HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_10.05.2010
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 5, 2010 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Porter Cochran,Vice-chair; Annette Montgomery, Secretary; Brandon Collier,
Gregory A. Austin, Pat Armour
Commissioner(s) Absent: Don Padfield, Chair and Gene Facey
Commissioners in Training: Sally Pell, Ercel Brashear
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: NA
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Jordan Maddox, Interim Principal
Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner III; David Munk, Development Engineer; Tamera Baird, Chief Plans
Examiner and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Cochran called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Cochran stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to
the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise
agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session. There was not an 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 September 7, 2010, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Austin to approve the Consent agenda including the September 7, 2010 minutes.
Second by Montgomery. Approved. (5-0)
Regular Agenda
3. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Rezoning from AG, Agriculture District to RS,
Residential Single-Family for 165-07 acres; AG, Agriculture District to RL, Residential Low-
Density District for 29.77 acres, AG, Agriculture District to MF, Multifamily District for 14.45
acres, and AG, Agriculture District to C-1, Local Commercial District for 27.08 acres, to be
known as Madison at Georgetown, located on SH 195 north of Shady Oaks. REZ-2010-006 (JM)
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 5, 2010 Page 2 of 5
Staff report by Jordan Maddox. Jordan gave a brief history of Madison at Georgetown project.
The Development agreement was signed in 2008 and agreed to be the wastewater provider to
the property. The annexation was approved during the last City council meeting. The
applicant has requested a rezoning to conform to a pending plat application. The planned
project is for 486 lots on 234 acres. Along SH 195 at the entrance to the subdivision, a 27-acre
tract is planned for commercial development (C-1 Local Commercial District). The rest are
single-family lots sized between 0.13-acre to 0.69-acre, with most lots being about 0.20-acre.
Approximately 30 acres that adjoin the large-lot Shady Oaks subdivision are proposed as RL,
Residential Low-Density District.
Jordan stated there have been numerous discussions with the Shady Oaks residents. Out of the
discussions there were some agreements between the developer and some of the residents of
Shady oaks which he will let the applicant explain in detail. Some were changing the lot sizes,
increasing the size of the lots, changing the zoning district and allowing a 50 buffer to include
25 foot vegetative and 25 foot no build. Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted and was
determined minimal traffic would affect Shady Oaks and its residents. Staff has received 5
comment letters in response to the 200 foot notification letters that were mailed out.
Chair Cochran invited the applicant to speak. Paul Linehan reviewed the variance request and
stated the annexation was approved by Council last week Tuesday. He stated there were
numerous meetings with the residents of Shady Oaks and agreements were made. He
explained the 25 foot vegetative buffer and 25 foot no-build zone which is added to the plat.
He stated a fence can be placed on the Madison at Georgetown resident property after the 25
foot vegetative buffer. They worked with staff on the water and wastewater agreements. He
hopes the Commissioners will approve the Rezone.
Chair Cochran opened the Public Hearing.
Martha Thompson, 4555 HWY 195, review the history of her property. She stated they have a
deed which shows a 2 acre easement that they bought from her mother-in law. Ms. Thompson
stated that if Paul wants to strike their easement they should get credit for the easement.
During the Council meeting last week, Council asked if Paul could put in a road and he
agreed. The only way she and the neighbors knew about this meeting was through the
notification letter sent by the City of Georgetown. They are not trying to block anyone; they are
just trying to tell the truth. They have been told that a deed does not matter if it’s 100 years ago.
She stated that if you have to defend a deed by going to court, you will loose your land
defending it due to the cost. She is also concerned with the water usage with the new
development. When there was a drought they try to comply by watering their cattle early in
the morning and early in the afternoon. What will happen when this development is
completed?
Staff stated the Thompson’s would have access from Hwy 195 to their house and another
entrance from Hwy 195 to their other property. Paul stated he has been land planning and the
easement Ms. Thompson is talking about has been vacated and it no longer exist and
information was sent to staff.
