Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_03.19.2002 CITY OF GEORGETOWN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002 Tom Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. Other Board members present were Thomas Bennett, Michelle Gambino and Ken Fuller. Staff members present were Bobby Ray, Chief Planner/Current Planning, Carla Benton, Development Planner, and Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary. 1. Action from Executive Session. None. Agenda: 2. Minutes of the January 15, 2002, meeting were considered. Bennett made the motion to approve minutes as is. Michelle Gambino seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0. Tom Nichols made a motion to elect Thomas Bennett as Vice-Chairman. Michelle Gambino seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0. Ken Fuller made a motion to elect himself as Secretary. Tom Nichols seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0. Meeting was recessed at 6:10 p.m. Reconvened at 6:40 p.m. Nichols said that he would like to go ahead and take item number 4 on the agenda at this time. 5. Duncan & Associates made a presentation of the proposed Unified Development Code. Leane Heldenfels introduced herself and gave a quick presentation of what has been done so far to update the Unified Development Code, and then introduced Lee Einsweiler, who is with Duncan & Associates. Einsweiler gave his presentation. Nichols asked to break in. It was decided that the meeting would be reconvened at 1:00 p.m., tomorrow, Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at Development Services located at 904 S. Main Street, in the large conference room. Nichols excused the applicants and public at this time, and asked Einsweiler to continue. Lee Ensweiler continued his presentation. Meeting was recessed at 8:07 p.m. Reconvened on March 20, 2002, at 1:10 p.m. Tom Nichols, Thomas Bennett, Audrey McDonald, and Joshua Konkle, Alternate, joined the meeting. Michelle Gambino was not present. Staff present was Bobby Ray, Chief Planner, Current Planning, Carla Benton, Development Planner, and Tammye Sharpe, Recording Secretary.. 3. Consideration and possible action on a Public hearing for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Williamson County Criminal Justice Facility, Block 2, Lot 1, located at the corner of 6th and Rock Streets. Carla Benton gave the staff report. Nichols informed all present that he gave a copy of the Section 5.502 to the other Board members. Nichols asked for applicant’s presentation. Flint Britton, Broddus Associates, showed the articulation that stuck out 9 feet into the setback area, which puts it 32’ from the curb, after the easement is taken in consideration. Britton brought out these points: that this change would give the building a better look; the articulation was facing an industrial area; an extreme amount of landscaping that was going to be done; the jail would be able to accommodate 48 additional beds, and the rendering comes from the north. Brian King, the design architect, made his presentation stating that the build out design helped inside visibility and security. King informed Board that security was done by monitors, and if area was built in, it would allow blind spots in two of the quadrants (or pods), and would be a security problem for the person manning the monitors. Nichols confirmed that the Sher iff’s Department and the parking garage were set back 50’ from the property line. There was discussion using the report drawing for clarification of doorways used to enter and leave the building, resolved height restriction, curb cut, lower entry and window existence. Paul Baer, Landmark Project Manager, spoke about the necessity for the inmate bed count number, whether the variance was passed or not, the County had need for the additional beds being given by this design to meet the required number needed. Konkle was concerned about the visibility problem to security. Fuller asked how much additional feet would have to be put on the north end to accommodate the same number of beds, and what was stopping them from doing that. King said that there was an impervious coverage issue. Britton said that the thought put into the designing would take the facility into the next fifteen (15) years, without having to expand the building envelope. King said that bed count was arrived at by the demographic study – and that this facility maxis out with 1200 beds. Fuller confirmed that he understood that the land was County picked, and that they were trying to max out the capacity, and to do that, it requires variances; and because of this, he feels that the applicant has created the hardship; and further feels that if the variance if granted, it will set a precedence.. Britton stated that a t the City Council meeting, it was agreed between the City and the County that there would be a limit to growth of this complex in the west and the north, and it would cap the height to the current height that it is now. Benton said no to setting precedence, unless the same specific situation occurs some where else, which is very unlikely. Fuller said the hardship from which relief was sought was solely of an economic basis by maxing the capacity and simplifying security. Konkle was not in agreement with Fuller. Paul Baer, Landmark Project manager, brought out that, by code, there has to be so many egresses, and the hardship was because of a life safety issue more than a economic issue”. Thomas Bennett made the motion to deny the variance requested to