Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_04.04.2000Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 4, 2000 Vice-chair, Gabe Sansing called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Jack Noble, Marjorie Herbert, Don Nadon and Sarah Milburn. Patrick Walsh arrived late. Charles Parker was absent. Staff members present were Ed Barry, Director, Scott Ingalls, Chief Development Planner, Wendy Walsh, Development Planner, Tom Bolt, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Carla Benton, Development Technician, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, Donna Stump, Legal Counsel and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary. 1. Action from Executive Session 2. Discussion and consideration of adopting a policy on applying Urban Design Standards to current development applications. Scott Ingalls led the discussion regarding the application of the new Urban Design Standards to development applications which are either in the process, or previously approved by Commission and Council, since there is no “vesting” provision allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. After the discussion, Marjorie Herbert made a motion to recommend to the City Council that those applications either in the process, or previously approved by Commission and Council, have 30 days after the effective date of the ordinance in which to apply for a building permit. Sarah Milburn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0. Consent Agenda Patrick Walsh arrived at 6:20 p.m. 3. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the March 7, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of 1.57 acres of land, being 0.70 acres out of Outlot 1, Division A of the City of Georgetown; 0.81 acres out of Block 71 of Lost Addition; and 0.06 acres out of Lot 4, Block E of Dalrymple Addition, to be known as Dilley-Tinnin Addition, located at 1220 S. Austin Avenue, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 6. Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan of 14.44 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Kelley Trust, Phases One, Two and Three, Block A, Lot 5, located on the South IH-35 frontage road and “A” Street, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 8. Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat of 42.196 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 4A, Neighborhood 16-A, located along Dove Hollow Trail. 9. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Churchill Farms, Section Four, Block B, Lots 9 and 10 located at 102 Highalea Court and 117 Retama Drive. 11. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat with a site plan of 7.29 acres in the Ruidosa Irrigation and Lewis J. Dyches Surveys, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Park Wood Plaza, located on IH35 and Rockmoor Drive. P&Z Meeting April 4, 2000 Page 2 Agenda Items #5, #7 and #10 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. Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Regular Agenda 5. Consideration and possible action on a Reinstatement of the Public Review Final Plat of 33.983 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as the Falls of San Gabriel, located along Booty’s Crossing Road. Consideration and possible action on the Record Final Plat of 33.983 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as the Falls of San Gabriel, located along Booty’s Crossing Road. Jim Leach - 3012 Gabriel View, asked about the private drive to Lots 23 and 24, and if it would be a hard-surface road with proper drainage. He also asked about the 12-15 foot green-belt currently in the area of the driveway. Bob Gaylor, agent for the applicant, responded that the private drive will be hard surfaced, the drainage plan has been approved and drainage will be taken under that drive and the developer will leave as many trees as possible. He stated that the private drive will be a shared access for Lots 23 and 24 and is 12-14 feet wide. The upkeep of the drive will be the responsibility of the owners of the two lots. The upkeep of the ravine/gorge and entry feature will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Don Bane - 305 Oakcrest, informed the Commission that promises made at a previous P&Z meeting were not kept, regarding construction traffic. He stated that he wanted heavy equipment kept off of Booty Road. He stated that a 6 foot fence along Booty Road and Gabriel View was promised by the developer and didn’t happen. Bob Gaylor responded that the last meeting was in the Fall of 1997 and the construction traffic was that of a contractor hired by the City of Georgetown, not the developer, for the Williams Drive Wastewater Interceptor construction. He stated that he will communicate with the surrounding property owners when the construction contract is bid. He stated that a masonry fence will be constructed, but not until after construction. Patrick Walsh asked about some sort of cons truction fence and the routing of construction traffic. Ed Barry responded that David Munk will work with the developer to determine the best construction traffic route. After the discussion, Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Reinstatement of t he Public Review Final Plat of 33.983 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as The Falls of San Gabriel; and approval of the Record Final Plat of 33.983 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as The Falls of San Gabriel. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 7. Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan of Reata East, Block B, Lots 3 and 5, to be known as Old Town Cottages, located along Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Jack Noble asked about the landscape variance request. Gabe Sansing stated that he had asked the same question and the basis of support was the drainage easement constraint on two sides of the smaller Lot 3. Gene Finley - Stated that he represented the owner of the tract on the corner of Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive and that he desired to work with the applicant in a cooperative effort to provide for detention and filtration on both tracts. Lee Yeager, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had early discussions to address detention concerns on the lot referred to by Mr. Finley, and he had agreed to work with them. Landscape questions and discussion followed. Mr. Yeager stated that he would work to satisfy the landscape requirements. He asked if there was a landscape “pool” for the City that he could contribute to. Ed Barry stated that the City does not have that provision at this time. More discussion followed regarding landscaping and drainage. Sarah Milburn stated that she was in favor of the project with the landscaping and parking variances. Gabe Sansing stated that he was not convinced, but was more concerned with parking and P&Z Meeting April 4, 2000 Page 3 drainage than landscaping. Marjorie Herbert stated that she was opposed to the landscape variance but not parking. Jack Noble stated that he was not convinced on the landscape variance but would support the parking variance. Don Nadon stated that he thought the landscape and parking variances were reasonable because of the drainage easement constraints. Patrick Walsh stated that he didn’t feel that there was a compelling reason for the variances. Sarah Milburn stated that the point of the variance request is that the landscaping provided needs to be sustainable. Extensive discussion followed regarding options for the landscaping. After the discussion, the applicant requested a 30 day extension to the May P&Z meeting. Marjorie Herbert made a motion to postpone action for 30 days and urged the staff to work creatively with the landscaping requirements. Jack Noble seconded the motion. Gene Finley stated that the 30 days would help his client address the detention and filtration issues. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 10. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of Block 37, Lots 1,2,3,4,6,7; Block 38, Lots 5,6,7,8; Block 39, Lots 1,4,5,6,7,8; Block 40, Lots 1,4,5,8; Block 41, Lots 2,3,6,7: Block 50, Lots 1,2,3,4,6,7; Block 51, Lots 5,6,7,8; and Block 52, Lots 1,4,5,6,7,8; of the City of Georgetown, to “H” Town Square Historical District. Tom Swift - 1506 Quail Valley Drive, Artistic Director of the Palace Theater Guild, asked if the same responsibilities and benefits apply to the new area which is being taken in to the Town Square Historical District. Tom Bolt responded that yes, the same responsibilities and benefits will apply to the ½ block area being added to the Historical District. Jack Noble made a motion to approve the requested rezoning of Block 37, Lots 1,2,3,4,6,7; Block 38, Lots 5,6,7,8; Block 39, Lots 1,4,5,6,7,8; Block 40, Lots 1,4,5,8; Block 41, Lots 2,3,6,7: Block 50, Lots 1,2,3,4,6,7; Block 51, Lots 5,6,7,8; and Block 52, Lots 1,4,5,6,7,8; of the City of Georgetown, to “H” Town Square Historical District. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 12. Consideration and possible action on a Revised Concept Plan for 813.09 acres in the A. Porter Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills, located 5.8 miles west of Georgetown on SH29. Scott Ingalls gave the staff report and recommendation. Gabe Sansing asked what electric utility serves this project. Scott Ingalls responded that PEC serves this site. Sarah Milburn asked what has changed from the original concept plan. Scott Ingalls responded that there is a reduction in the number of lots, reconfiguration of the golf course and street system, the density has been reduced and the layout improved. Mike Coopman addressed the Commission and responded to questions. Patrick Walsh asked why the wording of “maximum of 950 units” when a PUD locks you to the number you propose with no flexibility. Scott Ingalls responded that they are fully understanding that if the market changes and they want more lots, they will have to come back to the Commission to increase that number. Marjorie Herbert asked if this is going to be a gated community and also if the hike and bike trail will be open to the public. Mr. Coopman responded that this is not a gated community and the hike and bike trail will be open to the public. Discussion followed regarding the wording “maximum of 950 units” and possibly lowering it. After the discussion, Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the revised Concept Plan for 813.09 acres in the A. Porter Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills. Sarah Milburn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 13. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or any more restrictive district for 20.188 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Georgetown Village Planned Unit Development, Section Three-B, located along Shell Road, Village Commons Boulevard, Greenside Lane and Hickory Lane. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 20.188 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Georgetown Village Planned Unit Development, Section Three-B, located along Shell Road, Village Commons Boulevard, Greenside Lane and Hickory Lane, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. P&Z Meeting April 4, 2000 Page 4 Wendy Walsh gave the staff report and recommendation, with the proposed changes as submitted by the applicant regarding alleys and park land. Ben White - Chair of Parks and Recreation Board - Stated that the Board met on March 16, 2000 to discuss park land within Section Three-B and elected to defer the issue until their April meeting. They then had a called meeting on April 3rd. The Board recommended the following: the 12 acres will not be dedicated but fees-in-lieu may be provided instead; and that the developer should temporarily bank commercial land to the City on an interim basis in lieu of proposed park land. Another concern was that the 0.22 acres on Village Commons Boulevard does not meet the park land criteria for size, use suitability, parking and access. The developer proposed the 0.33 acres adjacent to Shell Road and an existing cemetery that is shown on the plat as a landscape easement and PUE. This tract does not meet the suitability, size, or access, requirements and it also appears that the usage conflicts since it is currently shown as a landscape easement. There is also concern that the .22 and .33 acre sites would have possible negative impact on adjacent property owners. The Board recommends that the developer either sets aside a 1 acre tract or pay the $18, 450 fees -in-lieu. Final concern is that the