Paul stated Chisholm Water Supply will supply the water and there will be water lines in place
and will be enough water and the water pressure will improve.
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 5, 2010 Page 3 of 5
DeLois Young, 512 Buena Vista Drive reviewed over her comment letter she sent to staff. She
stated Mr. Linehan kept the Shady Oaks residents in the dark regarding the development
information of this property. She also stated that with over 1400 new residents in the area will
greatly affect the water usage and will devalue the Shady Oaks residents and will ruin the
peaceful, quiet and welcoming atmosphere.
Chair Cochran closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Austin to recommend to City Council approval of a request to rezone 165.07 acres
from AG, Agricultural District to RS, Residential Single-Family, 29.75 acres from AG,
Agricultural District to RL, Residential Low-Density District, 16.80 acres from AG, Agricultural
District to MF, Multifamily District for, and 23.08 acres from AG, Agricultural District to C-1,
Local Commercial District, to be known as Madison at Georgetown. Second by Armour (5-0)
Approved.
4. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Rezoning from IN, Industrial District to C-1, Local
Commercial District for 1.45 acres, being Lot 2, Block D, of the Horizon Commercial Park,
located at 701 Quail Valley Drive. REZ 2010-008 (ME)
Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from IN
(Industrial) to C1 (Local Commercial) in order to develop a grocery store/deli/meat market
business in a proposed 10,000 square foot building. Their stated desire is to serve the local
neighborhood and area with a large convenience store focusing on fresh meat sales (ie, meat
market). The location choice was strategically selected so as to be on a visible and accessible
corner of the future realignment of FM 1460 just to the west of the site.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed rezoning to the C-1 district, based on the Future
Land Use designation, the existing zoning situation of the area, and the surrounding
developed uses (high-density, multi-family dwellings). Though the applicant has made
clear their intended development and use, on a property of this size, rezoning to the C-1
district would allow, among others, the following types of future uses on the property:
Residential uses such as townhouse, apartment, and group living;
Civic uses such as day care facilities; government and community facilities such as
libraries or community centers; religious assemblies or parks;
Commercial uses such as restaurants and bars, medical/dental office, general office/retail,
personal services, laundromats and fitness centers, and fuel sales and car washes (all with
specific limitations); and
Transportation/Utility uses such as parking lots and utility services.
At the two Pre-Application meetings with the applicant, staff recommended that a rezoning
to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) could likely be supported by staff, as this district is
intended for small-scale office and commercial activities that primarily serve adjacent
residential areas. Staff was more comfortable with the type and scale of the other possible
permitted uses of the CN district for this property. The applicant’s stated use – a large
convenience store – would be considered a “General Retail” commercial use, which is
permitted on a Limited (L) basis in both the CN and C-1 districts, subject to Section
5.040.020(U.), Building Size Limitations. This section allows for a single building to be up to
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 5, 2010 Page 4 of 5
10,000 square feet in the C-1 district, but only 5,000 square feet in the CN district. The
applicant’s desire is for a building of approximately 10,000 SF, and thus, chose to apply for
rezoning to the C-1 district. If it were possible to process a conditional rezoning to CN,
modifying only the building size limitation, the applicant would have done so, and staff
could recommend approval. However, this is not an option based on legal counsel.
Part of staff’s reasoning not to support rezoning to the C-1 district is because of the current
state of development and mix of zoning in the area, in addition to the incompatible land use
designation. When the road realignment project is complete, the vicinity will physically be
operating in a different way, and the development potential will likely increase. At that
time, the City would likely consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
future land use map, placing some type of commercial node over this property and entire
area. Much of the area here is already zoned C-3, and the case could be made for rezoning
this property to C-1 as a lessening of intensity moving east toward the residential uses. But
at this time, rezoning to C-1 is premature.
Staff stated at the advice of legal council staff can not recommend a conditional rezoning.
