Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_07.06.2000Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, July 6, 2000 Chair, Patrick Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:14 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Jack Noble, Marjorie Herbert, Charles Parker, Don Nadon and Sarah Milburn. Gabe Sansing was absent. Staff members present were Ed Barry, Director, Cathy Riedel, Assistant City Attorney, Scot t Ingalls, Chief Development Planner, James Baker, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Carla Benton, Development Technician, Brian Mabry, Planning Intern and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary. 1. Action from Executive Session - None Consent Agenda 2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the June 6, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 3. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Bouffard Subdivision, Lot 1, located at 2400 N. Austin Avenue, known as Bouffard Mini Storage. 4. Public Review Final Plat of 50.85 acres in the John Sutherland and Lewis P. Dyches Surveys, to be known as The Woods of Fountainwood, Phase 3, located on Wood Craft Trail, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 6.64 acres in the William Addison Survey, to be known as Georgian Place, Phase II-C, located on Canterbury Trail, Leeds Castle Walk and Georgian Drive. 6. Consideration and possible action on a Rezoning of Lost Addition, a 0.165 acre part of Block 69, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-1, Multi-Family, or any more restrictive district, located at 310 West University Avenue. 8. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of Southside Addition, 0.28 acres out of Block 13, located at 507 E. 18th Street, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 9. Consideration and possible action on a Record Final Plat of 72.656 acres in the Daniel Monroe and Frederick Foy Surveys, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 4-A, Neighborhood Fifteen, located along Sun City Boulevard and Texas Drive. 10. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 77.51 acres in the John Sutherland Survey, to be known as Westlake of the Woods, Phase 2, located adjacent to Phases 1A and 1B, along the proposed Highland Spring Lane, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 11. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 42.45 acres in the Woodruff Stubblefield Survey, to be known as White Rock Estates, Phase Three, located on CR106, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. P&Z Meeting July 6, 2000 Page 2 L:\DIVISION\CD\PLANNING\P&Z\MINUTES\2000\JUL6.00 Agenda Item # 7 was pulled from the agenda to be considered individually by the Commission. Jack Noble made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Don Nadon seconded th e motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Regular Agenda 7. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of the Resubdivision of Northlake Subdivision, Section B, Block 6, Lot 1, to be known as Ashley Moore Subdivision, located at the intersection of Ridgewood Road and FM3405, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Carla Benton gave the staff report and recommendation. Charles Parker asked about the lots behind this tract and if they need access to FM3405. Carla responded that they are smaller tracts with access to other streets. Marjorie Herbert asked how much park land would be required if fees were not accepted. Carla Benton responded that applicants may pay fees in-lieu if the park land is less than an acre. In this case, the required park land would be about .10 of an acre. The fee is $225 per lot of a subdivision. Edward and Deborah Markovitz, 111 Frontier Trail, addressed the Commission. They asked if the variances were not granted how many lots would be in the subdivision and stated that they were concerned with congestion and changing the character of the neighborhood. Carla Benton responded that the minimum lot size is one acre and these lots do exceed that and provide for septic systems. She also s aid that the Variances would not be needed and more lots could be provided if the applicant went with a “loop street” design, rather than the one proposed. Ed Barry stated that the original proposal was to take access off FM3405, and the access point would have been within several hundred feet of Ridgewood, so rather than have the intersections so close, the redesigned “dumbbell” configuration was preferable. Ms. Markovitz stated her concern for setting a precedent for other tracts in this area to subdivide. Carla Benton responded that any new subdivisions would have to meet the City’s standards. Patrick Walsh asked about wastewater to this subdivision. Ed Barry responded that City wastewater to this tact is not in the foreseeable future. Jim