HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_02.01.2000Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, February 1, 2000
Vice-Chair, Patrick Walsh, called the February 1, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m., and explained the meeting process. Other Commissioners present were Charles
Parker, Gabe Sansing, Sarah Milburn, Jack Noble and Don Nadon. Marjorie Herbert was absent.
Staff members present were Ed Barry, Director, Donna Stump, Legal Counsel, Scott Ingalls, Chief
Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Wendy Walsh, Development Planner,
Tom Bolt, Development Planner, Carla Benton, Development Technician, Jim Babcock, Development
Technician, and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary.
1. Election of Officers. Jack Noble nominated Patrick Walsh for Chair. Don Nadon seconded the
nomination. With no further nominations, Patrick Walsh was elected by a vote of 5-0-1. (Patrick
Walsh abstained from voting.) Charles Parker nominated Gabe Sansing for Vice-Chair. Jack
Noble seconded the nomination. With no further nominations, Gabe Sansing was elected by a
vote of 5-0-1. (Gabe Sansing abstained from voting.)
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the January 4, 2000, and January 12,
2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings.
5. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of 0.498 acres in the
City of Georgetown, Division A, Outlot 2 and 14, to be known as Aloma White Addition,
located at the southwest corner of Hart and West 16th Streets, with Variances to the
Subdivision Regulations.
Items #3 and #4 were pulled from the Consent Agenda to be considered individually by the
Commission.
Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Charles Parker
seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
Regular Agenda
3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 35.02 acres in the John
Sutherland Survey, to be known as The Woods of Fountainwood, Phase 2, located along
Diamond Trail, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. David Munk gave the staff report
and recommendation. Tom Watts was present. Richard Jeske, adjacent property owner,
addressed the Commission. He informed the Commission that he had had a meeting with
Bobby Fredrickson to discuss a land swap for the proposed High Line Drive ROW extension
along a shared property line, but until that is done, he objected to action being taken on this
item. Patrick Walsh read Technical Item #5 of the staff report which stat ed, “The necessary
documentation should be submitted to the City that confirms that Mr. Jeske will allow High Line
Drive to be aligned to cross his property or the street will need to be realigned to allow for futur e
extension to the south without crossing the Jeske property”. Mr. Jeske agreed that this would
take care of his problem with the proposed project. After the discussion, Sarah Milburn made a
motion to approve the Public Review Final Plat of the Woods of Fountainwood, Phase 2,
provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration with a
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 2
recommendation to approve the following variances:
Section 33030 G.1., to allow 50 foot rights-of-way for Hallie Court and Trail Wood
provided that:
The Williamson County Commissioners’ Court accepts the 50 foot rights -of-way;
If it is determined during the construction plan phase that roadside channels are
required, a 15 foot drainage easement coincident with the existing 15 foot PUE
will be included with the Record Final Plat, and
Section 36050 of the Subdivision Regulations, to allow the width of Lots 21 and 22 at
the Hallie Court cul-de-sac to be 75.00 and 63.42 feet respectively, at the front property
lines, after making the required findings of fact.
Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
4. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of Glasscock Addition, Block 3, Lots 1-8,
from C-2B, Commercial Second Height, C-2A, Commercial First Height and RS, Residential
Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height, or any more restrictive district, locally known as
First Texas Bank, located at 900 S. Austin Avenue. Carla Benton gave the staff report and
recommendation. Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve a rezoning of Glasscock Addition,
Block 3, Lots 1 thru 8, from C-2B, Commercial Second Height, C-2A, Commercial First and RS,
Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height. Sarah Milburn seconded the
motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0.
Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock Addition,
Block 3, Lots 1-8, for an addition to First Texas Bank, located at 900 S. Austin Avenue, with
Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Carla Benton gave the staff report and
recommendation. Jack Noble stated that he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda
because of some of the variances that were requested, but that now he understands that a
change in use would trigger a new site plan and he is comfortable with staff’s recommendation.
