Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 08.16.2022City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Courts and Council Building, located at 510 W. 9t" Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Commissioners Present: Travis Perthuis, Chair; Mike Tiland; Tim Haynie; Stephen Dickey; Chris Stanley Alternate Commissioners Present: Alternate Colin McGahey; Alternate Scott Allen Commissioners Absent: Chere Heintzmann; Doug Noble; Alternate Commissioners Absent: Alternate Michael Price; Alternate Jim Salyer Staff Present: Current Planning; Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering; David Munk, Systems Engineering Director; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Olivia Beams, Associate Planner; Haley Webre, Associate Planner; Grant White, Planner; Ryan Clark, Planner; Patrick Collins, Senior Planner; Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner; Colleen Russell; Principal Planner; Cesar Acosta, Senior Long Range Planner; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Chair Perthuis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 21 August 16, 2022 inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http:Hgovernment.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 2, 2022 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission --Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist C Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for a Traffic Impact Analysis, consisting of approximately 20.78 acres in the Dyches, L.J. Survey AW0180, generally located at 234 FM 1460 to be known as Harmony— Longhorn Junction School Campus (2022-8- TIA) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering D Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for a Traffic Impact Analysis, consisting of approximately 51.055 acres in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, generally located at 1951 FM 1460 to be known as Keystone Georgetown (2022-9-TIA) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering E Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for a Traffic Impact Analysis, consisting of approximately 2000 FM 971, generally located at 2000 FM 971 to be known as GTown 971 (2022-15-TIA) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering F Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Preliminary Plat, consisting of approximately 77.7763 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey, Abstract No.178 and the Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 608, generally located at South side of SH 29 West of Southwest Bypass to be known as Wolf Ranch Phase 7 (2022-7-PP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 21 August 16, 2022 G Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Preliminary Final Plat, consisting of approximately 38.87 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey Abstract No. 178, Williamson County, Texas, generally located at West of D.B Wood Dr. and South of W. Hwy. 29 off Riverstone Dr. to be known as Riverstone Phase C (2022-25-PP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner H Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Plat, consisting of approximately 293.6 acres in the William Roberts Survey, Abstract No. 524, generally located North and south of Shell Road between SH 195 and Williams Drive to be known as Woodfield Preserve (2021-28- PP) -- Grant White, Planner Consideration and possible action to approve application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 48.116 acres in the William Roberts Survey Abstract No. 524, generally located at 200 Fairway Lane to be known as Hidden Oak at Berry Creek, 200 Fairway Lane (CON-2016-034) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering J Consideration and possible action to approve application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 21.75 acres in the Chas H. Delaney Survey A-181, generally located at 10128 Ronald Reagan Blvd to be known as Parmer Ranch Phase 12 (2022-17-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering K Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 90.737 acres in the A.H. Porter Survey Abstract 480, generally located at Cimarron Hills Country Club to be known as The Reserves at Cimarron Hills (2022- 19-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering L Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 49.31 acres in the Berry J. Survey AW0051 AW0051, generally located at 2800 N IH 35 to be known as Berry Creek Crossing —Wastewater Improvements (2022-20-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering M Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 53.84 acres in the Thompson J Survey AW0608, generally located at Jay Wolf Dr. to be known as Wolf Ranch West Section 3G (2022-26-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 21 August 16, 2022 N Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 26.67 acres in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21 AW0021, generally located at NE Corner of Rockride Ln and Westinghouse to be known as Patterson Ranch Phase 2 (2021-27-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering O Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 17.43 acres in the Eaves, B. Survey AW0216, generally located at 2451 SH 195 to be known as Berry Creek Highlands Phase 5 (2022-29-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering P Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 63.6 acres in the F. Foy Survey, generally located at 32300 Ronald Reagan Blvd to be known as Sun City Telegraph Ln. (2022-31-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering Q Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 20.2 acres in the F. Foy Survey, generally located at 32300 Ronald Reagan Blvd to be known as Sun City Neighborhood 88 (2022-32-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering R Consideration and possible action to approve application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 36.659 acres in the J. Thomas Survey, Abstract No. 608, generally located southwest of Wolf Ranch Parkway and Legends Ln to be known as Wolf Ranch West Section 5 (2021-34-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering S Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 36.787 acres in the William Addison, Survey Abstract No. 21, generally located at NE corner of Rockride and CR 110 to be known as Patterson Ranch Phase 3 (2021-35-CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering T Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Preliminary Final Plat, consisting of approximately 7.970 acres in the W. Roberts Survey, Abstract No. 524, generally located at 3930 Shell Road to be known as Shell Road & SH 195 Subdivision (2020-17-PFP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 21 August 16, 2022 U Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo, consisting of approximately 3.136 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 