HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_10.04.2011
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 1 of 7
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Vice-Chair; Annette Montgomery,
Secretary; Pat Armour, Sally Pell and John Horne
Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin, Roland Peña and Robert Massad
Commissioner(s) Absent: Gene Facey
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton, Planner II; Valerie
Kreger, Principal Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner III, Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; David
Munk, City Engineer; and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear 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 6, 2011, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
3. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 140 residential lots on 47.42
acres, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 56. PP-2011-002 (Jordan Maddox)
4. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 185 residential lots on 44.51
acres, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 50. PP-2011-006 (Jordan Maddox)
5. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 207 residential lots on 60.77
acres, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 57. PP-2011-010 (Jordan Maddox)
The above item was pulled from the Consent agenda and moved to the regular agenda.
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 2 of 7
6. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 250 residential lots on
97.03 acres, to be known as Georgetown Village PUD, Section 9, Phases 4-11. PP-2011-008
(Carla Benton)
This application was deferred to the November 1, 2011 Planning and Zoning meeting.
7. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 26 residential lots on 6.726 acres,
to be known as Katy Crossing, Section 6B. PP-2011-009 (Carla Benton)
8. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 43 residential lots on 11.58
acres, to be known as Cimarron Hills, Phase 3, Section 3. PP-2011-005 (Carla Benton)
This application was deferred to the November 1, 2011 Planning and Zoning meeting.
9. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 11 lots in the ETJ on 145.13
acres, to be known as Bell Gin Park. PP-2011-007 (Jennifer C. Bills)
Motion by Pell to approve the Consent Agenda along with the September 6, 2011 minutes as
amended. Second by Armour. Approved. (6-0).
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 207 residential lots on 60.77
acres, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 57. PP-2011-010 (Jordan Maddox)
Staff report by Jordan Maddox. This rezoning request corresponds with a proposed
plat to allow 207 standard Sun City residential lots on approximately 60.77 acres in
northwest Sun City. A rezoning was approved in 2007 for the same neighborhood, but the
boundaries, number of lots and lot configuration have changed, prompting the need for this
rezoning. The request is in conformance with the Sun City Development Agreement and
Concept Plan and the City’s 2030 Plan. Staff supports the rezoning based on the consistency
with the applicable regulations and conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to address the Commissioners.
Peter Verdicchio, from SEC Planning stated he will be glad to answer questions.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing.
Chip Waldroup, a resident of Woodland Park stated it was difficult to get information
from Sun City, but did not talk to anyone at the city. He will talk to the city first next time.
The developer of Woodland Park informed him at the time of his purchase of his
property he would have 400 foot of greenbelt behind his lot. Reviewing the proposed plat
has disclosed the fact there seems to be three to 3-4 lots backing up to his lot. He was told
there was a hand shake between Jimmy Jacobs and a representative of Sun City.
Chair Brashear stated Sun City has gone through a lengthy process with the City of
Georgetown and this has been approved for a while.
Chair Brashear closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Cochran to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning request
from the AG and PUD to a new PUD, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Seven.
Second by Horne. Approved. (6-0)
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 3 of 7
10. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District and
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District for
207 residential lots on 60.77 acres, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 57. REZ-2011-018
(Jordan Maddox)
Staff report by Jordan. This rezoning request corresponds with a proposed plat to allow
207 standard Sun City residential lots on approximately 60.77 acres in northwest Sun City.
A rezoning was approved in 2007 for the same neighborhood, but the boundaries, number
of lots and lot configuration have changed, prompting the need for this rezoning. The
request is in conformance with the Sun City Development Agreement and Concept Plan
and the City’s 2030 Plan.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak, Peter Verdicchio, from SEC Planning stated he
will be glad to answer any questions.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing.
Brian Lansdale, Lakewoods Park stated his property is adjacent to the proposed application
and his family hunts and rides dirt bikes. He stated he will not be a very good neighbor and
feels it is unfair to increase the density of development behind his property. He is concerned
about the impact to his property value and what will that do to the wild life. Is there a way to
increase that buffer?
Chair Brashear closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioners asked staff if there is a way to increase the buffer to 30 feet instead of 10 feet.
Suggestions included a 10 foot buffer and 20 foot building set back. Staff stated the options
are to either approve the application with the proposed 10 foot buffer or decline the
application and allow the developer to build with no buffer.
Motion by Cochran to recommend to the City Council approvalof the rezoning request
from the AG and PUD to a new PUD, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Seven.
