Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_08.06.2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 1 of 7 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners: Roland Peña , Chairman; Robert Massad, Vice-Chairman; John Horne, Secretary; Porter Cochran, Scott Rankin, Bob Brent and Mike Hewlett Commissioners in Training: Kevin Viette Commissioner(s) Absent: Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Staff Present: Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director, Mike Elabarger, Planner III, Jordan Maddox, Long Range Planner Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney, Tammy Glanville, Planning Technician and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary. Chairman Peña called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Peña 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 is 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. As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda. Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items tha t 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 July 16 , 2013, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Brent to approve the minutes from the July 16 , 2013 Planning and Zoning meeting. Second by Commissioner Horne. Approved. (7-0) At this time, Chairman Peña pulls the consent item #3 to the regular agenda to discuss. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 2 of 7 Regular Agenda 3. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 370 residential lots on 106 acres in the Donagan Survey, located on SH 29 West, to be known as Crescent Bluff. PP -2012-017 (Jordan Maddox) Chairman Peña questioned the on e entrance for a 370 lot development and is concerned for the health and safety as it relates to the drought and potential fire hazard issues. Staff stated a Traffic Impact Study is performed on a development with over 270 lots and explained what the consultant looks for in a development. Staff stated there is future 4 point connectivity on the plat. Staff stated currently this is a one phase project with only one entrance, but is ultimately a multiple phase project and did make provisions for connectivity in the future. Motion by Commissioner Brent to approve the plat based on the consistency with the applicable regulations and conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Second by Commissioner Massad. Approved. (7-0) 4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of 20.03 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches and Francis A. Hudson Surveys, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Multifamily (MF) District, located on FM 1460 south of Southeast Inner Loop. REZ-2013-001 (Mike Elabarger) Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The applicant seeks to rezone the property from the annexation default Agriculture (AG) District to the Multifamily (MF) District. Based on the applicant’s submissio n of a Utility Evaluation and Preliminary Plat, the stated intention is to develop an approximately 288 unit apartment complex. Based on Unified Development Code (UDC) standards, such a development would constitute at least 12 buildings and provide a minimum of 453 parking spaces. The subject property is a surveyed tract out of a larger landholding generally referred to as Longhorn Junction, which comprises mostly undeveloped, and unannexed, land in the vicinity of Interstate 35, Southeast Inner Loop, and FM 1460. The Citicorp data center, the under-construction Rock Springs Hospital, and the Jimmy Jacobs office building reside within this landholding, and are incorporated into the City. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was developed with considerable thought towards reserving large tracts of land in strategic areas for the future development of job centers that would position Georgetown for the future. Community leaders recognized the need for a balanced tax base with defined areas that were well-suited for b oth retail and employment space. The result of this effort was the development of the “Employment Center” land use category, which were to be prioritized for utility and transportation improvements and used as a tool for economic development. Georgetown has long been considered a bedroom community due to a small private industry sector, and the 2030 Plan consistently reiterates the need for “sustainable economic development through recruitment of desired industries and employers” and the need to “reserve well-located sites to meet the long need for economic diversification…”. The long -term CAMPO transportation outlook due to projected population increases in the Austin area forecasts a significantly burdened roadway network if surrounding cities have Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 3 of 7 not generated adequate local employment activity. The 2030 Plan has carved out approximately 4% of the Georgetown city limits and ETJ in 3 -4 general locations that are optimized for employment generation due to transportation, utilities and configuration of land. Upon receipt of any development application, Planning staff must complete what is referred to as a ‘completeness check’ per Section 3.02.040 of the UDC. This rezoning application went through an extensive period of completeness check, to determine ‘consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’ (Section 3.02.040(E.)(1.)). Staff requested that the applicant provide justification of consistency for the request, as the Multifamily zoning district is not clearly consistent with the intent of the Employment Center future land use category. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Employment Center designation is intended for: “undeveloped land located at strategic locations, which are designated for well planned, larger scale employment and business activities, as well as supporting uses such as retail, services, hotels, and high density residential development (stand-alone or in mixed -use buildings) as a conditional use.” With this description, a stand-alone 20 -acre surveyed piece of property proposed for an apa rtment development clearly did not meet the intent of an Employment Center. However, Staff recognized this property as part of the larger Longhorn Junction landholding, and that a Development Agreement was forthcoming by June 30, 2013 that was to define a development vision for their entire landholding, including this subject piece of property. It was mutually agreed that the forthcoming submittal of the Development Agreement for the Longhorn Junction project would suffice as justification in order