Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_09.18.2012City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Ccona +issioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Annette Montgomery, Secretary; Sally Pell, John Horne, Roland Pena and Robert Massad Commissioners in Training: Commissioners) Absent: Porter Cochran, Vice -chair Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Scott Rankin Staff Present: Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Skye Masson,. Assistant City Attorney and Stephanie McNickle> Recording Secretary. Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p_m_ and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins_ Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins. 1 _ Action from Executive Session, No executive session Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that the Commission may act on with one single vote_ A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Cotnrrtission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted_ 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the September 4 and September 6, 2012 meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission_ Motion by Commissioner Horne to approve the consent agenda; including the Minutes as amended of the September 6,. 2012 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission_ Second by Commissioner Pena _ Approved. (6-0) Planning 8, Zoning Commission Agenda / September 18. 2012 Page 1 of 6 Regular Agenda 3. Publi.c Hearing and possible action. oil_ a Development Agreement for 10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey, to be known as the Springstorne Hospital, located on SE Inner Loop. DA-2012-002 (Jordan Maddox) The applicant has requested a development agreement from the City to pursue the construction of a psychiatric hospital facility in the ETJ by modifying the typical UDC application process_ The psychiatric hospital would require a Special Use Permit with zoning if the property were within the city limits. The proposed development agreement would allow the hospital to move forward without such a permit and proceed directly to site and construction planning. The site is located South of SE Inner Loop, between FM 1460 and Blue Springs Drive. The 10 acres is located to the north/northeast of the Citicorp datacenter and is part of what has been -advertised as. "Longhorn Junction." The site is considerably flat and is mostly open pasture. There are some trees located in the eastern section of the property, near the existing flood -way. The surrounding properties include mostly undeveloped property. The applicant/developer met with staff in June to discuss their use and how they could move forward to approval. The normal UDC process was explained and a calendar was discussed that would have completed their public process at City Council on September 110^ (ar.,-.exatiorh, zoning, special use permit). They elected to apply for a Development Agreement instead. Since the applicant/developer is not the owner of the land and will not be the owner when and if the agreement is approved, a tri-party agreement is necessary and will include the current owner of the land, Longhorn Junction Land and Cattle Company. The psychiatric hospital will not require a Special Use Permit as would otherwise be required by the Code, but Council will specifically be considering the use itself as part of this agreement. Staff has concerns about using the development agreement for this type of process because it appears to circumvent the established public zoning process. Ultimately, however, the project will meet almost every qualification of the ISE,C and others, and it was deemed worthy of City Council consideration_ City Council is the decision -maker as to whether this is an appropriate entitlement vehicle and public process for a proposed project such as this. The content of the agreement itself is fairly straightforward, in comparison to the more complex development agreements Georgetown has typically considered. Below are the high points_ Planning 8. Zoning Commission Agenda / September 18. 2012 Page 2 of 6 • Full compliance with UDC development standards, fees, permits, etc_ • Annexation and zoning will be submitted with Site Plan. • Zoning will be Public Facilities if approved_ No Special Use Permit required. • Developer will dedicate 115 feet with plat. Up to 200 feet may be dedicated pending the results of a City -initiated Inner Loop study. • 1-1A will not be required for Springstone. Cumulative trips in effect for subsequent users. • City serves electric, water, wastewater. • No off -site improvements will be required of the developer. • Agreement shall be tri-party — developer, owner, and City of Georgetown. • Owner (Longhorn junction) agrees to pursue a comprehensive development agreement with the City addressing the future development of the remaining land_ If approved, the agreement would be effective immediately. A development agreement for the 10-acre Springstone Hospital was not necessary under the UDC's development process; however, it was a path afforded to them by the Code_ The intent of the Development Agreement is for "an alternative plan for development that could not otherwise be accomplished under this Code.' Staff had the opportunity to reject the agreement proposal because the project could clearly be accomplished under the UDC. Staff accepted and reviewed the agreement because, ultimately, the project was one that will meet all of the UDC's development standards, would still be annexed into the City and zoned appropriately under the terms of this agreement. A development agreement is a tool that cities and landowners can utilize to accomplish projects that otherwise would be difficult or impossible under the standard planning procedures. The Texas Local Government Code Section 212.172 specifically allows the agreements as contracts between a landowner and a city for a stated purpose, usually relating to land development_ Development Agreements often cover projects with unique design characteristics, extensive utility/roadway infrastructure improvements, cost sharing, land swaps, and other dual considerations. Examples in Georgetown include Sun City, Cimarron Hills, and Water Oak, all of which were some distance from public utilities at the time, had unique design needs, and