Second by Montgomery. Approved. (6-0)
11. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning to amend part of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District known as The Summit at Rivery Park, specifically 11.03 acres
described as Lots 4 (part) and 7, Block A, of The Rivery Park II, and Lot 1, Block A, and
Lots 1 - 4 and 11, Block B, of Brownstone at the Summit Phase 1, located on Rivery
Boulevard. REZ-2011-017 (Valerie Kreger)
Staff report by Valerie Kreger. The applicant has requested an amendment to The Summit
at Rivery Park PUD in order to incorporate front loaded garages into the Brownstone
development. This is the second amendment to the PUD since its original approval in
2007.
The 2010 amendment to the Development Plan established a Zone C for residential units
and called for the two car garages to be accessed from the Brownstone Alleys.
Additionally, the plan identified individual garbage pickup to take place in the alleys.
This amendment proposes to eliminate all but one of the alleys and allow garage access
from the main streets, and therefore require garbage pickup from the main streets as well.
The applicant has stated that they would like to remove the alleys due to market research,
which has indicated a desire for more green space, particularly backyard space. The
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 4 of 7
proposed change trades back driveways for front driveways and also provides for less
impervious coverage, alleviating some of the demand on water quality and detention.
Staff is not providing a recommendation for or against this PUD amendment as the use
itself will not change. This is an overall project design change for which Staff feels the
Commission and Council should consider their thoughts on the ultimate product and its
appropriateness for this denser style development.
Commissioners stated that changing from the project from an alley-served project to front
loaded garages will change the whole outlook of the neighborhood. Esthetically it looks
more like a townhome development. Commissioner Cochran stated she is not particularly
in favor of this proposal.
Chair Brashear incited the applicant to speak. Jeff Novak, Novak Brothers Texas
Brownstones, LLC reviewed their proposed changes and stated there have been several
changes made to the plans since August 2010 because of changes mandated by the City
regarding stormwater and impervious coverage requirements that were not a part of the
original application.
He stated these are not considered townhomes. The homes will have a different look, but
the concept will stay the same.
Mr. Novak stated they did not learn of the need to detain the 2 year stormwater flow for
the project until after they began construction of Phase I which significantly increased the
project cost. They also were required to add 75 feet of vegetative filter strips as part of the
PUD and building a retaining wall which also added unforeseen cost.
Commissioners asked the applicant to explain “market research”. Mr. Novak stated 90%
of people want a more reasonably price home here in Texas, so to take the alley out will
save a lot of money and will bring cost down and the homes will be more affordable to
customers. As previously configured, the development cost was getting too expensive
and the alley’s need to be removed to minimize the amount of impervious cover and to
accommodate the new construction costs imposed by the City. He stated that, without the
changes being requested, they will not be able to do the project based on the revised cost.
Commissioner Brashear stated that Mr. Novak did such a wonderful job selling the
original Brownstone project that there is disappointment that this revised project does not
match what the City has been envisioning. He stated that the revised project appears to be
a lessor quality development then what was approved initially.
Mr. Brashear also stated the Commission approved every request made by Mr. Novak,
with what he presented last year, the Commissioners feel the proposes changes will give
the outlook of this development a different look and feel.
Mr. Novak stated the revised development will still be beautiful and will be made from
the best quality materials.
Commissioners asked and Mr. Novak answered the trash containers will need to be
placed in the garage.
Commissioners stated their concern with traffic, transportation, density level, trash pick-
up with the narrow streets. Mr. Novak stated these are the same issues with any single
family neighborhood.
Commissioners asked and Mr. Novak answered they begun the first phase which includes
four homes. No homes have been sold at this time.
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 5 of 7
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak, the Public
Hearing was closed.
Commissioners asked about the changes noted by the applicant and the timing of the
delivery of the need for the additional stormwater improvements. Staff stated the need for
the vegetation filter and the two year stormwater detention is a density driven decision.
Staff is seeking additional protection from the adjacent parkland from the development of
the property. An unnamed City Council member advised staff to protect the Park. The
vegetative filter will need approval from TCEQ.
Commissioner Brashear questioned of he understood that the applicant wants to the
Commission to accommodate his need to modify, or lessen, the scope of the project by
approving his request to eliminate the alleys for access which reduces the amount of
impervious coverage which will reduce the size of the stormwater detention which will
provide less expensive units. Without the City’s approval, the project will be terminated in
its current state. The applicant agreed.
Commissioners stated they understand the desire, but asked the applicant if there will be
anymore changes to this project. Mr. Novak stated there will not be anymore changes and
assures the Commissioners this will be beautiful and will not look like a townhome
development.
