Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_06.06.2000Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Chair, Patrick Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Jack Noble, Marjorie Herbert, Charles Parker, Don Nadon, Sarah Milburn and Gabe Sansing. Staff members present were Ed Barry, Director, Scott Ingalls, Chief Development Planner, Wendy Walsh, Development Planner, James Baker, Development Planner, David Munk, Development Engineer, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, Abebe Yirgou, Building Plan Reviewer, Brian Mabry, Intern, Cathy Riedel, Assistant City Attorney and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary. 1. Action from Executive Session - None Ed Barry introduced James Baker, the new Development Planner, to the Commission. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the May 2, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 447.71 acres in the A. Porter Survey, to be known as The Planned Unit Development of Cimarron Hills, Phase One, located 7.8 miles west of Georgetown on the north side of SH29, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of the Resubdivision of 0.79 acres in Shell’s Addition, Block 18, located at 603 E. 7th Street, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 37.86 acres in the Woodruff Stubblefield Survey, to be known as White Rock Estates, Phase Two, located along CR 106, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as written. Marjorie Herbert seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. Regular Agenda 6. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Record Final Plat of 8.99 acres in the L.P. Dyches Survey, and being that certain tract of land, called 8.99 acres also being North Lake, Section A, Tract 2, an unrecorded subdivision, to be known as Slaid Subdivision, located on FM3405, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. David Munk updated the Commission. Jim Cummins, agent for the applicant, stated that the applicant still did not wish to provide the 50' easement being requested by staff. Patrick Walsh brought Sarah Milburn up to date on this request due to her absence at the May meeting. Charles Parker, Gabe Sansing and Sarah Milburn stated that they were in favor of the applicant’s request and the easement should not be required. Don Nadon stated that he thought the easement should be required. Marjorie Herbert stated that for traffic planning and future flow of traffic, the easement should be provided. Jack Noble stated that he felt that the variance request was based solely on an P&Z Meeting June 6, 2000 Page 2 economic basis and was opposed to the shared driveway. He said he did not have strong feelings about the easement. After extensive discussion, Marjorie Herbert made a motion to approve the Short Form Record Final Plat of 8.99 acres in the L.P. Dyches Survey and being that certain tract of land called 8.99 acres, also being North Lake, Section A, Tract 2, an unrecorded subdivision to be known as Slaid Subdivision, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, with approval of a variance to Section 36050 C. of the Subdivision Regulations, to allow access onto FM3405, provided a 50 foot right-of-way easement is centered on the common property line of Lots 1 and 2, and the individual driveways accessing the easement will be located a minimum of 60 feet from its intersection with FM3405, after making the required findings of fact. Don Nadon seconded the motion which failed to pass by a vote of 3-4 (Gabe Sansing, Sarah Milburn, Patrick Walsh and Charles Parker voted opposed). After more discussion, Patrick Walsh made a motion to send this request to City Council without a recommendation. Jack Noble seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for the Woods at Berry Creek, Phase One, Block P, Lot 1, located at 100 Brentwood Drive. Wendy Walsh gave the staff report and recommendation. Ray Conlan, the applicant was present and addressed the Commission. He stated that the Variance request is for safety and aesthetic reasons. Gabe Sansing asked Mr. Conlan if he would consider a wrought iron fence instead of a wood fence. Mr. Conlan responded that he would look into it. Marjorie Herbert asked about the sight triangle at the corner of Las Colinas and Brentwood. Mr. Conlan stated that the fence would not affect the sight triangle. Patrick Walsh asked Wendy Walsh if staff would support a 6' fence at half the distance requested. Ms. Walsh stated that staff was unable to support that request either, for the same reasons outlined in the staff report. After the discussion, and all Commissioners stating that they were in favor of the applicant’s request and encouraged him to explore the use of a “see-through” 6' fence such as wrought iron, Gabe Sansing made a motion to approve a Variance to Section 34040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for the Woods at Berry Creek, Phase One, Block P, Lot 1, located at 100 Brentwood Drive, to install a six foot tall privacy fence at the property line along Las Colinas Drive, after making the following findings of fact: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served because a fenced yard will provide safety for the applicant’s children; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished because there are other homes in the subdivision which have the same type of fences; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought because it will not affect the surrounding properties; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property because there are other residences in the area that have the same type of fences; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest because other properties in the area have similar fences and the sight triangle will be maintained; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship and possible safety issues for the family; and 8. In granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial j ustice is done. Sarah Milburn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. P&Z Meeting June 6, 2000 Page 3 8. a. Public Hearing on Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to add an exception for patios to encroach into side and rear building setbacks. b. Consideration of Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to add an exception for patios to encroach into side and rear building setbacks. 9. a. Public Hearing on Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations to allow for the reduction of the front yard building line setback on the common street yard of back-to-back corner lots. b. Consideration of Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations to allow for the reduction of the front yard building line setback on the common street yard of back-to-back corner lots. Jim Babcock presented the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations to the Commission. Discussion followed regarding the proposed revisions. After the discussion, Jack Noble made a motion to send the proposed revisions to the City Council for its consideration and possible approval. Gabe Sansing seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 7-0. 10. Staff comments and reports. a. Council action update. Scott Ingalls updated the Commission on the May City Council meetings. b. Schedule date and topic for future workshop. Ed Barry will coordinate with the City Council for a Thursday or Friday in July or August to schedule a breakfast meeting with the Commission. Possible topics suggested were connectivity, findings of fact, the downtown business district overlay and the Rivery. 11. Commission comments and reports. a. Discussion of Planning and Zoning Commission By-Laws. Cathy Riedel informed the Commission that the By-Laws of all City Boards and Commissions were being reviewed for compliance with City and State regulations and cited a few revisions needed to the Planning and Zoning By-Laws. Ed Barry stated that Development Services staff would work with the Legal Department on the revisions and present them to the Commission at its July, 2000, meeting. Marjorie Herbert asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s duties be attached to the By-Laws. With no further business, Don Nadon made a motion to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Charles Parker seconded the motion which passed unanimously. /jmr