216, generally located at 1501 BCH Way to be known as Berry Creek Amenity Center (2021-11-PFP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner V Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo, consisting of approximately 24.326 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey No. 2, Abstract No. 180, generally located at 3004 South Austin Avenue to be known as Loram Subdivision (2022-13-PFP) Ryan Clark, Planner II W Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 20.26 acres in the 20.26 acres in the Isacc Donagan Survey, Abstract No. 178 Williamson County, Texas, generally located at 3701 W SH 29 to be known as Final Plat of The Preserve at Water Oak (2021-3-FP)—Colleen Russell, Principal Planner X Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a FINAL PLAT, consisting of approximately 6.4 acres of Lot 1, Block E in the David Wright Survey Abstract No. 13, generally located at 3900 Williams Dr. to be known as Deer Haven Commercial (2022-13-FP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Y Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 1.311 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey, Abstract No. 178, generally located at River Terrace Dr. to be known as Shadow Canyon -Phase 7 Amending Plat (2022-15-FP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Z Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 0.1139 acres in the 0.1139 acres out of the C. Stubblefield Survey Abstract No. 558, generally located at 1507 Hart Street to be known as Hart's Corner Subdivision (2022-19-FP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner AA Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 134.317 acres in the 134.317 acres in the F. Foy Survey, Abstract No. 229, generally located at 30501 Ronald W Reagan Blvd to be known as Somerset Parcel 5 (2022-21-FP) —Patrick Collins, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 21 August 16, 2022 AB Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Replat, consisting of approximately 1.17 acres in the Orville Perry Survey, Abstract No. 10, generally located at Legacy Crossing to be known as Replat of Lots 77, 78, 79 Block S Wolf Ranch West Section 3 Phase 1 (2022-22-FP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AC Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 90.737 acres in the H. Porter Survey, Abstract No. 490, generally located at Cimarron Hills Country Club to be known as The Reserves at Cimarron Hills (2022-26-FP) --Grant White, Planner AD Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 40.024 acres in the L&G.N. R.R. Co. Survey, Abs No. 744, J.D. Johns Survey, Abs No. 365, and the J. Thompson Survey, Abs No. 608, generally located at Parkside Parkway to be known as Parkside on the River Phase 3, Section 2 (2021-29-FP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AE Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 30.984 acres in the I.&G.N. R.R. Co. Survey, Abstract No. 744, W.E. Pate Survey, Abstract No. 836, Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 608, and J.D. Johns Survey, Abstract No. 365, generally located at Parkside Parkway to be known as Parkside on the River Phase 3, Sections 3A and 3B (2021-30-FP) —Travis Baird, Asst. Planning Director AF Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for an Amending Plat, consisting of approximately 2.873 acres in the SPC Cemetery, Block 12, and a Portion of Block 13, generally located at 106 E 20TH ST to be known as Amending Plat of SPC Cemetery, Block 12, and a Portion of Block 13 (2022-35-FP) -- Patrick Collins, Senior Planner AG Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 0.312 acres in the Lot 28 & Part of Lot 29, Block 4, Country Club Acres Unit 5 at 1104 Parker Circle to be known as Replat of Lot 28 & Part of Lot 29, Block 4, Country Club Acres Unit 5 (2022-32-FP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner AH Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 17.43 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey Abstract No. 216, generally located at 2451 SH 195 to be known as Berry Creek Highlands Phase 5 (2022-37-FP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 21 August 16, 2022 Al Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 20.297 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 216 generally located at 2145 SH 195, to be known as Berry Creek Highlands Phase 4A (2022-38-FP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner AJ Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for an Amending Plat, consisting of approximately 10.041 acres in the Logan Ranch Section 1 Subdivision consisting of Lots 51 and 52, generally located at 141 and 131 Logan Ranch Road to be known as Amending Plat of Lots 51 and 52 Logan Ranch Section 1 (2022-39-FP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner AK Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 22.56 acres in the W. E. Pate Survey, located at North of FM 2233 and West of Parkside Pkwy to be known as Parkside on the River Phase 3 Section 5 (2022-44-FP)—Colleen Russell, Principal Planner AL Consideration and possible action to disapprove or the reasons set forth in the item in an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 70.02 acres in the Lewis P. Dyches Survey, A-171, generally located at 1006 Rocky Hollow Creek Drive to be known as Sun City Neighborhoods Sixty -Six and Ninety -Two (2022-46-FP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner AM Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 43.875 acres in the C. Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558 and in the Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 608, generally located at Spring Gulch Lane to be known as Wolf Ranch West, Section 2G (2021-53-FP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AN Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 19.438 acres in the Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 608, generally located at Highway 29 Georgetown, TX 78628 to be known as Wolf Ranch West, Section 5 (2021-87-FP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AO Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 58.008 acres in the 58.008 Wm. Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21 and the South Rockride Subdivision, generally located at 4301 Southwestern Blvd. to be known as Final Plat of Patterson Ranch Phase 1 (2021-89-FP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 21 August 16, 2022 AP Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for a Stormwater Permit, consisting of 10.92 acres in the W. A. Hemphill survey Abstract No. 283, generally located at 9538 SH 195 to be known as 9538 SH 195 (2022-17-SWP) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering AQ Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 12 acres in the Joseph P. Pulsifer Survey, Abstract No. 498, generally located at 510 Sunset Vista to be known as Novak Wolf Lakes Apartments (2022-4-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AR Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of Lot 1 of Pinnacle Plaza Subdivision, generally located at 2621 W. University Avenue to be known as Pinnacle Montessori Academy- Georgetown (2020-5-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner AS Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 10.8 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract No. 235, generally located at 2500 NE Inner Loop to be known as Wellhouse Business Park (2022-5-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AT Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo, consisting of approximately 23.62 acres in the Anthony Flores Survey, Abstract No. 235 and N. Porter Survey, Abstract No. 497, and William Addison Survey Abstract No. 21, generally located at 1101 N. College St. to be known as City of Georgetown Transfer Station - Fuel Farm Reconstruction (2022-10-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner AU Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Site Development Plan Minor Revision, consisting of approximately 16.76 acres in the C.H. Delaney Survey, Abstract No. 181, generally located at 2100 Parmer Ranch Blvd. to be known as The Cottages at Parmer Ranch (2021-12-SDP) — Grant White, Planner AV Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 4.87 acres in the Lot 22 & Part of Lot 21 of San Gabriel Estates, generally located at 800 Bootys Crossing Rd to be known as Georgetown Dog Ranch Expansion (2022-16-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 21 August 16, 2022 AW Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately Lot 7, Block, Wolf Crossing Lots 1A, 2-17 Block A Replat of Lot 1, Block A, generally located at 1411 S. IH-35 to be known as Wolf Crossing League Kitchen (2022-25-SDP) —Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director AX Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 20.17 acres in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, generally located at 3500 D B Wood Road to be known as Georgetown Firing Range (2022-28-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II AY Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 14.9 acres in the Windmill Hill, Phase 5, Lot 1, Block C, generally located at 1305 Blue Ridge Dr. to be known as Westinghouse Business Park (2022-37-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner Travis Baird explained that there was an outstanding real estate technical comment issue at the time of posting which has since been resolved. No outstanding issues with the application. Staff is asking to amend the item from disapproval to approval. Motion to approve Item AY by Commissioner Stanley. Second by Commissioner Dickey. Motion approved unanimously (6-0) AZ Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 17.516 acres in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No.13, generally located at Titan Drive to be known as Titan NorthPark35 VIII (2022-58- SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II BA Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 5.36 acres tract of land in Lot 4, Parmer Ranch Addition Phase 11, generally located at 10128 RM 2338 Georgetown, TX 78628 to be known as Parmer Ranch Amenity Center (2022-59-SDP) — Grant White, Planner BB Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 1.608 acre tract of land in Lot 52, Block F, Parkview Estates Section 9, Subdivision Recorded in Cabinet G, slide 575, lat records, in Williamson County, US, generally located at 301 FM 971 Georgetown, TX 78628 to be known as Parkview Estates Plaza (2022-61-SDP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 21 August 16, 2022 BC Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 1.45 acres in Bluebonnet Plaza, Lot 1, generally located at 1309 W. University Ave. to be known as Dutch Bros Coffee (2021-68-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner BD Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 4.73 acres in the B. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 216, generally located at 1501 Bch Way Georgetown, TX 78633 to be known as Berry Creek Amenity Center (2021-71-SDP) — Colleen Russell, Principal Planner Travis Baird explained that there was a mistake on the captioning, and there is an outstanding comment to correct the mitigation numbers and payment of the fee. Applicant is aware and will resubmit August 22"d The application is expected to return to P&Z September 6th. Staff is requesting that the item be amended to approve with the conditions that mitigation numbers be corrected and payment of all fees be completed. Motion to approve with conditions of mitigation plans and updated fees by Commissioner Dickey. Second by Commissioner Tiland. Motion approved unanimously (6-0) BE Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1417 Moonlight Terrace, bearing the legal description of Lot 20 Block S Wolf Ranch West Section 3, Phase 2 (2022-49-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BF Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1173 Silver Dollar Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 63, Block "B", Re - Plat of Wolf Ranch West, Section 4A (2022-51-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BG Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1001 Highcrest, bearing the legal description of Lot 2, Block "A", Wolf Ranch West Phase 1 (2022-33-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BH Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1005 Highcrest, bearing the legal description of Lot 3, Block "A", Wolf Ranch West Phase 1 (2022-34-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BI Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 220 Ashmore Ln, bearing the legal description of Lot 16, Block I, Wolf Ranch West (2022-36-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 21 August 16, 2022 BJ Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1169 Silver Dollar Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 64, Block B, Re - Plat of Wolf Ranch West, Section 4A (2022-50-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BK Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 125 Monterey Oak Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 7, Block B, Section 1, Hidden Oaks at Berry Creek (2022-54-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BL Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 814 North Fork Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 12, Block "K", Final Plat Lakeside Phase Three (2022-55-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BM Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1108 Silver Dollar Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 27, Block "C, Re - Plat of Wolf Ranch West, Section 4A (2022-56-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BN Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 1209 