Motion by Cochran recommend to City Council to amend the zoning classification of the
property by amending the Planned Unit Development PUD district known as The Summit
at Rivery Park, specifically 11.03 acres described as Lots 4 (pt) & 7, Block A, of The Rivery
Park II, and Lot 1, Block A, & Lots 1 - 4 & 11, Block B, of Brownstone at the Summit Phase
1. Second by Armour. Approved. (4-2) Opposed – Pell and Montgomery
12. Public Hearing and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 104 residential lots on 43.772
acres to be known as a Resubdivision of Cimarron Hills, Phase 3, Section 2, located on
Cimarron Hills Trail East. PP-2011-003 (Carla Benton)
Staff report by Carla Benton. The applicant has requested a Resubdivision of Cimarron
Hills, Phase 3, Section 2 to provide more urban designed lots. The original plat contained
54 residential lots and 3 open space lots and the resubdivision is proposing a total of 104
single family residential lots and 2 open space lots. Additionally, the redesign provides an
opportunity to design this plat in a way that preserves all 55 Heritage Trees.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak. Hank Smith, Cimarron Hills, stated the lots
have been there since 1986, but needs to be more marketable so are being redesigned to be
smaller lots. Individual lots will still back up to the golf course.
Commissioners voiced concern with the ability of the Chisholm Trail SUD to deliver
adequate water service to the project. Mr. Smith stated the fire flow test were very good.
Commissioners asked what is the different between the good engineering report and
citizens concerns being voiced in public? Mr. Smith stated, from an engineer standpoint,
he could not answer why citizens are concerned.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing, no one came and the Public Hearing was
closed.
Motion by Pell to approve the Preliminary Plat for a Resubdivision of Cimarron Hills,
Phase 3, Section 2. Second by Horn. Approved. (6-0)
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 6 of 7
13. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to
Industrial (IN) District for Georgetown Technology Park Lots 6 and 7. REZ-2011-016 (Mike
Elabarger) Staff report by Mike Elabarger.
The owners of these two properties have requested to rezone the properties from AG to
IN.
The properties were annexed into the City in 2008, and given the base zoning of
Agricultural, although they had long been developed as commercial/industrial buildings.
The prospective tenant of Lot 7 desires to establish a warehouse and distribution use that
is only permitted in the Industrial District, and initiated the rezoning. Staff sought out
other AG zoned properties for inclusion in this application, in an effort to bring the zoning
of those lots in line with the actual uses and site development that has occurred on those
properties. Only Lot 6, occupied by Sierra Microwave Technology, chose to participate
The applicants have requested to rezone these two (2) properties from Agriculture (AG)
District to Industrial (IN) District. The properties were annexed in 2008 and zoned AG by
default, yet were developed as they are today; this rezoning would put the existing uses
into the proper zoning district.
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning to the IN District for the following
reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Community Commercial and Employment Center are
not fully supported by the Industrial District, but given the existing type of development,
and the incongruity with the base Agricultural zoning, the proposed district is
appropriate and supportive of the City’s larger goals for job creation that these two
categories encompass;
2. The existing state of the subdivision (almost completely developed), which is likely not to
change in the near or long term, but would not necessarily be in conflict with future
developments that fulfilled the future land use designations;
3. The City’s desire to rectify incongruous zoning district situations as seen in this
subdivision.
Though done in the past, the City no longer considers or approves “conditional” rezoning
of properties, and therefore, cannot rezone the property for only the specific use, or for the
concept plan, as presented by the applicant. Staff must consider the impact of all the
permitted uses in the requested district (IN) when evaluating a rezoning request as well as
all site development possibilities.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant. The applicant was not present.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing.
Joe Reedholm, 4 Sierra Way questioned what will happen to his property and he did know
his property was zoned agriculture. Chair Brashear explained his property and business
was in operation at the time the city annexed his property and went to a default zoning of
agriculture. Mr. Brashear also explained to Mr. Reedholm he is not required to change the
current zoning, but if he ever wants to modify or change the use of the property, he will
need to get it rezoned because the zoning of the property does not match its current use.
Chair Brashear closed the Public Hearing.
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / October 4, 2011 Page 7 of 7
Motion by Pell to recommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning for
Georgetown Technology Park, Lots 6 and 7, from AG, Agricultural District, to IN,
Industrial District. Second by Armour. Approved. (6-0)
14. Receive an Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings.
Montgomery stated it was a budgetary meeting and reviewed over proposed projects.
15. Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda. There were no questions.
16. Reminder of the November 1, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
17. Adjourn. Motion to Adjourn at 7:36 p.m.
_______________________________ __________________________________
Approved, Ercel Brashear, Chair Attested, Annette Montgomery, Secretary