Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_04.17.2001 CITY OF GEORGETOWN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES April 17, 2001 Joe Pondrom called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Other Board members present were Claude Proctor, Thomas Bennett, Sheila Johnson and Patrick Walsh. Tom Nichols, the BOA alt ernate, was present in the audience. Staff members present were Amelia Sondgeroth, Director, Carla Benton, Development Planner, Jim Babcock, Development Technician, Cathy Riedel, Assistant City Attorney and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary Agenda: 1. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the March 20, 2001 meeting. Thomas Bennett suggested a punctuation correction and the minutes were approved unanimously as amended. 2. Consideration and possible action on a request for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance for Williamson County Criminal Justice Facility, Block 1, Lot 1 and Block 2, Lot 1 and City of Georgetown, Block 22, parts of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Block 35, Lots 5-8, Block 43, Lots 5-8, located at 6th and Rock Streets and Martin Luther King Street. Joe Pondrom recused himself from voting on this item. Tom Nichols, the alternate, was also unable to vote on this item, because of a conflict of interest. Joe Pondrom informed the audience and Board that it will take a unanimous vote (4-0) to pass any of the requested variances. Sheila Johnson, Vice Chair, presided over the meeting at this point. Carla Benton gave the staff report, explained the requested variances and responded to questions from the Board. The applicant, Jesus Delgado, addressed the Board and responded to questions. The following citizens addressed the Board in opposition of the request: Joyce Perry, Beatrice Miller, Ronald Swain and Nathan Bonner. Their concerns were:  Neighborhood is already full of parking with existing development  Too small an area for this expansion  Hindrance to the development of the youth in this area and their quality of life  Possible escapees into the residential area around this site  Damage to air quality due to increase in cars  Road damage due to construction equipment  Negative environmental effects on Blue hole  Unsafe for children and the 3 churches in the area Don Martin spoke in favor of the project stating that he had served on the Urban Design committee and felt that this project meets the spirit and intent of the ordinances of the City of Georgetown. He commended the County for providing parking spaces in excess of the requirements which will address some of the existing parking problems in the down town area. Thomas Bennett made a motion to approve the variance requested to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.402,B.3. allowing the existing parking lot to waive the requirement for all parking spaces to be within 64 feet of a tree. Patrick Walsh seconded the motion in order to discuss the request. After the discussion the motion failed by a vote of 3-1 (Patrick Walsh was opposed). After extensive discussion, the Board approved the following:  Patrick Walsh made a motion to approve a Variance to Section 2.0303.1a and Section 5.206 thereby allowing the proposed encroachment of the parking garage into the required setback on 3rd Street because of the exceptional narrowness and shallowness of the shape of the property at the time of the original adoption of this ordinance and after maki ng the following findings of fact: the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served by moving the existing street parking into a controlled parking structure and there by moving it out of the public right-of-way; the appropriate use of surrounding property will not be permanently impaired or diminished because the parking will be moved into a controlled, elevated structure; the applicant has not created the hardship for which relief is sought because the existing jail facility is already encroaching outside the boundary of on-site parking and this will correct that; 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 a similar circumstance would be driven by the same design parameters that rank with a Parking structure capacity; the hardship for which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature because it’s driven primarily by the characteristics of the property and the necessary design characteristics in order to achieve off-street parking; and in granting this variance substantial justice will be served. Claude Proctor seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0.  Patrick Walsh made a motion to grant a Variance to Section 2.0303 and 7.101A to allow the encroachment into the existing parking lot into the required setbacks for the southwest corner of the lot and the future parking lot G and to Section 6.402 to allow the planting and screening to be placed in the public right-of-way after making the following findings of fact: the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served because the existing conditions will be approved with the additional planting and screenings without changing the existing parking conditions; the appropriate use of surrounding property will not be permanently impaired or diminished for the same reasons; The applicant has not created the hardship for which relief is sought because these are existing conditions and the existing parking is needed to be preserved; 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 these are existing conditions; The hardship for which relief is sought it not solely of an economic nature in fact the applicant is spending extra money in order to achieve additional screening in the spirit of the Urban Design standards; and in granting this variance substantial justice will be served. Thom as Bennett seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0.  Patrick Walsh made a motion to approve a Variance to Section 6.302,A and 6.307, Figure 2, Type A in order to allow an existing parking lot to not meet the bufferyard requirement for Block 35, Lots 5-8, as it will not be contrary to public interest because it’s an existing parking lot and adding the required bufferyard would eliminate necessary parking; strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in the applicant having to remove existing parking; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done with no limitations. Thomas Bennett seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0.  Patrick Walsh made a motion to approve a Variance to Section 6.104 to allow required landscaping in the public right-of-way as it will not be contrary to public interest due to the following special conditions: the placement of the existing parking lots currently without the required visual screening would have that screening added by the developer in the public right-of-way and the Director of COU has agreed to allow these plantings in the public right - of-way; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant being removal of existing parking and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done without limitation. Claude Proctor seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0. Joe Pondrom took over the meeting at this point. 3. Consideration and possible action on revisions to the Board of Adjustment By-laws. Joe Pondrom suggested the amendment that the Board can and will allow alternates to act on single agenda items when needed. Cathy Riedel stated that the Council had approved 2 alternates for the BOA. Patrick Walsh suggested appointing more than 2 alternates. Cathy Riedel stated that the Council only chose to appoint 2 and 1 of those would come from P&Z for the P&Z member on the BOA. Discussion continued regarding alternates. Joe Pondrom suggested that the By-laws be amended to provide for 1 alternate from the P&Z and 2-4 alternates for the regular members. Joe Pondrom asked that a copy of the amended ordinance be provided to the members. Election of a Secretary of the Board was discussed. Joe Pondrom suggested that the Board only elect a Chair and Vice-chair of the Board and change the By-laws, Section 4.8, to state that in the absence of the Chair and Vice-chair, the members present will appoint a temporary chair to preside over the meeting. He also suggested removing provision of electing a Secretary for the Board. All Board members agreed and Cathy Riedel stated that she would make the changes. She also asked that Executive Session be added to the future BOA agendas. Cathy Riedel also said that she would do some research regarding Executive Sessions. 4. Discussion of joint meeting with City Council on November 12, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. Joe Pondrom informed the Board about this meeting. 5. Discussion and possible recommendations to the City Council regarding the City’s Governance policies and ethics ordinances. Joe Pondrom asked the Board members to give any comments that they may have to the Mayor. Thomas Bennett informed the Board that he will not be able to attend the July 17th and October 16th meetings. He asked that his packet be mailed and not delivered to his home on those dates. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. /jmr J:\CUR_PLAN\MINUTES\BOA\2001\April17_01.MIN.doc