Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_07.15.2003Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas , July 15, 2003 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on , July 15, 2003. Members Present: Tom Nichols, Audrey McDonald, Don Mabray, William Sattler, Harry Gibbs and Cornelius Daly Members Absent: Ken Fuller Staff Present: Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, David Munk, City Engineer, and Tammye Sharpe, Team Specialist/ Recording Secretary. Minutes Regular Meeting Tom Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Board members present Ken Fuller, Audrey McDonald, Don Mabray and William Sattler. Staff members present Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, David Munk, City Engineer, and Tammye Sharpe, Team Specialist/ Recording Secretary. 1.Action from Executive Session. None. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the May 20, 2003, regular meeting. Ken Fuller made the motion to accept the minutes as written, with the comment that McDonald brought up the adjournment without a vote count at the May meeting, and if it was permissible. Audrey McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0. 3.Consideration and possible action on a variance from UDC Section 12.03.020 to allow the establishment of a commercial driveway closer than the minimum required separation from adjacent driveways, for the east 65’ of Lot 2, Block 1, of Highland Park Revised, located at 508 FM 1460. Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation, informing Board of the letter sent to the in favor of the variance by surrounding property located on Austin Avenue. Roy Headrick, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. Headrick said that he had someone who had intentions of putting a BookStore on the site. Headrick said that he was willing to sign something that showed he would promise to put one egress and ingress for the four lots, rather than four driveways; and, there would be 7 parking spaces, with a turn-around behind the building, so no backing out on FM 1460. Discussion on setbacks. Fuller had an issue with safety. Nichols summed up in his opinion that the good about this site was that there was good visibility and there was no problem with safety issue of speeding traffic because of the intersection. The bad about the site was that it was very close to the intersection, and there would be stacking lanes. Vic Flores, 2403 Highland, had a concern that the driveway would be expanded, and was not in favor of that, as the traffic was tough on FM 1460. Flores said that a service road would be helpful, maybe, where the sidewalk exists now. Nichols suggested an option that the variance could be granted, but with a right turn only exiting. Mabray confirmed that without the variance being approved, Headrick could not go forward with a site plan. Fuller made the motion to deny a variance from UDC Section 12.03.020 allowing the establishment of a commercial driveway closer than the minimum required separation from adjacent driveways, for the East 65; of Lot 2, Block 1 of Highland Park Revised, located at 508 FM 1460, as it would be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, adding on the concern for safety, and concern for setting precedence. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 3-2, with Nichols and Sattler opposing the motion. 4.Consideration and possible action on a variance from the UDC Section 6.02.040(B)(1)(a) to allow the placement of a detached accessory structure 2’ from a side property line (west) where 7’ is required for Lot 3, Block C of Reata Trails Unit 3, located at 105 Canyon Road. Ray gave the staff presentation, passing a plat around to help with his presentation, informing the Board of a letter mailed to the City in favor of the variance Ray also informed the Board of 2 other surrounding property owners who had concerns about the inadequate site drainage along the backside of the properties, and the concern that the building might contribute to the problem. Kevin and Deborah Bartles, applicants, were present to answer questions and explained their plans of the building they wished to build. Cathy Bryant, 103 Canyon Road, owner of 103, 107 and 109 Canyon Road, concerned with drainage, and with the additional impervious coverage would add to the drainage problem. David Munk, City Engineer, said that the older subdivision had no grading plans, causing the drainage problems Bryant was concerned about, and said that City gives suggestions, such as tie to the City storm drain, or put a french drain in the backyard or similar drain system. Bartles said that the existing trees and existing structure cased the location that they picked for the portable building. Barltes said that the building would be on skids, and that the building would be used for storage mostly, and for lawn mower, and things that they would like to access easily rather than having them in the attic. Shari and Gene Champion, 108 Windmill Cove, were concerned with the drainage in their backyard. Champions’ are directly behind the Bartles backyard. Gene Champion said that their lot is the lowest in the subdivision. Discussion of the drainage problem. Nichols suggested to have a requirement to have gutters on the building going into a french drain. Munk said that they would have a drain that would tie into the City storm system. Ray said that the only reason that the applicants are here is because the building will be set 2 feet from the property line. Nichols reminded Board members that if they approved the building that it might be an eyesore because it is 5’ closer to the property line than it should be, or if moving it off there make it less of an eyesore; the need for gutters on the building. Sattler gave suggestion on different location. Fuller made the suggestion of smaller unit. Ray answered question regarding the purpose for setbacks – to provide protection from adjacent properties; to maintain distance between accessory and/or primary structures. Mabry suggested that the Board table the issue so the applicants could come back with a drainage plan. Nichols made the motion to approve the variance request, with the proviso that gutters are put on both sides of the building and that the collection is brought to a single point and then French drains under each of the two rain leaders (3 to 4 feet) back filled with gravel to disperse the rainwater. Applicant at this time said that this request would be too expensive, and would not consider the request. Nichols withdrew his motion. Munk, City Engineer, said that he did not remember saying that the building would not create extra run-off, because he felt it would – there are impervious coverage limits that you are in. Munk said that if there are neighbors yards filling, this additional building has a very good possibility of adding water to what’s already existing. Munk said that the City would always work with Churchill Farms to give assistance in solving drainage problems, but it is the homeowner’s expense. Mabry made a motion that the Board table the issue and have the applicants come back with a drainage plan. No second. Fuller made the motion to approve a variance from the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.02.040(B)(1)(a) to allow the placement of a detached accessory structure 2/ from a side property line (west) where7’ is required for Lot 3, Block C of Reata Trails, unit 3, located at 105 Canyon Road, -as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the fact that none of the neighbors have any problem with the building, as it meet the codes; -because 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: with the encourage that the residents get together with the City and figure out how to solve the drainage problem. Sattler seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-2, with McDonald and Mabray opposing the motion. Motion was denied. McDonald made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Fuller seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. /tas