Silver Dollar Trail, bearing the legal description of Lot 58, Block "B", Re - Plat of Wolf Ranch West, Section 4A (2022-57-HT) — Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner BO Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit, for the property located at 701 Wolf Ridge Drive, bearing the legal description of Lot 74, Block "S", Wolf Ranch Section 3, Phase 2 (2022-52-HT) Rachel Hagan, Landscape Planner Motion to approve the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Stanley. Second by Commissioner Haynie. Approved unanimously (6-0). Legislative Regular Agenda BP Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone Lot 5B, Block B, Replat of Lot 513, Block B, The Rivery Phase One Subdivision from the Local Commercial (C-1) zoning district to the General Commercial (C-3) zoning district, for the property generally located at 708 South Interstate Highway 35 (2022-6-REZ). Cesar Acosta, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 21 August 16, 2022 Cesar Acosta presented the staff report and established that the applicant tis seeking a zoning map amendment to rezone their property from Local Commercial (C-1) zoning to the General Commercial (C- 3) zoning in order to allow for a broader range of uses permitted under C-3 zoning. Cesar discussed the future land use and overall transportation plan for the regional center, as well the location of the property in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, noting that it is adjacent to the IH-35 freeway, which is considered a Highway Corridor in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Cesar discussed the Gateway Overlay/Highway Corridor design guidelines, noting that land use along Highway Corridors is intended to be Commercial, retail or mixed -use in order to capitalize on highway visibility, and streetscaping should be auto oriented with enhanced landscaping near intersections. Sidewalks between the frontage road and buildings is appropriate. Cesar elaborated on the zoning guidelines for C-3, noting that the subject property is within the Regional Center future land use, where the primary uses supported are large scale commercial and retail developments, which are supported in the C-3 zoning district. All of the properties adjacent to the subject property are also zoned C-3, including a portion of the subject property itself. Thus, the proposed change is compatible with the existing zoning and uses in the surrounding area. The property is large enough to support the uses allowed in the C-3 zoning district and the site is already connected to city water, electric and wastewater services. Cesar reviewed the approval criteria, noting that staff reviewed the proposed rezoning request and has found that it complies with 5 of the 5 criteria established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for a Zoning Map Amendment. Cesar also noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners and registered neighborhood associations within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Zoning Map Amendment request (10 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper on Sunday July 31, 2022 and one sign were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor, and 0 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 6). Applicant is present to answer any questions. Chair Perthuis asked if the rezoningtriggered sidewalk requirements? Would it be on the site plan? Baird confirmed yes. Chair Perthuis opened the floor to Commissioners to discuss or ask questions. Chair Perthuis opened the public hearing. Chair Perthuis closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward. Motion by Commissioner Dickey to approve Item BP as presented. Second by Commissioner Stanley. Motion approved unanimously (6-0). BQ Consideration and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 42.172 acres out of the David Wright Survey Abstract No. 13 from the Agriculture (AG), zoning district to a Planned Unit Development District (PUD) zoning district, for the property generally located at 3001 IH-35 (2022-1-PUD )-Travis Baird-Asst. Planning Director Travis Baird presented the staff report and established that the applicant is seeking to acquire Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning of the subject property, which may deviate in some significant areas, including uses allowed per district, design standards, and landscaping/dimensional/site standards. Spoke Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 of 21 August 16, 2022 to the location of the property, surrounding physical and natural features, the surrounding properties, the history of the property, and to the changes to Aviation drive as compared to the future land use zoning. Baird discussed Land use ratios and existing zoning of the area, as well as the City's future land use and overall transportation plan. Baird explained that the Business Park (BP) zoning district is intended to provide a location for office, research, and light industrial uses typically located as part of a large development, and the BP District may be appropriate adjacent to residential areas, provided that there is adequate buffering and pedestrian and vehicular access to the residential area for workers in the business park. The BP District typically has more traffic than in an office area, but fewer heavy vehicles than in an industrial area, and is a special purpose district because it has a minimum size acreage for limited complementary uses that may expand with the size of the park. Larger parks often include commercial activities such as restaurants, banks, day care and similar uses that are intended to serve the on -site community and may include some limited high -density residential. Typical uses permitted in this zoning district include medical complex, data center, limited contractor services, research and testing, and limited manufacturing uses. Other uses may be approved subject to additional site design standards such as hotels, fitness centers, general retail and restaurants. Uses such as fuel sales and car wash require approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the City Council. The General Commercial (C-3) zoning district is intended to provide a location for general commercial and retail activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only appropriate along freeways and major arterials. Permitted uses in this district include, but are not limited to, general retail, hotels, restaurants, and general office. Other uses such as activity center, bar/tavern/pub, college/university, fuel sales, and event facility among others are permitted subject to specific design limitations. Certain land uses, including automotive sales, rental or leasing facilities, require a Special Use Permit (SUP). Baird explained that the PUD proposal included significant changes to allowed uses within each of these zoning districts, primarily the expansion of uses allowed. For