Section 2.0403 of the Zoning ordinance to allow an encroachment of the stairwell of the proposed jail on Rock Street into the 25 foot front building setback, - as it would be contrary to public interest, and - it would set a precedence that might be of long standing in the community. Fuller seconded. Motion was denied by a vote of 3-1. McDonald voted against. Nichols made a second motion to approve the variance of Section 5.502 of the Zoning Ordinance requiring building articulation for this area of the jail, - as it will not be contrary to the public interest, and - because of a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and - such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: * without encroachment into the building envelop, and * not seeking to recess the stair into the building envelop Benton clarified the motion was made for the articulation to comply with the horizontal and vertical articulation regulations. Nichols affirmed. Bennett seconded the mot ion. McDonald asked for clarification on the motion. Nichols said that the motion stated the Board would allow a variance to Section 5.502 the articulation standards saying that they do not have to bring forward the stairwell into building; that Board will allow the wall to go completely across the front (flush). Fuller asked what this motion did to the applicant. Nichols said that the motion relieves the applicant of having to project the stairwell out of the building, and it does not require them to go inward; the stairwell will be enclosed inside the building. Fuller asked what this did to the security problem. King stated that the Sheriff was not here to address that question. Motion was passed with a vote of 3-1, with McDonald against. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for the Morrow Addition, East ½ of the North ½ of Block B, located at 1236 South Main Street. Before the staff presentation started, Nichols excused himself from presiding and voting on this Item; giving Thomas Bennett authority as Acting-Chair, and Joshua Konkle to be able to vote in Nichols’ place. Bobby Ray gave staff presentation. Bennett clarified that the existing storage building is behind the garage. Fuller asked what the distance between the pecan tree and the north side of the property. Nichols answered 3 feet 4 inches. Speaker answered that it might be around 26 feet. Nichols asked Strauss to identify herself for the record. Lori Strauss, 1113 Archit ects said owner would like to build a garage that they can pull two cars into and get in and out of easily. Konkle confirmed that the garage was 21 feet in width and 24 feet in length. Strauss said that owner would like to have a garage that would be functional as a garage for their autos. Fuller asked about the Fire Marshall’s comments. Strauss said that the new garage would be on the exact 2 foot distance from the property line, where the existing garage is, and would be 10 feet away from the next-door garage building beside. Strauss said applicants were taking out the existing storage shed and garage, and moving the proposed garage forward, and putting the storage shed in the back, while still allowing a 7’ rear setback. Konkle clarified that the var iance was for the north side of the property line, to be able to leave the new garage 2 feet away from the property line - the garage will be 21 feet in width, instead of the typical 24 feet, so that a tree is saved. Konkle asked if there was an ordinance that was in force to forbid them in cutting down the pecan tree. Ray said that the Subdivision restrictions did not have anything in it to forbid the tree from being cut. Fuller pointed out that there were no side entry garages in the Morrow Addition area. Ray said that the current requirement is that you could have a driveway in the side yard provided that the drive is a side entry. There was discussion on the location of the garage in different places. Fuller asked if this variance was passed, would it set any precedence. Ray answered that each case is specific, and each situation needed to be looked at on a case by case basis. Konkle asked why the applicant couldn’t move the driveway and the side of the garage to the other side of the house where you have more room. Strauss said that the drive was existing, and it would be more work to do that. Discussion. Audrey McDonald made the motion to approve the variance to Sections 2.0203.1.b and 8.202.D of the Zoning Ordinance to allow: an encroachment of the proposed detached garage and accessory building into the required side building setback; and, to allow the expansion of the existing driveway, within the required side yard, accessing a non-side entry garage, - as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions, and - such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed, and - substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the basis for the variance request, outlined in the submitted application materials, is the preservation of a 36” pecan tree located adjacent to the south side of the detached structures. As the proposals is currently designed, the required seven (7”) foot side yard cannot be provided without the removal of this tree. Konkle seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 4-0 vote. The tree is saved. Nichols took over the meeting at this time. No items were brought forth to discuss. Tom Bennett made the motion to adjourn. Fuller seconded the motion. Motion passed with a vote of 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. /tas