developer requests that the open spaces that currently exist in the Georgetown Village PID be allowed to count towards his park land requirement of 12 acres. Currently 8 areas exist and are an average of 0.33 acres in size, with the largest being .55 acres. The Park’s department requests park land of 1 acre or more to allow for sufficient space for recreational facilities and also for economical maintenance of the park. Mr. White introduced three members of the Parks and Recreation Board. Jim Mills, Developer, addressed the Commission. He stated that when the PUD, with the Concept Plan was approved, small pocket parks were approved. He handed out a page of the Development Agreement of the PID and pictures of the pocket parks there today. He stated that this park system is that of a “traditional” neighborhood, with a different park system than the norm and he explained how the PID works in relation to the parks. Mr. Mills informed the Commission that Georgetown Village is in the process of contributing 5 acres of park land, with a swimming pool and bath house, to the City, which is now being used by the Parks and Recreation Division and GISD. That park land and improvements far exceed the $200 per lot park land assessment. The Commission took a recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Sean Compton, land planner for the developer, addressed the Commission. He gave the Commission a brief history of the development of Georgetown Village and its Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) aspects. He addressed parks, street widths and alleys. William Knodle - Chair of the PID Board of Georgetown Village - Stated that the residents essentially support the new submitted plat. They feel the alley is essential to Section 3-B, and support the wider lots (from 50'-55') from first submittal. Pocket parks are desirable by the residents, and though they would rather have parks located differently than submitted, they would rather have them as shown than not at all. They would feel slighted if the developer gave fees-in-lieu instead of providing parks. Mr. Knodle stated that he thought that the park land dedication requirements need a thorough review by the City. Marjorie Herbert stated that she is pleased with cooperation and re-working between developer and residents and that open spaces counting as park land (pocket parks) in this particular case is all right, 12' one -way alleys seem reasonable; Gabe Sansing stated that pocket parks serve their purpose much more usefully than big parks here and he has had personal experience in maneuvering through 10' alleys in Cappell, TX and it has not been an issue; Sarah Milburn stated that garbage pick-up behind homes is important and she will take the word of sanitation engineers that they can maneuver in 12 foot alleys; pocket parks are within the spirit of the approved PUD Concept Plan; Don Nadon stated that logic supports the applicant’s proposal for alleys and parks, but said that he had a problem with voting with against staff recommendation and wanted to hear from Ben White again; Marjorie Herbert stated that she is fine with alleys and parks; Jack Noble stated that he is fine with the alleys; Patrick Walsh stated that he thought the alleys are okay, but he is not as satisfied with the park issue; while close and usable pocket parks are a good idea, he recalls the concept of larger parks being provided and that had not yet been defined. He recalls that P & Z was not supportive of fees-in-lieu and that the developer was to come P&Z Meeting April 4, 2000 Page 5 forward with larger parks. William Knodle stated that the shorter alley is a good test of the lesser width. Ben White - Major concern was that rules should not be broken by having parks less than one acre as prescribed in the ordinances. The Board was not aware of the 84-98 acres of green space being provided. He stated that if the P&Z is in favor of this proposal, then the Parks and Recreation Board is too. Patrick Walsh stated that he had no problem with smaller than standard parks but down the line the developer needs to incorporate additional green belts and hike and bike trails. Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the rezoning of 20.188 acres out of the Joseph Fish Survey from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned; and approval of the Public Review Final Plat of 20.188 acres out of the Joseph Fish Survey to be known as Georgetown Village Planned Unit Development, Section Three-B, as submitted by the developer. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion. Gabe Sansing amended the motion to include approval of Variances to the Subdivision Regulations to Table 34020 to allow a reduction in the front yard setback from 25 to 15 feet, provided garages on lots accessed from the street are located 20 feet from the front property line, provided a functional front porch of at least five feet in width is implemented on all single family residences; to Table 34020 to allow a reduction in the side yard setback from a combined total of 15 to 11 feet between two adjoining lots, with a 5 ½ foot width on each side; to Section 37040 C. to allow a four foot tall wooden or simulated wood slat fence which may be topped with two feet of lattice work, a u-shaped scalloped design or a raised center portion as indicated in designs #1, #2, #3 and #4 shown in Exhibit D be located 51/2' from the property line along the alley side of Block G, Lots 4 and 42; to Section 33030 J. to allow the north and south curves on Village Commons Boulevard to be 470 feet; and to Section 33030 G.2. to allow the right-of-way of Village Commons Boulevard to be 56 feet wide, with a 20 foot wide alley that is a public right-of-way and a 12 foot wide pavement section including ribbon curbs; after making the required findings of fact. Marjorie Herbert seconded the amended motion. Gabe Sansing amended his amended motion to say “provided that the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council Consideration”. Marjorie Herbert seconded the amended, amended motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0. 14. Staff comments and reports. a. Council action update - Wendy Walsh and Ed Barry updated the Commission on the March City Council meetings. With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.