Business Park (BP), the changes include the expansion of commercial uses, as well as industrial uses. In C-3, there is expansion of the residential types allowed, to include attached multi -family, and the allowance of certain other uses, or removal of restrictions. Fuel services and carwashes would be allowed though limited to one station within the PUD area. Baird reviewed the approval criteria and established that staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed request Complies with 4, Partially Complies with 3, and Does Not Comply 4 of the 11 the criteria established in UDC Sections 3.06.030 & 3.06.040 for Planned Unit Development application. As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners and registered neighborhood associations within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Zoning Map Amendment request (7 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (July 3, 2022) and signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor, and 0 in opposition to the request. Baird clarified that the item had been postponed from their late June meeting. Applicant is here to answer questions and wishes to address the Commission. Chair Perthuis opened the floor to questions or comments from the Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13 of 21 August 16, 2022 Commissioner Dickey clarified that zoning of the future Georgetown Ready Learning Center was now zoned as PF? Baird confirmed yes, the map just had not been updated. Commissioner Stanley asked about PUD unique conditions, and if the city staff was able to identify any unique features? Baird said that if there is a unique physical feature on the property that could create some exceptional development issues that could not be solved through the variance path, the PUD offers opportunity for that to be resolved. The other unique condition is for exceptional type development. Commissioner Stanley asked if City staff was able to identify either of those conditions on this property? Baird said that given the criteria, there is opportunity for it, but it has not been identified as the PUD is proposed now. Commissioner Tiland asked if the north-east portion was zoned as MF, and if that is part of the PUD proposal? Baird clarified that that portion would not be zoned as MF, but C-3 instead. There is opportunity for that 6 %2 acres to develop with commercial use and would then meet the full intent of the Comprehensive Plan. This PUD changes the use table of C-3 to allow multifamily attached. Baird clarified that this could only happen north of Sanaloma. The applicant, Sal Perdomo, Titan Development, approached the podium to address the Commission. Sal voiced his appreciation for the partnership between the City of Georgetown and Titan Development and established that they had modeled this PUD's standards off the Gateway site across the street Georgetown code does poor job of outlining industrial use standards. Spoke to the location of the project, noting that there is adjacency to Berry Springs Park and Nature Preserve, proximity to IH-35 and 130, proximity to industrial. Perdomo went over the Concept Site Plan, including potential elements within the development such as retail, neighborhood commercial, medical office, hospitality, multi- family, light industrial, residential, etc. Perdomo spoke to the light industrial uses allowed within the PUD and clarified that it would be different from previous Titan Development projects in town. The limited depth of site only allows for smaller, shallower bays with the potential for larger office spaces, and the site is designed so that the dock doors face the industrial uses to the west, not the interstate. Perdomo discussed the Regional Center designation (page 5 staff report) and reiterated that the uses allowed in the Comprehensive Plan are what is intended for the PUD. Perdomo noted that access from the north is very early (about a mile and a half North of the site), and they would like to develop retail, but tenants have not indicated this is a good retail site. As a result, they have pivoted to allow for more office industrial uses to bring into multi -family and make the site more mixed -use. Perdomo outlined items in relation to intended multi -family use, including restricting housing to the North end of the site near the park, restricting the size of multi -family uses to 3-4 acres due to floodplain and grading issues, promoting walkability throughout the project, and urban style housing designs. Perdomo concluded by displaying renderings of the project as well as past Titan Development jobs and spoke to their role in alleviating rising unaffordability in Austin. Chair Perthuis asked what the reasoning behind the request to include car wash/fuel sale without a SUP was? Perdomo explained that the location is appropriate for fuel sales due to the amount of truck traffic along Aviation and access to exit 130 and IH-35. They could take or leave the car wash; it is not completely necessary. Chair Perthuis asked why they are taking out the requirement for SUP? The City has worked to get fuel sales as SUP. Perdomo inquired as to the purpose of the City pushing SUPS? Perthuis clarified that it gives the City another layer of review (tool to determine where they will be Planning & Zoning Commission Page 14 of 21 August 16, 2022 located on a specific basis). Perdomo said that he was fine with approval with conditions to change the limitation allowed on the site for the fuel sales and car wash. Chair Perthuis asked why not zone the property MF-2? Perdomo said there is no actual reason, they just were not getting the demand they were hoping for, so the project went down a different road. They would also be fine with rezoning the multifamily piece north of Sanaloma to multi -family instead of C-3. Chair Perthuis asked for clarification on why they are focused on walkability between retail and multi- family when there has been no demand for retail. Is the idea that the multi -family can drive some retail users there? Perdomo said resident connectivity to retail pads (restaurants, fast food, and QSR) is more the focus, as big box retailers have not shown much interest. Perdomo also clarified the difference between big box and retail pads interest; they are not seeing much interest from big -box retailers due to the access point to the north, but they are seeing retail pad user interest. It may not fill up in a year but there is more interest there. Commissioner Dickey asked where Sienna Peak Drive is located on the Concept Map. Perdomo said that it is anticipated to go along the back of the site along the power lines and noted that several concept plans have had it running through the middle of the project to buffer the potential light industrial uses from the retail pads. Commissioner Dickey clarified that the current alignment has Sienna Drive at the back of the site? Perdomo confirmed, yes. Baird approached