Patrick Walsh stated that with the project being located where it is, he felt that it is “in tune”
with the proposed Urban Design standards and plans for the downtown area. Gabe Sansing
was concerned that the parking would not be adequate if a higher use, such as a restaurant,
moved there, but he didn’t see any other options. Ed Barry stated that a different use, such
as a restaurant, would require a new site plan review. After the discussion, Gabe Sansing
made a motion to recommend approval of the Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock
Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 thru 8, with the following variances to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations:
Section 6.304F to allow the existing landscape along all rights-of-ways and the shrubs
on site in place of the required Type D bufferyards,
Section 7.102 Table 7A, to allow the reduction from the required 115 parking spaces to
the existing 54 parking spaces,
Sections 2.0303c, 6.106 and 8.202, to allow the existing 85 percent impervious
coverage which is 10 percent over the 75.7% allowed,
Sections 8.201 and 8.202, to allow the existing parking and building canopy to encroach
into the required setback areas along street rights -of-ways,
Section 8.202, to allow the construction of a 5,800 square foot second story over the
drive-thru lanes with a five foot encroachment into the building setback,
Table 33030-A to allow driveway separations that are not in accordance with required
separation on Austin Avenue, on Rock Street and on 10th Street.
Section 33042 to allow a driveway width in excess of 30 feet by 35 feet.
Section 33044 to allow driveway separation from intersections that are not in
accordance with required separation on Austin Avenue, Rock Street and 10th Street.
Section 34020 to allow the existing number of driveways to remain, with the condition
that two antique street lights and two antique park benches, matching the downtown
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 3
style be installed, after making the required finds of fact.
Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
6. Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan of River Oaks-IH35
Business Park, Lots 9 and 10, to be known as Waters Edge Apartments II, located on River
Oaks Cove, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations, to also include San Gabriel Village,
Section One, Block 1, Lot 2. Tom Bolt gave the staff report and recommendation. Sarah
Milburn asked about parking for the club house shown on the DDP. Patrick Walsh asked about
overflow parking for the apartments. Sarah Milburn asked if they were at, or above the parking
requirements in Phase I. Gabe Sansing asked about visitor parking. Larry Peel, the developer,
addressed the Commission and responded to its questions. He stated that the first phase was
not as wooded as this one and showed the Commission pictures of the heavily- wooded site.
He stated that getting the required number of parking spaces is not the problem. The problem
is the location of the parking spaces. If the parking spaces are not convenient, the residents
won’t use them. He stated that they would like an additional, unallocated 10 spaces, to where
they can put them to save tree islands and have staff to verify that they are breaking up the
parking. He stated that they have plenty of parking. There are a number of spaces “left over”
from Phase I that no one will use, because of their location. Mr. Peel informed the Commission
that the City of Georgetown’s parking standard of 2 spaces per unit is above those standards in
Austin, Bastrop, Fredericksburg, Houston, San Antonio, New Braunfels and Seguin, where the
standard is 1 ½ spaces for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for 2 bedroom units. Ms. Milburn
asked how many units are 1 bedroom and how many are 2 bedroom. Mr. Peel stated that half
are 1 bedroom and half are 2 bedroom. He stated that the club house in question and s hown
on the DDP is a secondary clubhouse and won’t be greatly used. He stated that he has come
up with a “hammerhead” design to relocate the 3 parking spaces outside of the front setback,
adjacent to the River Oaks Cove right-of-way, as shown on the DDP. Gabe Sansing asked Mr.
Peel to explain his request for the additional 10 spaces to save trees, which will give 280
spaces instead of 290. Mr. Peel responded that he wanted an additional 10 so that if he found
a clump of trees or cedars which he would like to save and make tree islands, he could. He
would be willing to have staff verify this. He stated that using Austin’s code, there would be a
requirement for 264 spaces and with the 280 spaces, they would still be over and above that.
Sarah Milburn stated that she was in favor of conserving any type of trees, and will accept the
applicant’s experience and input and was in favor of granting the additional 10 spaces. Gabe
Sansing stated that it didn’t make sense to give up 10 additional spaces to him but he was in
favor of the new hammerhead design for the clubhouse. Patrick Walsh asked what
mechanism would be used for verifying preservation of the trees in lieu of the additional 10
parking spaces. Ed Barry responded that staff would go on site with the applicant and verify
compliance. Charles Parker asked if the applicant could come back to the Commission for the
additional parking variance after construction is underway. Ed Barry stated that they could.