Cummins, agent for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that this plat meets the existing restrictions of Northlake. Lots 6 and 7 could potentially be subdivided, but neither is likely to. Sarah Milburn stated that she supported accommodating the access off FM3405 with dumbbell design, which necessitates the variances. Don Nadon, Jack Noble, Charles Parker and Marjorie Herbert agreed with Ms. Milburn. Patrick Walsh stated that he supported the “dumbbell” design as opposed to the horseshoe loop. After the discussion, Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Public Review Final Plat of the Resubdivision of Northlake Subdivision, Section B, Block 6, Lot 1, to be known as Ashley Moore Subdivision, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to Cit y Council consideration, with approval of the requested variances, thereby allowing:  A cul-de-sac length to exceed 500 feet (Section 33030 N.2.)  The minimum width of the front property line to be less than the required 85 feet, (Section 36050), and  Lots to be allowed to have frontage on two non-intersecting streets (Section 34020 C.3.a.), after making the required findings of fact. Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 12. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Woods at Berry Creek, Phase One, Block P, Lot 8, located at 130 Brentwood Drive. Carla Benton gave the staff report and recommendation. Kim Lawlis, the applicant, addressed the Commission and showed a map of her neighborhood of other lots with similar fences. She stated that the request is for a fence to be placed 11 feet from the curb. Safety is a concern, as P&Z Meeting July 6, 2000 Page 3 L:\DIVISION\CD\PLANNING\P&Z\MINUTES\2000\JUL6.00 well as pets needing to be contained, and a 3 foot fence would not accomplish this. Ed Barry stated that if the Commission is comfortable in granting this variance, and with as many requests as we’ve had for it, the fence ordinance probably needs to be revisited. Cathy Riedel voiced her concern with the findings of fact and finding the “special conditions” or distinction of each request. Patrick Walsh asked that the application be rephrased. Sarah Milburn made a motion to postpone action on this item until before or after Agenda Item #14 of the agenda. Charles Parker seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0-2. Marjorie Herbert and Jack Noble abstained from voting. At 8:25 p.m., Carla Benton and Ms. Lawlis came back with revisions to the application, findings of fact and exhibit. Ms. Lawlis restated the hardships being heavy construction all around the house, and safety for children playing in the yard. Marjorie Herbert stated that she could not make unique findings of fact. Sarah Milburn stated that she couldn’t see the difference in this one and previous ones that have been approved. Marjorie Herbert stated that the Commission shouldn’t approve just because of past cases. Sarah Milburn stated that she felt that it was a separate issue between agreeing with the ordinance or not and acting upon this request. Patrick Walsh stated that the Commission will make a recommendation to Council that the fence requirements be reviewed. Don Nadon stated that he had no reservations in granting this variance. Jack Noble stated that he felt the Commission should inform the Council that they have concern with the fence ordinance, and will support the staff recommendation. Charles Parker stated that since there was no opposition from the neighborhood, and he felt that there was a hardship, and to be fair, he would vote in favor of granting the variance. Patrick Walsh asked that the ordinance discussion be put on next month’s agenda. Marjorie Herbert made a motion to deny a Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for the Woods at Berry Creek, Phase One, Block P, Lot 8, located at 130 Brentwood Drive, to install a six foot tall privacy fence at the property line along Meadow Green Drive. Jack Noble seconded the motion which failed to pass with a 3-3 vote. Sarah Milburn, Don Nadon and Charles Parker voted against the motion to deny. After more discussion, Jack Noble made a motion to send the request on to City Council without a recommendation and recommended to Council that the location and height of fences as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations be reviewed. Charles Parker seconded the motion which passed by a 6-0 vote. 13. Consideration and possible action on a Concept Plan of Rivery Subdivision Conveyance Plat, Lot 3, to be known as The Rivery Park, located on the South IH35 frontage road and the proposed Rivery Boulevard. Scott Ingalls gave the staff report and recommendation. (Before the meeting, Bruce Barton handed out a letter to the Commissioners regarding the developer’s participation in the Rivery bridge.) Bruce Barton