the podium to provide some clarification on the location of Sienna Peak Dr. because it is not included on the PUD. One of the requirements would be the setbacks we have and how that relates to the loading docks, so the PUD may change because it currently shows it in a different alignment tonight. Perdomo said they understand that there may be amendments to the PUD and OTP due to the early conceptual stage the project is in. Chair Perthuis opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward to speak. Motion by Chair Perthuis to deny as presented. Second by Commissioner Stanley. Chair Perthuis opened the floor to the Commissioners for discussion. Chair Perthuis suggested that they could go to City Council and hash it out, as they have final say. SUP is an issue. Commissioner Dickey asked if we will see a lot of PUDs asking to waive the SUP requirement? Shouldn't PUD be a one -stop shop? Baird clarified that a PUD is to provide certain development standards to target. If they are looking to include that, then they could potentially remove the SUP requirement, but that does not mean every developer would. A PUD is not necessarily supposed to be the tool that gives ultimate flexibility, but instead create a concept of how the area will develop clearly. Commissioner Haynie asked if City Council would need a super majority if we deny? Baird said yes, if this Commission chooses to deny this item, it would require a super majority at Council to be approved. Chair Perthuis remarked that he does not think the item is approvable as presented. Commissioner Haynie agreed. Chair Perthuis said they are not far off, and it may be something they could get sorted out at the Council level. Commissioner Haynie asked if that is putting a burden on them (re: requiring super -majority)? Planning & Zoning Commission Page 15 of 21 August 16, 2022 Perdomo asked if the Commission could approve with conditions to change Limited use to SUP for fuel sales and car wash and update that before going to Council? Chair Perthuis asked if we could conditionally approve a PUD? Baird said the applicant would have the opportunity to make that alteration. Unsure of the function if the change was not made between now and the time of the Council meeting. The Item before you is for approval as presented. Sofia Nelson approached the podium and clarified that they can include a condition for a SUP to allow fuel station in their recommendation to Council if that is their only issue with the PUD. If they would like to see other alterations, then those conditions would need to be re -noticed and come back at a later date for consideration. Commissioner Stanley remarked that he is not sold on walkability or the county's actions on apartment complexes, or intersection/north exit on interstate. This is a primed C-3 spot and he will not approve with a gas station. Commissioner Dickey asked if it is an option to table it? Chair Perthuis remarked that he does not see this having an issue getting resolved at Council. Baird clarified that this is not a shot -clock item, and failure to act does not mean automatic approval. IF the applicant would like to table the item, they could do so, but tabling it from the dais may not achieve the desired effect. Chair Perthuis remarked that some multi -family projects they have recommended approval for have gone a different way at Council, so this item may just be something they need to sort out at that level. Perdomo approached the podium and established that they prefer to table it, work through the items, and come back to the Commission later so as not to push it through unnecessarily. Perdomo asked what the other items were that he does not like? Chair Perthuis said it was the multi -family portion and targeted uses vs what is allowed; if you are not going after heavier industrial uses, then those do not need to be allowed by right, or they could include a SUP. His concern is that it is approved and then there is heavy industrial use next to retail or MF-2; not necessarily targeted, but it could happen down the road. Most issues had to do with more intense uses included. Perdomo said they can probably amend some of those uses. Chair Perthuis clarified that including a SUP for some of the heavier uses triggers notice requirements and gives people a chance to come to a meeting and talk through/understand the requested use in their area. Baird said that staff can work together with the applicant to make those adjustments. Commissioner Stanley remarked that he appreciated Baird comparing UDC to PUD in the staff presentation. Baird gave credit to Titan for providing that in a helpful format. Chair Perthuis said that it might be helpful to provide a clear site plan on where road alignment is to determine spacing and setback requirements, as well as landscape buffers and road locations. Motion Withdrawn by Chair Perthuis. Motion to postpone Item BQ as presented by Commissioner Dickey. Chair Perthuis asked the Applicant to approach the podium to request postponement of Item BQ to a future meeting for the record. Applicant requested postponement of the Item. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 16 of 21 August 16, 2022 Second by Commissioner Stanley. Motion approved unanimously (6-0) BR Public Hearing and possible action on a Subdivision Variance from the requirement to extend public wastewater to an adjacent property pursuant to Section 13.02.020 of the Unified Development Code, for the property located at 610 Blue Springs Blvd, bearing the legal description of Lot 1, Block A of Blue Springs Business Park (2022-25-WAV) - Mayra Cantu, Strategic Support Manager and Grant White, Planner Mayra Cantu presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting a subdivision variance from the requirement to extend public wastewater along Blue Springs Blvd and Blue Ridge Dr pursuant and instead connect to an existing line. She established that if this were approved, it would require a lift station, which is something that the City does not recommend in their wastewater system and tries to avoid. Cantu reviewed the property location along the southeast corner of SE Inner Loop and Blue Springs Blvd and spoke to the surrounding properties, Future Land Use designation, existing uses of the adjacent properties, and the property's history. Cantu spoke to the unique elevation of the site, surrounding wastewater connections that were possible due to similar elevations, and the county's neighboring ETJ property. Cantu reviewed the approval criteria and established that staff found that the variance request meets 0 out of the 5 criteria and does not recommend approval of the request given our codes strong preference for a gravity system that would properly serve this area and those around it. Cantu confirmed that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300- foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Subdivision Variance request (10 