HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_09.16.2003Minutes of the Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , September 16,
2003.
Members Present:
Tom Nichols, Audrey McDonald, Don Mabray, WIlliam Sattler, Harry Gibbs and Cornelius Daly
Members Absent:
Ken Fuller
Staff Present:
Bobby Ray, Development Planner, David Munk, City Engineer, and Tammye Sharpe, Planning
Specialist/Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Tom Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Board members present were Audrey McDonald, Don
Mabray, William Sattler, Harry Gibbs and Cornelius Daly. Member absent was Ken Fuller.
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 July 15, 2003 , regular meeting.
Audrey McDonald made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Don Mabray seconded the motion, which
passed with a vote of 5-0.
3. Consideration and possible action on a variance from the Unified Development Code to allow the reconstruction
and use of a
nonconforming structure destroyed by natural / accidental causes, in excess of the 6 month time frame allowed
by Section
14.04.010(A)(1), for 0.55 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract #497, located at 105 IH 35 (Chuckwagon
Restaurant).
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation, indicating that the fire of June 20, 2002, destroyed the building, and applicants
were here to ask for a time extension to rebuild. Archie Thompson, one of the owners, gave his presentation, giving the
history of the restaurant – opened April 1, 1979 and ran it until June 15, 1986, then leased it. Thompson said that the
City said it was over 50% destroyed, and the insurance said that it was rebuildable. City Fire Marshall, Tom Leggitt,
asked Thompson to clear the property, which he did, except for the slab. Thompson said that they had a contract with
IHOP to buy the site, but TxDOT took away the Williams Drive exit, which dissolved the contract. TxDOT has now given
the Williams Drive access back to the site, with the condition of a right-in and right-out only. Thompson said that he has
6 to 7 letters of intent to build back on the property as is. Rex Womble, one of the owners, gave his presentation, stating
again that the curb cut is resolved. Womble said that they would like to have another restaurant on the property again.
Ray said that there was no provision that would have allowed them to extend the 6-month rebuild.
Sturdy Wanamaker, 1103 Williams Drive, feels that the site is too close to his property and could be a problem if
another fire broke out having his place catch on fire. Wanamaker also had issues on grease residue on his grass and
parking lot from grease collector, damage to his fence, water leakage from the building units draining over onto his
property and stagnating, and a trailer unit between the fence and restaurant creating a rodent problem.
During discussion between Board members and applicants, it was confirmed that if variance was approved, new
structure would need to be built on the existing slab and be completed within 6 months, to which Mike Mason, FTWood
consultant, said he felt it would be an impossibility with no design - also, cannot waive ADA or TCEQ - and if not
completed within time frame, have to come back before BOA to extend time again (which is not a sure thing); if variance
is denied, then building would have to be built under the UDC. Different uses have been looked into - Jiffy Lube, service
station - applicant desires to build some sort of restaurant again. Suggestion from applicant of building a concrete block
wall between Wanamaker's and applicant's properties for fire protection.
McDonald made the motion to deny a variance to allow the reconstruction and use of a nonconforming structure
destroyed by natural / accidental causes, in excess of the 6 month time frame allowed by Section 14.04.010(A)(1), for
0.55 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract No. 497, located at 105 North IH-35 (Chuckwagon Restaurant),
-as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions;
-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.
Mabray seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-1, Harry Gibbs opposing the motion. Variance was
denied.
4.Consideration and possible action on a Variance from Sections 12.03.020 (“Driveway Separation”) and
12.04.020 (“Driveway Spacing from Intersections”) of the Unified Development Code for a Portion of Block 2 of
Snyder’s Addition located at 711 East University Avenue.
Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation, indicating the applicant’s request for a variance to allow the conversion of the
property from residential to office while maintaining the existing driveway configuration and the use of the circular drive
for the proposed business would be as a “right-in” – “right-out” with the northerly drive used as the entrance and the
southerly drive as the exit. Kenneth Evans, owner, gave his presentation. Evans said he has lived in the historical
house since March 1992, and the home was zoned RM-3 at that time. Zoning has since changed to Office under the
new UDC. Evans said that he had a perspective buyer that wanted to move his office into the home, and wanted a
variance to use the existing driveway configuration, so they can keep it as a historical structure by not changing anything
inside or outside the home.
Sattler confirmed that it was 40 feet from the corner of Pine and E University Ave to the edge of the site's driveway.
Sattler proposed that the edge of the driveway be cut-off 10' and make that driveway a forced right-only, making the
driveway in compliance. Munk and Ray confirmed. Nichols told Sattler that the driveway change could not be made, as
it would affect the historical designation of the home. Sattler asked if barriers in that location would be a significant
enough change to affect the designation. Nichols indicated that the Texas Historical Commission can be very strict in
their review of site alterations. Sattler asked if a sign was put up that said "Do Not Enter" would change the historical
designation. Nichols said he did not think so, as it was not changing the structure or the site, and that the City would
have to allow that. Nichols said that there really was no need to put a sign up, as the traffic was not heavy. Sattler said
that he was just trying to find compliance.
Danny and Leigh-Anna Bone were present to give their presentation. Bone said his company is called Benidex Group,
that does employee benefits. He said that his company would not create any traffic problems, as he has a staff of 5
(which are never there at the same time), and Bone goes to his client’s office, not them to his. The office would be open
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Bone said that he was planning to paint the purple house another color,
and paint inside the house, but nothing structurally would be changed.
Jeannine Rennier, surrounding property owner, has concerns with excess traffic, and parking on both sides of Pine
Street, and would like a no parking zone for the first 100 feet from the corner of Pine Street and University Avenue.
Rennier said that even though this property was zoned as office, it was a change in the neighborhood to establish an
office at this location.
Mike Vogler, surrounding property owner, was in favor of the variance request, as long as everything was left the same
to retain the historical home.
Nichols made the motion to approve a variance from Sections 12.03.020 (“Driveway Separation”) and 12.04.020
(“Driveway Spacing from Intersections”) of the Unified Development Code for a portion of Block 2 of Snyder’s Addition,
located at 711 East University Avenue, i.e., to leave the driveways as they are:
-the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and,
-the appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and
-the applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and
-such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
Mabray seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0. Variance was approved.
At this time, Ray talked to the Board regarding the number of votes required to approve a variance, and if we could
change local codes or local bylaws – to modify the number. The number of votes that are required to approve a
variance is a State requirement – from the local government code. Ray said that there needs to be 75% of votes of the
members of the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance. There has to be four affirmative votes to pass a variance.
There needs to be 5 members to vote at all meetings. Board of Adjustment has 5 members and two alternates.
Gibbs made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Sattler seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
/tas