Patrick Walsh stated that his only reservation is the lack of public transportation in Georgetown,
but it appears that the overflow parking would probably be adequate in this case. He asked
how to handle the new “hammerhead” design for the parking at the clubhouse. Ed Barry stated
that if the new design meets the ordinance, the change can be made administratively. Jack
Noble encouraged the applicant to look for ways of conserving trees. After the extensive
discussion, Charles Parker made a motion to approve the Detailed Development Plan of River
Oaks - IH-35 Business Park, Lots 9 and 10, to be known as Waters Edge Apartments II,
provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, with approval
of variances to:
Table 33052 to allow 10 fewer parking spaces than is required in order to preserve trees
on site;
Section 34020 G.2. of the Subdivision Regulations, to allow impervious cover to
encroach within the north side setback of River Oaks - IH-35 Business Park, Lot 10 and
the south side setback of San Gabriel Village, Section One, Block 1, Lot 2, to complete
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 4
the driveway connection between the two phases of Waters Edge Apartments, after
making the required findings of fact.
Also, denial of a variance to Sections 33051 and 34020 G.1. of the Subdivision Regulations,
thereby requiring that the parking spaces adjacent to the River Oaks Cove right -of-way are
relocated outside of the front setback.
Sarah Milburn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Parker encouraged the
applicant to work with staff on 10 other parking spaces in order to preserve trees where
possible.
7. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of 27.11 acres in the Williams Roberts and
John Berry Surveys, to be known as Bishop Ranch at Berry Creek, Phase 1, from A,
Agricultural to RS, Residential Single Family, or any more restrictive district, located at the
northeast corner of Airport Road and Briarcrest Drive.
Consideration and possible action on a Concept Plan of 70.324 acres in the Williams Roberts
and John Berry Surveys, to be known as Bishop Ranch at Berry Creek, located at the
northeast corner of Airport Road and Briarcrest Drive.
David Munk gave the staff report and recommendation. Al Peterson, the applicant, concurred
with staff except for the right-of-way (ROW) along Airport Road. He stated that in the Century
Plan, Airport Road is a minor arterial. In the Subdivision Regulations a minor arterial has an
80'-100' ROW with a maximum of 40'-44' paving width. He said that the staff is talking about
going to a 5 lane road with a 55'-60' paving width. He stated that he believed this to be
excessive for a seven-tenths of a mile stretch of road. Mr. Peterson also asked that the 10'
Public Utility and Drainage Easement be granted at final plat stage, instead of this conceptual
stage. In addition, he was concerned with the easement taking 10' of space on each lot along
the street. Jacki Ellason, 7550 Airport Road, asked the Commission to give careful
consideration to the capacity of the wells serving that subdivision to ensure adequate water
supply for the Bishop Ranch residents and the existing residents. David Munk responded that
COU did a preliminary layout of the 50'-55' width street, and it will be required for Airport Road.
Ed Barry stated that the intent of listing the 10 foot Public Utility and Drainage Easement in the
staff report was to put the applicant on notice that it may be necessary at time of platting. He
also stated that the easement will be a part of the lots and there will be no loss of lot area
because of it. David Munk stated that the City will provide water and wastewater service to this
subdivision. Charles Parker stated that this is a good plan as a Concept Plan. Gabe Sansing
said to consider the south side of road for ROW, and that the roads should align. After the
discussion, Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Rezoning of 27.11 acres in the
Williams Roberts and John Berry Surveys, to be known as Bishop Ranch at Berry Creek, from
A, Agricultural to RS, Residential Single Family; and approval of a Concept Plan of 70.324
acres in the Williams Roberts and John Berry Surveys, to be known as Bishop Ranch at Berry
Creek, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Jack
Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.
8. Consideration and possible action on a Century Plan Amendment of River Hills, Section 4
and The Rivery, Lots 1, 2 and 3, from Intensity Levels 3, 4 5 and 6 to Intensity Level 5, to be
known as The Rivery, Phase 1, located on IH35 and Rivery Boulevard.
Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of River Hills, Section 4, from RM-3,
Residential-Office and Service District to C-1, Local Commercial; and a 43.99 acre portion of
The Rivery, Lot 1, from C-2A, Commercial First Height Restricted, to C-2A, Commercial First
Height, removing the prohibition against residential use, or any more restrictive district.
Consideration and possible action on a Concept Plan of Rivery Subdivision, Lot 1 and River
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 5
Hills, Section 4, to be known as The Rivery, Phase 1, located on IH35 and Rivery Boulevard.
Scott Ingalls gave the staff report and recommendation.
