Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_07.06.2004Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, July 6, 2004 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , July 6, 2004. Members Present: Johnny Anderson, Chair, Harry Gibbs, Audrey McDonald, Jennifer Shield, William Moore, Marlene McMichael, Brian Ortego, and Russell Phillips Members Absent: Sarah Milburn Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development; Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Carla Benton, Development Planner; Patricia Carls, City Attorney; and, Tammye Sharpe, Planning Specialist/Recording Secretary Minutes Regular Meeting Johnny Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1. Action from Executive Session - None. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration of the Minutes for the June 23, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shield made the motion to accept the minutes with the two corrections - striking Milburn's presence at the meeting and changing the month heading. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. Regular Agenda 3. Consideration and possible action for a Variance from the follow Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations: 34020.G.2.f (Rear Yard) and 34020.F.4 (Side Setback) to allow the placement of an accessory structure on Lot 14, Block H, Georgian Place Phase 2A, located at 1079 Canterbury Trail. Ray made the staff presentation, stating that staff had not changed their recommended motion of denial. Moore questioned the process that would follow. McMichael questioned further Code Enforcement to bring neighborhood into compliance. Ray said that Code Enforcement would take care of any violations that were brought to the City. McMichael said she had asked prior to this meeting that there be an investigation of other structures within the neighborhood to seek out violations of this same type so as to insure fairness to this applicant. Sondgeroth said that she was not aware that there had been a request for an investigation, and confirmed that investigations are not solely triggered by a complaint, but also by City staff seeing and knowing that there was a violation. Carls, City Attorney explained that there were a small number of Code Enforcement employees, and that if there were to be an effort to do a special request, such as checking setbacks in subdivisions, then it would have to be set up by the City Manager. Carls said that, from a day to day level, the Code Enforcement employees are driven by complaints and prioritizing them for response. Carls said that if McMichael wanted her comment to be taken to the City Manager, that could be done. This complaint is a common defense, and is more often made in front of the Municipal Judge. Carls said If the City sees that a complaint is a bigger problem, than a more systematic approach would be taken. Armando Villanueva, 1079 Canterbury Trail, applicant, passed to Commissioners pictures of other structures within the neighborhood and his own structure. Villanueva said it would be around $1,800 to move the structure, pour another slab, and jackhammer the access slab that encroaches. Property owner also stated that the structure does not encroach on any utilities since they are all within the street. Villanueva said the other neighbors were not against having the structure there, and he was being treated unfairly, as there were others in the neighborhood that have structures encroaching in the setbacks, and have not been asked to move/tear down their structures. He also pointed out that there would not be a significant difference visually with the move of the structure. Villanueva said that he had wanted his backyard to be as useful as possible, as he has a son that plays soccer and needed the room to practice with his soccer net. Villanueva said that he had plans to rock the front of the storage building to match the front of this home. Applicant pointed out that he was the only one brought up in violation by his neighbor, that he has been working on the storage shed for a long time - when time and money was available, Travis McCollum, 1028 Quail Valley Drive, adjacent homeowner, confirmed that his wife was the one that brought his violation to the City, and that he has an issue with the safety aspect in which the storage building would hold gasoline mowers, and the building was right by his fence and front yard. McCollum said that by not complying with the rules to get a permit, the City of Georgetown would be losing revenue. He brought out that this issue has been going on since the first of the year, and it is now July, and wants it to be resolved. McCollum asked the Commission to support the decision made by staff, but if it is approved, he requested that the Ordinance be changed so other Georgetown citizens can benefit from the setbacks of 10' and 7'. Kim Becker, 2600 Georgian Drive, said she was in agreement that there was importance to having permits (assuring no building over utility lines), but feels that the person that decided those setbacks did not have this subdivision in mind. She has a corner lot, and her backyard is long and narrow. Becker said that if she and her husband abide by the specifications required now, their proposed storage building would be placed in the middle of the yard. Becker asked if there was any possibility of changing the specifications for their neighborhood since the lots were shaped rectangular instead of square. Becker said that her 3 neighbors are in violation of having their storage buildings in the corner of their lot, and she knows of 6 or 7 more within the neighborhood that are in violation. Moore made clear that the process of coming to the City and applying for a permit before a structure was built would be more favorably looked upon than in this situation where the structure was already built with no permit. Becker said that she feels there are many people in the City that are ignorant of the City process that is required for them to follow when putting a storage building in their backyard, and do not know what is expected of them, and then when they get themselves in a situation that is in violation, they try to do the best they can in dealing with the fix they have gotten themselves in. Ray confirmed for McMichael that the setback requirements came from the City in the Subdivision Regulations, and that if Villanueva did not have a corner lot, the setbacks would be 7' on the side, and 7' in the rear. It is now set as a 7' rear setback and a 15' side setback for his corner lot. Carls, City Attorney, came forward to give Commission some guidelines for their deliberations concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Carls reminded them that there were eight (8) Findings of Fact that support either approving or denying the variance, and would have to be submitted in the motion. Gibbs wondered if there could be an effort to help educate homeowners in knowing about City policies so they would not get into violation. He suggested information be given to Title