Jim Cummins representing the applicant stated the applicant wants to develop a small grocery
store/meat market. He stated industrial uses could be a detention center, cemetery, vehicle
service, waste related services. He is not sure of the hours of operation. Mr. Cummins stated
the applicant stated this is not a convenience store.
Chair Cochran opened the Public Hearing.
Ferrel Pruit stated he bought the lot 3 years ago. He is a electrical contractor and wanted to
move his company to this lot. Mr. Pruit stated that he does not have any immediate plans to
move his company to this lot, but may consider moving his company there along with all his
equipment if he can not sell the property.
Mr. Casey Jones, 601 Quail Valley. He is concerned for his clients with the traffic flow. He is
also concern about drainage since 30% of the property is in the flood plain. Where would the
water go if the property is paved? His business employs female who arrive to work early and
stay late and are concerned with the hours of operation.
Chair Cochran closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Austin to Recommned denial of a request to rezone the property from IN Industrial
to C-1 Local Commercial. Second by Montgomery. Approved. 5-0
5. Public Hearing and Possible Action on an amendment to the Unified Development Code
(UDC) to add new Section 10.07.040, Temporary Off-Premise Signs for Open Houses and
Model Homes and amend Section 16.02, Definitions. (EC)
This proposed amendment is a response from a citizen’s request during City Council meeting
to allow real estate off prima signs for realtors open houses. Staff has been working with
realtors and home builders. Signs that are out at this time are being placed on property
illegally. This amendment would only allow signs on city right-of-way and not state right-of-
way. The size is limited and only on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. The individual would
need to come in and make an application as it is in the ordinance which would allow staff to
give a little education about the process to the individual. This is modeled to some degree
after the City of Round Rock which some of the realtors informed us works for them there.
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 5, 2010 Page 5 of 5
Permits would be issued for an entire year and can choose how many signs will be used. They
would continue to use the sign and would not have to come back for each sign.
Tamera Baird, Commercial Permitting, Building Department. Meetings with the public with
specific concerns relating to those citizens who feel the 3 foot city-right-of-way is part of their
yard since they maintain it did come up and the realtors will need to get permission from the
home owners to place a sign.
Commissioner wants it mandated for realtors to get permission from the homeowner.
Staff stated only one sign for each home at each location. Individual will be limited to one sign
for one house. Developers will be limited on the number of signs they are allowed. Each
permitted sign will have a sticker on it to indicate the sign has been approved by the City.
Renee Hanson. 1252 S. Austin Avenue. Two years ago city took over Austin Ave from
Williams Dr. to Leander Rd. because they wanted to control and assist our downtown and
historic areas. Because this goes to city right-of-way and would allow signs on Austin Ave. we
feel this is not appropriate because Austin Ave. is the gateway to Georgetown and through the
downtown. Ms. Hansen would like for Austin Ave not be included to place temporary signs.
Commissioners discussed other areas in the historic downtown Georgetown that would not be
appropriate for temporary signage to be placed. Commissioners asked staff to include all of
Austin Ave to be off limits for temporary signage. Commissioner directed staff to address
historic district issues as discussed.
Motion by Cochran for staff to change the language to the proposed amendment as discussed
to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to add new Section 10.07.040, Temporary Off-
Premise Signs for Open Houses and Model Homes and amend Section 16.02, and present it to
the Commissioners during the November 2nd Planning and Zoning Meeting. Second by
Montgomery. Approved 5-0
6. Possible discussion and update on the 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 Annual Unified
Development Code (UDC) review processes and amendments.
Ms. Cook stated staff is working on the last round of amendments to come before them in
December. The next meeting will be October 26 possibly starting at 3:00pm. Staff will send
out a draft list before the meeting.
7. Reminder of the October 26, 2010 workshop with the City Council and the 2010-2011 UDC
Task Force.
8. Reminder of the November 2, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
9. Adjourn. 7:47pm
______________________________________ _____________________________________
Approved, Gregory A. Austin, Commissioner Attested, Annette Montgomery, Secretary