The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes_ZBA_09.16.2003 CITY OF GEORGETOWN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES September 16, 2003 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 buil ding, 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 Leggit t, asked Thompson to clear the property, which he did, except for the slab. Thompson said that they had a contract with IHOP to bu y 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 provis ion 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 grea se 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 hav e 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 (“Driv eway 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 th e 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 off the ho me. 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 historica l 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. Bo ne said that he was planning to paint the purple house another color, and paint insid e 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 Pi ne Street and University Avenue. Rennier said that even though this property was zoned as office, it w as 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