companies and/or builders. Carls said that there was an effort several years to have mini-seminars with title companies and contractors to help them know City regulations. Carls pointed out that all the information is on the plat, but realizes there is an information gap. Carls said that the City could renew the effort to inform the citizens. Ortego confirmed that the concrete already poured for the subject storage building that is encroaching into the setbacks would not have to be torn down, but could serve as flatwork (a patio). McDonald made the motion for denial of the requested Variance to Section 34020.G.2.f (Rear yard) and Section 34020.F.4 (Side Setback) to allow the placement of an accessory structure on Lot 14, Block H of Georgian Place Phase 2 A, located at 1079 Canterbury Trail. Ortego seconded the motion. Moore stated that the public needs to be educated, and he feels that the person that poured the slab should have informed Villanueva of the necessity of obtaining a permit to build the storage building, and said he would support the applicant. Shield had concern about what denying this variance would do to the subdivision. Vote of 4-3, with Moore, Shield and Gibbs voting against the denial. The motion passed. The variance was denied. 4. Consideration and possible action for a Public Review Final Plat for 18.14 acres situated in the Ephriam Evans Survey, to be known as Hewlett Subdivision, Section 3, located on Hewlett Loop at Westinghouse Road, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. McCollum gave the staff presentation, explaining that staff was in support of the application and the variance of the impervious coverage transfers and the request for an additional driveway. McCollum explained that Terry Isaac, the person that has a lot that backs up to this site, wants to have an additional street that would cut through these lots and connect to his property. McCollum said that she and Munk met with Isaac, and it would be resolved that when Paige Whitney Parkway extends to the right, it will actually stub out to Isaac's property. Isaac felt that would meet his needs. Perry Steger, with Steger & Bizzell Engineering, stated that his firm was doing the subdivision work, as well as the site work, for the Kia Dealership. Shield made the motion to recommend to City Council to approve a Public Review Final Plat for 18.14 acres situated in the Ephriam Evans Survey, to be known as Hewlett Subdivision, Section 3, located on Hewlett Loop at Westinghouse Road, with a variance to Table 34020 to allow impervious coverage transfers between lots, while maintaining the total impervious coverage based off the required findings of fact, and approval of the required access to allow an additional driveway to be located on Westinghouse Road as well as Hewlett Loop. McMichael seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 5. Consideration and possible action for a Public Review Final Plat for 32.35 acres out of the Frederick FoySurvey, to be known as Woodland Park, Section 4-A, located off of Woodland Park Parkway, with variances to Subdivision Regulations. Benton gave the staff presentation, informing the Commission that staff is in favor of approval. David Marshall, agent for Jimmy Jacobs, was present to answer any questions. Ortego made the motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the Public Review Final Plat for 32.35 acres in Phase 4-A in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Woodland Park Subdivision, Phases 4-A, located on Woodland Park Drive, and to approve the requested variances, after making the findings of fact, to Section 33030.G.1 to allow the local street right-of-ways to be 50 feet in width, and Section 36050 to allow lots on rural cul-de-sacs to have less than 85 feet of street frontage for Phase 4-A, Block 1, Lots 6, 11 and 16 provided the conditions of approval are met. Shield seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7- 0. 6. Consideration and possible action for a Public Review Final Plat for 29.96 acres out of the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Woodland Park, Section 4-B, located off of Woodland Park Parkway, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Benton gave the staff presentation, informing the Commission that staff is in favor of approval. David Marshall, agent for Jimmy Jacobs, was present to answer any questions. Gibbs made the motion to recommend to City Council the approval of public Review Final Plats for 29.96 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Woodland Park Subdivision, Phase 4-B, located on Woodland Park Drive, and approval of the requested variances, after making the findings of fact, to Section 33030.G.1, to allow the local street right-of-ways to be 50 feet in width, and Section 36050 to allow lots on rural cul-de-sacs to have less than 85 feet frontage for Phase 4-B, Block 2, Lots 9, 10, 16 and 17, provided the conditions of approval are met. McMichael seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. 7. Director's Comments. Sondgeroth commented that the City's website was very informative, and did have the information concerning the issue of erecting a storage building in the backyard. There is a page on residential permitting, with a checklist. Sondgeroth said that there have been meetings with realtors to educate them on permitting requirements and the process, but feels that the City could also educate the Homeowner's Association. Sondgeroth said that there is always effort being made to make the website easy to use and more informative. 8. Commissioners' Comments. a. Information from City Attorney regarding the adopted Ethics Ordinance - Trish Carls gave overview of the adopted Ethics Ordinance; going over information on pages 5 and 6 - "Standards of Conduct.” Carls elaborated on the "Conflict of Interest" - Substantial Interest and Economic Interest, and showed that the understanding of the definitions was important. Carls went over the Complaint Process that was outlined on page 15. Carls suggested that each Commissioner read (and re-read) the Ordinance. Also, Carls said that "when in doubt, recluse yourself" was advice that she would give to a City official trying to make the decision to stay on the dais or not on applications brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. b. Election of Vice-Chair and Secretary Anderson nominated Harry Gibbs for Vice-Chair. McMichael seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. Moore nominated Audrey McDonald for Secretary. Shield seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 7-0. Amelia Sondgeroth gave the dates of October 13-16 for the APA meeting that will be held in Austin, and encouraged all Commissioners to try and attend. Sondgeroth said that she would let the Commission know when registration was available. Anderson mentioned having an off-site education retreat for the Planning & Zoning Commission. Sondgeroth suggested that the retreat be held after the Budget process in early fall. Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.