the home owners - which Bouldin indicated he would like to see that document. The driveway would overlap the easement on Lot 1 - the homes would be between the easement and water. Munk, City Engineer, told the Commission that under the current Intensity Level 1, the owners could get 3 to 4 homes built on the site, and that the road did not trigger the residential collector street (Country Club Road) for a TIA study, and the development could be built around the Lift Station. Bouldin mentioned that the requested Intensity Level of 2 is lower than the Intensity Level of the homes along Gabriel View and Country Club Road, which were Intensity Level 3. Shield made the motion to recommend to City Council the denial of a Century Plan Amendment to change from Intensity Level 1 to Intensity Level 3, for 3.11 acres situated in the Pulsifer Survey, to become a proposed subdivision, located on Country Club Road. Aadnesen seconded the motion. Commissioners comments at this time were about not being able to support the change of the beauty of the site, the concern about traffic, the challenge that Country Club Road receives over 800 trips/daily, the importance of maintaining our river resource, the suggestion that the home owners buy the land to be able to preserve it, and that this land was a good example of the kind of land bought by the City to assure protection and preservation of the rivers. The motion was passed by a vote of 7-0. The CPA Intensity Level change was denied. 8. Comments from Director/Staff a. Bobby Ray told the Commission that Staff is currently putting together another round of amendments to the Unified Development Code. * Public Workshop was tentatively scheduled for April 29th. * Special Meeting of the Commission to conduct hearings on the proposed amendments scheduled on May 18th at the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. b. Report on the agenda items of March 23rd - 2 of which the Commission had reviewed: - Public Hearing and First Reading on an Ordinance of the Old Town Overlay District was approved unanimously with some modifications from the Council - Rezoning of 1602 Williams Drive was passed unanimously by Council c. Overall Transportation Plan draft copies will be made available to Commission and be distributed on April 12th. GTech scheduled to review the plan on April 21st. Commission will be reviewing the Plan on May 4th meeting. 9. Comments from Commissioners. * Aadnesen commended McCollum's courage on reporting the Ordinance violation. * Anderson asked if one of the modifications to the UDC was regarding that water retention ponds be put in the rear of the properties. Ray and McCollum verified that that provision is in the Gateway Section (Austin Avenue, Williams Drive, Hwy 29, Leander Road), but no where else - he suggested that this item be put in to discuss at the Public Workshop. Anderson gave update on the Downtown Coordinating Committee - 1) Liquor policy is changing for downtown; 2) discussion on Gurvernik river place at 2nd and Rock Streets; 3) discussion regarding the Draeger property with the County; 4) changes on the block where Oil Change and Dos Salsas reside. There was a discussion on annexation hearings, ordinances, zoning, phasing, and the City website. Ray discussed the modifications accepted by the Council on the Downtown Overlay District were the same ones as the Commission, and then made some language changes of their own before voting unanimously to pass the Ordinance. Gibbs made the motion to adjourn. Shield seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. /tas