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper July 31, 2022 and signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor, and 0 in opposition to the request. Chair Perthuis opened the floor for Commissioner questions. Applicant is here and wishes to address the Commission. Amil Nike, Drenner Group representing Molto (Owner and Developer), approached the podium to address the Commission and spoke to the location of the property and the three industrial warehouse buildings proposed, as well as the city's avoidance of siphons and lift stations. Nike displayed a map of the contours/elevations, existing water lines, surroundings of the property, and the adjacent ETJ property owned by the county. Nike analyzed the proposed wastewater line itself: the line would be about 2200 linear feet; depth would be at about 20 ft and would require construction on the roadway. Nike reviewed other options, including an existing line to the west, and reviewed the Williamson County Facility Master Plan as well as the Trails Master Plan, which shows a future trail through county owned property adjacent to floodplain/natural channel. Nike said that based on their initial engineering information (barring unforeseen circumstances), servicing the blue property would not require a lift station, but instead could be done on a gravity line. Nike spoke to unnecessary hardship if required to construct a new wastewater line, and reiterated that the request is that the City not require the gravity system along Blue Springs Blvd, but rather allow wastewater to the property through connection to an Planning & Zoning Commission Page 17 of 21 August 16, 2022 existing line to the west, which is still a gravity system. If variance is approved, subdivision of the land is still possible. Chair Perthuis opened the floor for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Stanley inquired about the 85% of the county property not serviced by the drain line. Nike stated that they do not know the county's intention for the land. Commissioner Stanley questioned the relevance of the county's plan for the land; Isn't that why you have to carry the wastewater line through - because you are not sure if Williamson County is going to turn around and sell the land to a developer? Nike argued that any development trying to connect to the system would need to be pumped. Chair Perthuis established that the Williamson County property is not the subject of the application and the conversation is getting off track. Nike (answering Commissioner Stanley's question) said that assuming there is a building on the Williamson County property, they would have access to the line with this system. Commissioner Haynie asked for clarification on manhole and contour lines, and asked staff if the south side of the property was looked at to bring a line to the County property along the low point? Staff discussed the location of connection to wastewater line, referencing the map of the property to do so. Emily Mahony, Civil Engineer with Langan Engineering and Environmental Services approached the podium to answer Commissioner Haynie's question. She discussed looking at alternative options, including acquiring an easement from Rock Springs Hospital's property, but there is existing infrastructure, several heritage trees, and issues with depth and wet basins that limit that option. Mahoney clarified that the extension discussed to the west of the subject property would not provide service to their site and they are not proposing lift station service to their site. All neighboring properties besides the Williamson County owned property have existing wastewater service. Chair Perthuis requested clarification from staff if other options were reviewed since this application meets none of the approval criteria. Lua Saluone said that the applicant looked at service to the east, but he is not sure what other options were explored. He does not dispute the applicant's claim of exploring other options around the property. Chair Perthuis asked for further clarification on why they are going down Blue Ridge Drive. Cantu established that the code requires that the sides of the property need an extension of service so that additional properties are not cut off from wastewater. Lua clarified that the reason for the extension along Blue Springs Ridge is the cul-de-sac and the frontage along that road. Chair Perthuis asked if they bring the line down Blue Springs Blvd and Rd, would that serve all the properties we are examining? Lua said yes, there is spot on the far east side that might be cut off, but there is no land plan for that site. Nike commented that construction of any line in the area would still require a 20 ft deep manhole in that location, adding more infrastructure to get service to the property. Lua established that they are okay with 20-foot manholes, potentially up to 60 feet. Digging deeper is a risk, but he would not deny 20 ft with appropriate construction methods. Cantu commented that this requires a supermajority of the Commission in order to approve. Chair Perthuis opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward. Motion by Commissioner Dickey to deny as presented based on the fact that the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the area, that it would substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, that the conditions that Planning & Zoning Commission Page 18 of 21 August 16, 2022 create the need for the variance would generally apply to other property in the vicinity, that the application for this provision will render subdivision of the land impossible, that it would render it impossible to divide where the literal enforcement of these regulations does not result in any unnecessary hardship. Second by Chair Perthuis. Chair Perthuis commented that he cannot see an unnecessary hardship that is not a financial one, which is not means for approval. Motion approved unanimously (6-0). BS Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the Fuel Sales Use in the Local Commercial (C-1) zoning district on the property located at 1910 NE Inner Loop, bearing the legal description of Lot 2, Amended Plat of Katy School Subdivision (2022-6-SUP). Ryan Clark, Planner II Ryan Clark presented the Staff Report and established that the applicant is requesting Fuel Sales with an accessory one -bay automatic car wash in the Local Commercial (C-1) zoning district at 1910 Northeast Inner Loop. Their Letter of Intent states that they intend to use the property for 35,200 square feet of retail across four buildings in addition to the fuel sales and on -bay car wash. It is currently undetermined when these retail uses will be developed in relation to the fuel sales. Clark spoke to the location and Future Land Use and Zoning Designations, as well as the surrounding properties and restrictions for the current zoning of the property. Clark reviewed the Gateways and Image Corridor