involved financial creativity to achieve the goals of both the developer and the City. Planning S. Zoning Gommission Agenda / September 18, 2012 Paget 3 of 5 Commissioners asked and staff stated the Development agreement affords the ability to negotiate on terms that would not be otherwise been afforded to the city. Because the property met the plat exemption requirements of 10 acres or greater, staff would not have been able to negotiate for right-of-way. Staff stated the city has more benefits with a Development Agreement than a Special Permit Process would allow. Staff stated the concern is not there is less benefit, but the Development Agreement was completely unnecessary to approving the site, but with the agreement staff negotiated the best possible means the city could receive_ Commissioners asked and staff stated the same notification is required for the Special Use Permit as the Development agreement_ The need for a Development Agreement was discussed between Commissioners and staff. Commissioners asked and staff stated there is a concern with precedence with this application and that this process is not used as an alternative zoning process or an alternative development process. Chair 13rashear stated that in the Development Agreement Section 1.1 indicates what shall be built, but not when the project will be built_ Staff stated this agreement does not confirm the built date. Chair Brashear also stated and staff agreed that by doing the Development Agreement we are contracting around the Zoning process_ Staff stated it is a contract between the landowner and the city. Chair 13rashear asked what will terminate the agreement between the landowner and the city. Staff stated if the landowner does not provide a Development Agreement by June 30, 2013, the agreement becomes null and void_ Chair Brashear asked how the city will know ten years from now if the agreement still has merit. Staff stated if the agreement has been recorded on the Longhorn property itself. Chair Srashear asked if the owner of the property defaults is there a provision in the Development Agreement. Staff stated the owner is required to pursue a Development Agreement with the city by June SO, 2013 or the next submittal date for that property. There is no specific provision of default for the owner except that future development could not be pursued for the remainder of that property_ Chair Brashear stated his concern that there is not a provision in the Development agreement if the owner defaults and feels there should be an enforcement added to ensure the city receives the application. Staff stated there is no penalty to the owner, Planning 8 Zoning Cornmission Agenda / SOPIonlbor la. 2012 Pages 4 Of a. but they will not be able to pursue future developments on that site until this provision is complied with. The city was concerned with we do not return to the City Council with small Development Agreements such as this in the future on this land. Staff stated if there are concerns with the Commission that the provision does not go far enough,staff is open to suggestions_ Chair Brashear stated his concern with moratorium being waived in the Development Agreement_ Skye Masson, Assistant City. Attorney stated this is normally added to Development Agreements and it is not being waived and stated if the Commission feels the wording needs to be changed, staff is open to suggestions_ Skye Masson stated the city did not have an interest in making sure the development was done by the end of this year. The applicant is the driving force for wanting to develop this property quickly. The city's main tie-in was to start the voluntary annexation process by a certain date which there is a deadline.. Chair Brashear voiced concern with the developer being able to assign their rights to another party. Skye stated she will review the Development Agreement and make sure that is clear. Staff stated when this agreement was submitted to the city, the agreement contained a December 31.. effective date, because that was the stated time of closing of the property. This was also submitted on behalf of Springstone and shortly thereafter staff determined they could not approve a Development Agreement with a prospective property owner_ It was then decided to do a tri-party agreement and when that happened, the effective date went away_ Staff stated if the Commission suggests art expiration date, it can be added to guarantee this project moves forward. Commissioner Pell stated she is concerned with the applicant being able to create an alternative way for a single project. Staff stated this is a process afforded to them by the Development Code, and even if the process is extraordinary and staff has voiced their concerns with the process, the terms of the agreement provides a better product then if another direction was chosen in staff's opinion. Steve Metcalfe stated he is representing the developer and not the owner and will be glad to answer questions regarding the applicant. He will also recommend additional verbiage to be included in the Development Agreement in order to ease the concerns of the Commission_ Mr_ Metcalfe stated the applicant really wants to build this facility and did not want to annex and rezone the property until they had approval with the city and the owner did not want the property to be annexed and rezone unless it was bought. Mr. Metcalf also stated the applicant will be glad to add a deadline date that the Development Agreement goes away if not built. Planning 8. Zoning Commission Agenda ! September 18. 2012 Page 5'of 6 Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward the Public Hearing was closed_ Motion by Commissioner Massaci to modify the Development Agreement to reflect the voiced concerns of the commission and bring bacic to the next available Planning and Zoning rneeting. Second by Pell_ Approved. (6-0) 4. Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings. (Annette Montgomery) September 14th GTAB. Commissioner Montgomery gave a summary of the September 14,1, GTAB meeting_ 5. Questions or comments from Commissioners -in -Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda_ NA 6_ Reminder of the October 2, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting_ 7. Adjourn 6:56 p_rn. Planning 8. Zoning Commission Agontla / September 18, 2012 Pao@ 6- of 6.