Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_05.20.2003Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 20, 2003 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , May 20, 2003. Members Present: Audrey McDonald, Vice-Chair, Ken Fuller, Secretary, Don Mabray and William Sattler Members Absent: Tom Nichols, Chair Staff Present: Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Tammye Sharpe, Team Specialist/Recording Secretary Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF GEORGETOWN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES May 20, 2003 Audrey McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1.Action from Executive Session. None. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the April 15, 2003, regular meeting. Don Mabray made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Ken Fuller seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0. 3.Consideration and possible action on a variance from Section 6.02.040(b)(1)(a) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow a 3’-4” encroachment into a 25’ front building line for Lot 10, Block E, of Reata Trails Unit 4, located at 914 Hedgewood Drive. Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation. Bradley Cockrum, Cockrum Custom Homes, gave his presentation. Cockrum said that a surveyor pinned the lot – the back of the lot was pinned as to stay 12” out of the flood plain, and the difference on this lot from the others he has built In Indian Springs was that Hedgewood has a 15’ PUE, instead of 10’ PUE (there was a 40’ setback, instead of the usual 35’ setback the other homes in that area had. Cockrum said he went by the survey, and learned about the mistake during the final survey. Mabray said that the blame was on the builder, survey and the City, and Cockrum should not be penalized. Ray verified that there was one comment for the variance by a surrounding property owner. Mabray made the motion to allow the variance from Section 6.02.040(B)(1)(a) of the Unified Development Code to allow a 3’-4” encroachment into a 25’ front setback for a width of 21.7’ for Lot 10, Block E of Reata Trails Unit 4 located at 914 Hedgewood Drive, that the variance shall be granted as the ZBA find all of the following: -that there are extraordinary conditions due to the failure on the City, as well as the builder and the survey crew; -that there is no substantial detriment to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this code; -that the conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity; -that applicant acted in good faith, relying on others that he normally does, and was not done with any intent; -that the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this code; and -that because of the conditions that create the need for the variance, the application of this code to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Sattler seconded motion. Motion failed with a vote of 3-1, with Fuller voting against. 4.Consideration and possible action on a variance from Section 7.03.050(A) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow the placement of a 6’ high fence in the required front yard setback where 4’ is permitted for Lot 9, Block e of San Gabriel Heights located at 403 Ridge Oak Drive. Ray gave the staff presentation, informing the Board Members that the City received 3 letters in approval of the variance, and 2 in opposition. Ray confirmed that the front of the house is determined by the narrower frontage, if it is a corner lot and there are two street frontages. Ray said in this case, Tallwood Street is the narrower of the two. Ray confirmed that this changes the setback, and there is 10’ separating the property line from the pavement (10’ of R-O-W before you get to the face of the paved curb). Ray informed the Board that “corner visibility” is okay per Public Safety, since there is the 10’ between the proposed fence and the pavement – it meets the visibility requirement. Scott Walters, 403 Ridge Oak Drive, applicant, said his reason for a fenced backyard was one of privacy and safe area for his small children to play. Walters said that the amount of footage asked for in the drawing with the report is not exactly what he requested, and said that there could be an angle there to help with visibility. Walters showed the Board members how he would like the fence to run. Dennis Werchan, 404 Ridge Oak Drive, got clarification that Walters could have a 6’ fence on the property line, once he got out of the 25’ setback. Werchan had a concern about safety at the intersection of Tallwood and Ridge Oak Drive with a 6’ fence erected. Ray informed the board members that if they could agree on something, they could then put conditions on the motion concerning visibility safety concerns. Mabray asked if Walters could table this item to allow him time to speak with someone that could help him resolve some of the safety issues, and bring it back with a different proposal. Sattler made the motion to table the item until June 17, 2003, the next Zoning Board of Adjustment. Motion was seconded by Mabray, which passed with a vote of 4-0. McDonald adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m. /tas