HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_09.18.2001
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES
September 18, 2001
Joe Pondrom called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Other Board members present were Claude
Proctor, Sheila Johnson, Thomas Bennett, and Patrick Walsh. Tom Nichols and Audrey McDonald, the
BOA alternates, were present in the audience.
Staff members present were Melissa Murphy, Development Planner, Patricia Carls, City Attorney, and
Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary.
Agenda:
1. Action from Executive Session – None
Chair, Joe Pondrom, a Williamson County employee, asked to step down and asked Tom Nichols to sit
in to vote. Sheila Johnson, Vice-Chair, took her place to preside over the meeting.
2. Consideration and possible action on Variances to the Zoning Ordinance for Whittle Addition,
Block 3, Lot 1 (NW/SW) part), known as the Williamson County Health Department, located at
303 and 307 Main Street. Melissa Murphy gave staff presentation. Murphy informed the
Commissioners that the 1992 permit that allowed a 5’ encroachment over the line was
permitted by John Warden, Chief Planner for the City at the time, and there is no evidence that
this encroachment went through a variance process. Patrick Walsh asked about the
requirement to add six parking spaces. Murphy said that the applicant needed 18 spaces, and
currently had 12 spaces, and the other 6 were going to be obtained from across the street on
Main (County-owned properties). Georgetown resident, Mike Vogler, who lives at 1009 S. Pine,
voiced his concern about the drainage and parking. John Nelson gave the percentage of
existing building on site at 23%, which will be reduced to 21%, and overall existing impervious
coverage on site at 56%, which will be reduced to 47.75%. Walsh stated that the applicant is
asking the Board to approve for a government entity what the Board would not approve for
anyone else, and that the issue is at odds with the zoning ordinance based on a proposed use.
John Moman, the County’s architect for this project, argued that the applicant was making
improvements of safety, location of driveway, less impervious coverage, and improving
landscaping. Thomas Bennett said that he could see leniency in understanding that the issue
is not solely of an economic nature, and the applicant provides services t o Williamson County
residents, but the problem comes back to the hardship from which relief is sought. Claude
Proctor’s question of what percentage of parking is in the setback area was answered with a
50% - 6 in setback, and 6 out - by Moman. Bennett started a discussion of knowing if the
zoning variance would stay with the owner of the property if later sold, to which Walsh said that
the zoning ordinance confers the right to the property, not to the property owner. Patricia Carls,
City Attorney, informed the Board that if they were going to make a variance conditional, they
might want to reflect how practical those conditions would be and how hard they would be to
undo, and stated that the Commission could pass a conditional variance. Questions of if the
zoning variance would stay with the site, the practicality of re-development on the site, and
what would happen to the off-site parking spaces if site was sold were discussed. Murphy
informed the Commissioners that parking is based on the square footage of the building, and
the parking agreement is between the property owners. Walsh made the motion to deny the
variances to Section 2.0203.1.a , Area Regulations, to Section 5.202, General Rules for Yards,
and to Section 8.202, Accessory Buildings, as it would be contrary to the public interest through
the lack of special conditions and because relaxing of the provisions of the ordinance for a
government entity would reduce the enforceability of the ordinance for commercial developers
or private citizens, after making the following finds of fact:
- by encroaching upon those setbacks for parking that you are impairing the use of the
surrounding property
- the applicant has created the hardship, inadvertently, but the hardship was created by
the county when the building was put there at the first, and it has not changed
- the variance would confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege to a government
entity that would not be given to a commercial builder or private citizen
Nichols seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0.
Joe Pondrom took over the meeting at this point.
3. Consideration and possible action on Variance to River Oaks-I.H. 35 Business Park, Lot 10,
located on 200 River Oaks Cove, Lot 10 to allow a reduction in parking spaces. Melissa
Murphy gave staff presentation. Murphy passed out photo shots of the trees to be saved, and
put on the overhead a map to where those pictured trees were located. Walsh asked what has
changed since the previous application. Murphy said that this is part of the same application,
and that the applicant found more trees that they would like to save when they were doing the
actual development of the property than what they proposed on paper. Murphy answered
Walsh’s question to what happens if one of the trees dies, by saying that it would have to be
replaced. Mike Michaux, with Larry Peel and Company, who represents the applicant, indicated
that the live oaks are #8 and two on #9. Michaux said the majority of the parking spaces being
eliminated to save the trees are around Building Eleven, which are one bedroom units, so the
parking ratio will be much lighter there. Joe Pondrom clarified what Michaux said about the
parking being eliminated could be found in the area marked “Phase 1”, whic h is for overflow
parking. Larry Peel, owner, said they are trying to save more trees, and that parking is very
adequate for the site. Pondrom went over the five finds of fact, saying that (b) a plus, (c) there
is not hardship, and (d) is a positive. Patrick made the motion to authorize the Variance to
Section 7.102, Table 7A, Parking Requirements, as it will not be contrary to the public interest
due to the condition of the existing trees and existing green space and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the
community by removing the existing trees and the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, after making the following findings of fact:
- saving existing trees, green space, is always in the public’s interest, and applicant has
done a good job in doing so
- the appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently
impaired or diminished, but will be a plus to all involved
- there is no hardship created by applicant
- the variance is a positive action by the owner
- saving these trees is more costly to the applicant, and not to anyone else, so the relief
sought is not economic
Thomas Bennett seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5-0.
Chair, Joe Pondrom welcomed Audrey McDonald to the Board of Adjustment. With no further
business, Patrick Walsh made a motion to adjourn. Sheila Johnson seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
/tas