to get this rezoning request past the necessary step of the ‘completeness check’. Following the completeness step, Staff could then better analyze the proposed rezoning request; it was not, though, to be construed that submission of said Longhorn Junction Development Agreement would equate to staff support for the rezoning request. The Development Agreement was submitted by the Longhorn Junction representatives ahead of the aforementioned date, and the rezoning request was able to move to a public hearing befor e the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff performed a cursory review of the submitted Development Agreement to assess whether it set out to describe an Employment Center development as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The second paragraph of the Employment Center category states: “Primary uses include offices, flex offices, and technology research and development, as well as environmentally friendly manufacturing. These uses should be encouraged to develop in a campus-like setting with generous, lin ked open space to maximize value, promote visual quality, and encourage pedestrian activity between employment areas and areas of supporting uses such as retail, restaurants, and residential.” The proportion of uses – office, commercial/retail, high density residential – proposed in the Development Agreement is, at this time, found to be too heavily weighted on commercial and retail, with flexible language that could result in the large landholding to be a primarily retail and service development, and not an Employment Center as Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 4 of 7 envisioned and described in the Plan. Given that the balance of the Longhorn Junction property is outside of the city limits, the City does not have an approved overall master plan and, thus, no land use control for the remaining property. The goal of a Development Agreement, absent annexation and zoning, was to establish a comprehensive vision for the rest of the land that would be a guide for future development decisions. While part of the land is designated for regional commercia l retail purposes, most of the property is planned for Employment Center. Staff was seeking a justification through the agreement that multifamily might be appropriate as a supporting, conditional use to what would ultimately become a destination for sustainable non-service sector jobs. Given the existing development pattern and the weight on which commercial and retail uses dominate the submitted Development Agreement land plan, there was no basis on which to qualify the present iteration of the Development Agreement as meeting the Employment Center vision adopted for this area by City Council through the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the Plan, an Employment Center is a locus of office, technology research and development uses as well as some ma nufacturing. It was envisioned that a small amount of retail services and multifamily may be cohesively planned with the Employment Center anchors to carry out a mixed use destination of integrated and supporting uses. Stand-alone retail and multifamily without any orientation to the future employment center is contrary to the adopted 2030 Plan. With the above assessment of the Longhorn Junction Development Agreement done in order to quickly provide a basis for review of this rezoning request, it was clea r that this rezoning request was – at this time – unable to be supported due to the fact that the Longhorn Junction landholding presented to staff was not equating to the Employment Center concepts of the 2030 Plan. The addition of a high density resident ial community to the south of an approved future retail development (HEB) does little to substantiate the development of an Employment Center. If the Development Agreement for the Longhorn Junction landholding ultimately is updated to reflect a locus of uses consistent with an Employment Center, with some limited supporting residential and retail uses then, at that time, Staff might support of the Longhorn Junction land plan, and, in turn, this proposed rezoning to Multifamily for the 20 acre subject tract. As of the date of this report, with the Longhorn Junction Development Agreement an unfinished proposal that appears inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning request for the subject property must be looked upon as a stand-alone multifamily development, absent the primary Employment Center uses that this residential use would be supporting. Staff reviewed and analyzed this application as described above, resulting in a recommendation of denial for the application based on the following fin dings: 1. Premature Submission – It was expressed to the applicant at the time of Pre- Application, and in subsequent conversations, that submission of a rezoning for this property was premature, given the large-scale questions and complete uncertainty of Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 5 of 7 future development regarding the Longhorn Junction landholding. Staff finds that there is no solid platform on which to base a positive recommendation, given that the Development Agreement is in a preliminary state and its approval status uncertain. Without the certainty as to how the Longhorn Junction landholding is going to ultimately develop, staff must consider the request as a stand-alone, 100% multifamily/apartment use within the Employment Center (EC) land use category. 2. Future Land Use Category/Map – The property is within the Employment Center (EC) land use category. Rezoning to allow the development of a stand-alone, 100% multifamily/apartment use absent of the employment or service uses to support and be supported by the development does not meet t he intent of the category. The City no longer considers or approves the “conditional” rezoning of properties, and therefore, cannot rezone the property for any specific use(s), or concept plan, presented by an applicant. Likewise, no specific development features such as distance buffers, walls, or additional landscaping can be associated with, or tied to, this rezoning decision. Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the requested Multifamily (MF) district – and the associated standards of development within the UDC for those uses - when evaluating a rezoning request. Chairman Peña invited the applicant to speak. Chris Weigand ceded his time as applicant representative to Terry Irion, attorney for the ownership of the Longhorn Junction property holding. Mr. Irion discussed the existing development, zoning, development agreements, and planned land use in the greater area covered by the Longhorn Junction property holding. Mark Allen, representing Longhorn Junction handed out a packet of information to the Commissioners, which had not previously been made available to staff, nor was staff aware that this handout was going to be provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Irion made mention of the Development Agreement for the Longhorn Junction property holding that Staff has been reviewing. Commissioner Brent asked Mr. Irion about the next steps with the Development Agreement, the urgency attached with this subject rezoning application, and the disconnect between the two. Chairman Peña opened the Public Hearing. Bob Condit, stated to be the developer of the subject property seeking rezoning, explained the Vantage apartment product and the time sensitive nature of those proceedings. Roberto Garcia , used a visual presentation on the screen to explain the land planning/uses of the Longhorn Junction property holding. Mark Allen, representing Longhorn Junction property ownership, noted that the right of way for Inner Loop is not known at this time. Chairman Peña closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Peña called t he Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission executive session at that time, pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act, on agenda item number four for consultation with attorney under section 551.071 of the Act. Motion by Commissioner Massad, Second by Commissioner Brent Approved. (7-0) Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 6 of 7 6:42p.m . - Chairman Peña stated all members of the public are requested to leave the meeting room. 7:02p.m. – Chairman Peña stated the Commission is now reconvened in open session. 7:02p.m. - Chairman Peña recessed the meeting for 5 minutes. 7:07p.m. - Chairman Peña continued with the open session. The Commissioner deliberated for several minutes. Motion by Commissioner Cochran to recommend to the City Council denial of the Rezoning for 20.03 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches and Francis A. Hudson Surveys, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Multifamily (MF) District. Second by Commissioner Massad. Commissioner Brent talked of the chicken and egg scenario, believing that apartments need to come first to draw j obs/employment. Commissioner Massad stated that jobs need to come first, and residential opportunities, including apartments, follow jobs. Commissioner Brent spoke of statistics about homeownership and households and the new trends in the housing market. Chairman Peña called for the vote to the motion to recommend denial of the application to City Council – Denial Approved. (6 -1) Commissioner Brent opposed. 5. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of Airport Industrial Park Lot 3 and Lot 4, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN) District, located at 100 and 114 Halmar Cove. REZ-2013-005 (Mike Elabarger) Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The applicant seeks to rezone the two platted lots from the Agricult ure (AG) District to the Industrial (IN) District. The subject properties were annexed into the City in 2006 per Annexation Ordinance 2006 -132, and given the default Agriculture (AG) zoning district. All other lots in the Airport Industrial Park subdivis ion have Industrial zoning, which is consistent with and supported by the Employment Center future land use category over the subdivision. Chairman Peña invited the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant was not present. Chairman Peña opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the Commission, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Massad to r ecommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning for Airport Industrial Park Lot 3 and Lot 4 from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN) District. Second by Commissioner Hewlett. Approved. (7-0) 6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of 81.58 acres in the Walters Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Single-Family (RS) District and the Residential Low-Density (RL) District for the Madison at Georgetown Section III, located near the intersection of SH 195 and Ronald Reagan Blvd. REZ -2013-004 (Jordan Maddox) Staff report by Jordan Maddox. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / August 6, 2013 Page 7 of 7 The applicant has requested a rezoning for the third and final section of the planned Madison at Georgetown development. Section III is planned for approximately 160 single- family lots that are primarily a t a lower density than the first two sections. The rezoning application proposes 70 acres at Residential Low Density (RL) and 11 acres at Residential Single-Family (RS). The RL District allows single-family residential uses with a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size; the RS District allows single family residential uses with a 5,500 square foot minimum lot size. These proposed zoning districts are consistent with the 590-acre land use plan approved with the Madison Development Agreement in 2008. The Commissioner s deliberated for several minutes. Discussion regarding water supply. Chairman Peña invited the applicant to address the Commission. Erin Welch, Land Strategies, Inc. representing the applicant comm ended staff for their report/presentation, and expressed willingness to answer questions. Chairman Peña opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the Commission, the Public Hearing was closed. Motio n by Commissioner Massad to r ecommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning the Madison at Georgetown, Section III contingent of the approval of the annexation. Second by Commissioner Cochran. Approved. (7-0) 7. Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings. (Scott Rankin) NA 8. Downtown Master Plan Update – Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director The City is undertaking the 2003 Downtown Master Plan. The original plan was a 30 year plan. The City will ta ke a look at some of the successes and some of the challenges that are still upon us as we look for ward to the next 20 years out. 9. Questions or comments from Commissioners -in -Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda. NA 10. Reminder of the August 20, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 11. Motion to a djourn at 7:35 p.m. _____________________________________ __________________________________ Roland Peña , Chairman John Horne, Secretary