Charles Parker asked how this Century Plan Amendment would affect future development on
the other 2 lots. Ed Barry responded that this should be ample capacity for both tracts, but
should the developer of Lots 2 and 3 need additional capacity in the future, they would have to
come in for another amendment. Mr. Parker then asked if this development was going to assist
in the bridge tying Rivery Boulevard to Williams Drive. Scott Ingalls responded yes. Patrick
Walsh asked why this property was restricted to multi-family in the beginning. Ed Barry
responded that the purpose of excluding all residential uses from this property was from the
stand point of the City’s fiscal stability. This is a prime site and numerous proposals had been
made, even for single family, but recognizing that this could be a substantial sales tax generator
for the City, it was the Council’s feeling that this site needed to be preserved for a higher use.
All residential uses were precluded from this site, recognizing there would be some reasonable
amount of residential uses ultimately, but the Council wanted to reserve that decision until they
saw a specific proposal. John Weber, agent, addressed the Commission, and introduced the
project development team. John Noell, Urban Design Group, Engineer, addressed the
Commission and stated that the developers have met with neighbors and staff to address
specific concerns. He discussed connectivity to adjacent neighborhood and a possible
“round-a-bout” with landscaping at the center. They would respect the buffer zones that are
already in place between this development and the adjacent neighborhood.
Pam Moore, 111 N. Oak Hollow Road - Asked why change the Intensity Level to a standard
Intensity Level 5. She had concerns about the height of buildings, and stated that she didn’t
want 3, 4 and 5 story buildings. She stated that she was totally against the proposed request
and wished for the Commission to table in order to have further meetings with the developer.
Maura Crichton, 201 River Hills Drive - Also suggested a delay until a chance to meet with the
developers because the residents only got a chance to meet with Scott Ingalls and John Noell.
She voiced her opposition to the Century Plan Amendment and Zoning changes, as they stand.
She also stated that because of the changes to the on and off ramps on the frontage road, the
residents of River Hills cannot get out of their neighborhood without problems. With 800
apartments and commercial development, all traffic would be directed on to the frontage road.
She stated the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of this development and asked the
developers to consider the aesthetics of the property as well.
Richard Winter, 203 North Oak Hollow. - Wanted to echo the comments of the other speakers,
stating his wishes to have a development that will enhance the beauty of the property, provide a
tax base for the City and would like to see a gradation of development with appropriate
buffering. He felt that there needed to be more study.
Jimmy Redwine, 108 Hillview - Voiced his concerns regarding the “one way in and one way
out” situation in this neighborhood, and the possibility of construction traffic spilling onto Hillv iew
Drive. He questioned the 150' buffer shown on the Concept Plan.
Kay Ingham, 100 Hillview Drive - Was concerned with Hillview Drive traffic coming from the
proposed apartment residents.
Patrick Walsh asked if there was a mechanism for the developer to meet with the neighborhood
and try to deal with these issues privately and then come forward to the Commission.
John Noell responded that they had had 2 meetings with the neighbors. He stated that the
project development team and TXDoT would work together to make the frontage road safer.
He stated that construction traffic will be prohibited from Hillview Drive, and that the connectivity
will occur if the City determines that it is in the public interest to provide it. He stated that th e
street system will be constructed and connected to Rivery Boulevard during the initial phases of
the development and that there will never be a time when it is necessary for the traffic to use
Hillview Drive. Mr. Noell stated that the 150' buffer will remain in its natural, current state
except for the trash. He stated that the Century Plan Amendment is a City s taff request to
“re-balance” the levels in this area. He stated that there is a 40' height limit for this project. In
regards to the traffic questions, Mr. Noell stated that the City has undertaken a TIA which
covers a broader area than just this site and the developer will study it when it is done. He
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 6
stated that the developer wishes to preserve as many of the over 600 trees on this site and will
move roads to save trees and will use tree islands where possible. He informed the
Commission that the ravine on the site will be a wet pond (water quality pond) to satisfy the
TNRCC requirements, similar to the Loop 360 side of the Arboretum in Austin. He also stated
that wastewater service will be provided and extended to adjacent neighborhood. Lastly, Mr.
Noell stated that the developer would prefer to move forward at this time and not table this until
next month.