addressed the Commission. He stated that the meaning of the letter was to question what a Development Agreement would look like today, and specifically for this smaller tract. He stated that the applicant wished to develop 7 acres of the 88 acres of Rivery Park at this time, using the current zoning, with half of Rivery Boulevard being built to the back of the property and a waste water line extended to the back of the property. Marjorie Herbert asked if there was knowledge of what kind of demand and traffic flow this development would have. Bruce Barton responded that nothing specific is planned yet. Ms. Herbert asked about plans for the remainder of the tract. Mr. Barton stated that at this point he did not know what would be built on the remainder of the tract. Jane Montgomery, of 803 Country Club Road, addressed the Commission. She asked Mr. Barton to explain where these lots are as depicted on the overhead exhibit. She stated that this area is a Carst II type limestone and ecologically fragile and could be damaged. She stated that our water could also be damaged if there was construction in this area. She stated that wildlife is coming into her yard because of the construction so far. The oak wilt has come from the south and d estroyed all but one of her oak trees. She stated her concern for light and noise pollution. Bruce P&Z Meeting July 6, 2000 Page 4 L:\DIVISION\CD\PLANNING\P&Z\MINUTES\2000\JUL6.00 Barton responded to Ms. Montgomery and stated that much more detail will be provided at the plat and Detailed Development Plan stages. (7:50 to 8:00 - electrical difficulty) The tape recorder stopped working at this point in the meeting. More discussion of the condition regarding the Rivery Bridge followed. Ed Barry stated that normally, plat recordation triggers fiscal surety. Charles Parker asked if this 7 acre tract could trigger the need for the bridge and Rivery Boulevard extension. Ed Barry responded that these 7 acres probably would not facilitate a need, but the condition will be attached to the land and these developers will have to participate in the building of the bridge. Charles Parker asked about the development agreement and if they would have to start all over. Ed Barry responded that whether it’s an agreement or some kind of fiscal surety for the bridge, each developer should take part. It could be two separate development agreements, instead of a three-way agreement, with the City. He stated that the main thing is the timing for the improvements and how the costs are allocated. Jack Noble stated that he felt that the developer should agree to participate in a portion of the bridge. Patrick Walsh agreed and stated that funding is fairly wide open at this point. Sarah Milburn made a motion to approve the Concept Plan for The Rivery Subdivision, Lot 3 to be known as Rivery Park, Lots 1A and 1B with the condition that a development agreement between the City and the developer be approved to address the development of the Rivery Bridge prior to City Council consideration of the Public Review Final Plat. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Charles Parker left the meeting at this point. 14. Staff comments and reports. a. Council action update - James Baker updated the Commission on the June City Council meetings. b. Discussion and possible action on revisions to the Planning and Zoning Commission By-Laws. Scott Ingalls handed out suggested revisions. Patrick Walsh made a motion to approve the revisions. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0. (Ms. Herbert asked that the ordinance from the Municipal Code be attached to the By-Laws.) c. Set time and date for workshop. The Commissioners received a Memo from the Mayor inviting them to a workshop on July 25, 2000. d. Discussion of implications of staff shortage. Ed Barry informed the Commission that staff would like to streamline staff reports and go in to more detail at the meeting. Background and/or “history” of a project, would be included where pertinent. Patrick Walsh asked that the Project Coordinator’s last name be put on the footer of the staff report, in case a commissioner needed to call with questions. 15. Commission comments and reports. a. Discussion of Division Mission, staff role and Commission expectations of staff. This was discussed during Agenda Item #14d. b. Discussion and possible action on adjusting the August, 2000, P&Z meeting date. Marjorie Herbert and Patrick Walsh will be gone for the regularly scheduled August meeting. After discussion, the August meeting was moved to Thursday, August 10th. c. Discuss possible Commission budget issues. Patrick Walsh suggested outreach to neighborhood groups and/or youth groups. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. P&Z Meeting July 6, 2000 Page 5 L:\DIVISION\CD\PLANNING\P&Z\MINUTES\2000\JUL6.00 /jmr