design standards, including land use and building design as well as streetscape standards, the Comprehensive Plan Guidance for Mixed Density Neighborhoods (MDN) and Community Centers (CC), and other Master Plans including Scenic Corridors and the Master Trail Plan. Clark said that staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other applicable codes and determined that the proposed request complies with 3 and partially complies with 1 of the 4 criteria established in UDC Section 3.07.030.0 for a Special Use Permit and complies with 2 and partially complies with 3 of the 5 criteria established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for a Zoning Map Amendment. As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners and registered neighborhood associations within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Special Use Permit request (10 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (Sunday, July 31, 2022) and signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 1 written comment in favor, 1 neither in favor or opposition, and 0 in opposition to the request. Clark concluded the staff report by noting that if approved, staff recommends placing the following conditions on the request: 1) that the proposed retail buildings as shown on the conceptual plan shall be included in the same Site Development Plan Application as the Fuel Sales, 2) that the Conceptual Plan shall be revised to locate the convenience store adjacent to the ROW so that the fuel sales canopy and parking are not between the ROW and the convenience store. Applicant Jim Whittliff is present to answer questions from the Commission. Chair Perthuis opened the floor for questions or discussion from Commissioners. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 19 of 21 August 16, 2022 Commissioner Dickey clarified on the last condition and asked if the retail and fuel sale building locations be flipped? Clark confirmed yes, in order to place the convenience store along the scenic corridor in order to orient the buildings towards the street. Commissioner Haynie asked if flipped, would you see the trash from the street? Clark replied that code requires trash to be on the backside of the building, but the end design may end up having the functional back of the building be on the side, but he defers to the Commission's judgement. The buildings would still need to meet architectural requirements looking out FM 971. Chair Perthuis referred to the approval criteria in reference to the site's proximity to intersections and asked if there were any applications for that? Clark replied that there is not an exit to 130 right there, and traffic flow would likely be coming through FM 971 Inner Loop to the ramp onto 130. We will likely see an application at the intersection of 130 and 971 (NE side) in the future. Chair Perthuis asked the applicant if they have a fuel service user identified for the property? Whittliff confirmed, yes. Chair Perthuis asked if retail space users have been identified? Whittliff said no. Chair Perthuis asked about a timeline for those spaces? Whittliff replied that they are only requesting a SUP for the gas station but are not up to date on the rest of the development. The owner plans to market and lease the land to someone in the future. Whittliff commented that Clark's suggestion of flipping the location of the gas station and retail space was new to him, and would've liked to have heard this suggestion as it had been a long while since they had submitted the application to the City. Whittliff complemented City staffs comprehensive analysis but argued that the convenience store and fuel sale stations are symbiotic, and he does not believe that they can work if flipped as suggested. He asked the Commission to not include the flipping of the convenience store and fuel sales as a condition of their approval of the item. Chair Perthuis opened the public hearing. Scott Strance, 111 Parque Vista Dr. approached the podium to address the Commission. Laura Smith, 334 Avalanche Ave. ceded her time to Scott. Strance commended the City staff on their review of the SUP and elaborated on their comments regarding the orientation of the buildings along the Scenic Corridor and noted that the P&Z Commission has an opportunity to maintain these corridors. Strance spoke to the back area of properties and how their presentation is not in line with scenic corridor guidelines, and he voiced his concern with the view from FM 971 towards the backs of the buildings. Chair Perthuis closed the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of Item BS with the condition that the proposed retail buildings as shown on the conceptual plan shall be included in the same Site Development Plan Application as the Fuel Sales by Commissioner Dickey. Second by Commissioner Haynie. Chair Perthuis opened the floor to Commissioners for discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 20 of 21 August 16, 2022 Chair Perthuis clarified that the SUP is just for the ability to build a gas station on the site. The orientation and positioning of buildings would become a concern when a Site Development Plan is applied for and heard by the Commission. Chair Perthuis commented that he thinks there should be a recommendation that some retail be built out before the gas station, perhaps 25%? Can we condition that on an SDP? Baird replied that upon guidance from the legal department, we cannot successfully enforce a requirement to build some buildings before others without structuring the applicant's phasing plan. Chair Perthuis asked what the vehicle is to get there? Baird said the best way we could enforce that would be through phasing the site plan. The investment it requires, as well as engineering and infrastructure planning typically cannot be left behind. Not sure of another way to enforce building retail before fuel sales. Motion approved (4-2, Perthuis and Stanley opposed) BT Discussion Items: Updates and Announcements (Sofia Nelson, Planning Director) Baird introduced Olivia Beams and Haley Webre to the Commission as the Planning Department's new Associate Planners. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Project 2022-5-SUP for approval; City Council denied the project at VL reading. We have taken in 34 Shot Clock Waivers across 5 submittal dates, meaning about 15% of new applications are waiving the Shot Clock process. We are hoping to see these numbers climb, but the initial results are promising. Reminder of the September 6, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in Council Chambers located at 510 W 9th St, starting at 6:00pm. Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting by Chair Perthuis. Second by Commissioner Haynie. Motion approved (5-0). The Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. � l Travis Perthuis, Chair Attest, Steve qckey, Se tary Planning & Zoning Commission Page 21 of 21 August 16, 2022