Sarah Milburn stated that she disagrees with providing for connectivity to Hillview Drive. Jack
Noble agreed with no connectivity, and was also concerned with the traffic impacts on the
frontage road from the commercial activity and 800 apartments. Gabe Sansing asked if there
is a way to have a parallel street with the access road to SH29 in the interim, maybe a private
drive, not allowed to the ramp, but forced to go to the SH29 light. He was also against the
connectivity to Hillview Drive. Don Nadon wanted to hear from the traffic engineer regarding
the connectivity issue. The traffic engineer responded that connectivity is provided for
emergency access and safety reasons and that the connection will be a very small component
of the entire traffic generation of the project. Don Nadon asked if the developer can proceed
without the connectivity. The engineer responded that the connectivity is a City request and that
in terms of providing access to and from the project, there are two primary access points, both
of which will be public streets and will be built so the project can clearly proceed without that.
Patrick Walsh asked about the build-out time frame. Mr. Noell responded - 2002 for the retail
components, and the apartments will probably start being built in 2001 and 2002, assuming a
reasonable trend in the market place and a healthy economy. Jack Noble asked that if the
Commission approves this project without the results of the TIA, are they committing to go with
a concept that does not fit that plan. Ed Barry responded that the study is a separate issue
and the City does not require a TIA for new developments. Traffic impact is a part of the
Century Plan, so when you have the intensity designated, it also has attached to it the allowed
roadway capacity and trip generation, and that is premised on a set of improvements which
need to be made. This TIA is meant to look at more global areas and look at the improvements
that need to be made to address a larger need. Patrick Walsh asked about uses in the
allowed in C-1 zoning district and the height allowed. Scott Ingalls responded to his questions.
Gabe Sansing voiced his concern regarding the 800 apartments proposed. Ed Barry
responded that in terms of total capacity and demand on the system, whether water,
wastewater or transportation, the proposed level of development is no greater under this
proposal than it was over the last 15 years and the projects that have been approved.
Robert Sterk, 109 North Oak Hollow Drive - Believed that this was a greater intensity than 15
years ago.
After the extensive discussion, Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Century Plan
Amendment from Intensity Levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 to Intensity Level 5 and the allocation of utility
capacity for River Hills, Section 4 and for the Rivery, Lots 1, 2 and 3; approval of the rezoning
request for River Hills, Section 4 from RM-3, Residential-Office and Service District to C-1,
Local Commercial; and a 43.99 acre portion of the Rivery, Lot 1 from C-2A, Commercial First
Height Restricted to C-2A, Commercial First Height Unrestricted to allow multi-family residential
and exclude all other residential uses and to be tied to this specific Concept Plan; and approval
of the Concept Plan for River Hills, Section 4 and The Rivery, Lot 1 to be known as the Rivery,
Phase 1, modified to eliminate the connecting road to Hillview Drive. Don Nadon seconded the
motion. Gabe Sansing proposed to accept the motion with the exception of making the property
restricted not to allow multi-family. Jack Noble seconded the amendment. Sarah Milburn
accepted the amendment. Discussion followed regarding commercial development in lieu of
multi-family and possibly reducing the existing intensity level. The Commission then discussed
possible tabling of this item for one month. The applicant agreed to table this agenda item for
one month to address the traffic issue with staff and neighbors. All motions were withdrawn.
Gabe Sansing made a motion to postpone action on this item, with the applicant’s concurrence,
until such time as the developer can meet with the Homeowner’s Association, TXDoT and City
engineers to address traffic and connectivity concerns. Jack Noble seconded the motion
which passed by a vote of 5-0.
P&Z Meeting
February 1, 2000
Page 7
(Charles Parker left at 8:05 p.m. and did not act on this agenda item.)
9. Commissioners' comments and reports.
a. Appointments to the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission.
Patrick Walsh and Charles Parker were appointed to the Board of Adjustment as regular
members. Sarah Milburn and Gabe Sansing will serve as alternates to the BOA. Jack Noble
volunteered to serve on the Historic Preservation Commission.
b. Charette Update - Patrick Walsh asked Tom Bolt to update the Commission on the
January 22nd Charette.
10. Staff comments and reports.
a. Council action update - Wendy Walsh updated the Commission on the January City
Council meetings.
With no further business, Sarah Milburn made a motion to adjourn at 9:44 p.m. Gabe Sansing
seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0.
/jmr