Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_12.17.2003 CITY OF GEORGETOWN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES December 17, 2003 Members Present: Ken Fuller, Audrey McDonald, William Sattler, Don Mabray, and Neil Daly. Alternate Harry Gibbs was present in the audience. Members Absent: Tom Nichols Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development, Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, and Tammye Sharpe, Planning Specialist/ Recording Secretary. Regular Meeting Audrey McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and then handed the meeting over to Ken Fuller. 1. Action from Executive Session. None 2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the November 18, 2003, meeting. Change was made to the correction that Daly and Gibbs were not absent, but present in the audience, and the correction to the spelling of Daly's name. Daly made the motion to accept the minutes with corrections. Sattler seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0. 3. Consideration and possible action on a Variance from the Un ified Development Code (UDC) for Lot 12, Block H, of Quail Valley Section One, located at 1704 Quail Valley Drive. Bobby Ray gave the staff presentation; passed around the Quail Valley plat, and informed the Board that one letter was sent to the City in support of the variance from property owner of 1705 Quail Valley. Michael Loney, owner and applicant, was present at the meeting. Loney made the Board aware that he had been in his house since September 1983; that the proposed building addition en croaches 1 foot into the 25-foot front setback; and parking is proposed to be provided on the relocated (Hunters Glen Road) driveway, which will encroach into the 25-foot front yard setback and the 7-foot sideyard setback. Ray verified that the applicant would have to remove the portion of the addition encroaching into the gas easement, or process a license to encroach. Sattler got verification from Loney that t he gas line runs across Quail Valley Drive to a junction behind Loney's neighbor's house across the street. Fuller confirmed that Loney now parks in front of the house off of Quail Valley Drive. Ray used Exh ibit B to explain applicant's proposed access change from Quail Valley to Hunter Glen Road. Ray made it clear that the gas line was not an issue for the Board, but the motion could have "subject to the gas line" included. Daly got confirmation from Ray that staff had no issue with residential distances regarding curb cuts. Motion was made by Sattler to accept the requested variance from Section 6.02.040(B)(3) of the Unified Development Code, and that it be subject to any other items that are necessary for license f ees or clearances that need to be made in any other departments. McDonald seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 4-1. Fuller voted against. 4. Appeal of an Administrative Decision regarding the Applicability of Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.09 (“Courthouse View Protection Overlay District”) on Lot 3, Block 1, of San Gabriel Village Section 1, located at 11 Waters Edge Circle. Ray informed the Board that an appeal of an Administrative Decision was not based on variance findings. Ray said that according to Section 3.14.030(C) of the UDC, the Board was being asked, in this case, to reverse, affirm or modify the administrative decision of the Director. Ray then gave the staff presentation. Ray informed the Board that on December 2nd, Planning and Zoning made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of the proposed amendment and repeal the existing language of Section 4.09 of the UDC. On December 16th, City Council voted 4-3, to approve the amendments to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District, on the condition that the subject property be omitted from the designated corridors. Sattler got confirmation that it took 6 months to get a task force to come up with modifications and present to the Commission and Council. Ray explained the implication of each voting option: 1) if Board affirms the determination of the Director, staff can work with the applicant to come up with some sort of an approach to minimize Courthouse View impact as it is outlined in the existing Ordinance; 2) another option - applicant can wait until second reading and adoption of the amended Ordinance that Council considered last night, at which time they would no longer be subject to the Courthouse View Corridor; and, 3) to modify the amendment to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District. Sondgeroth explained that the application that is currently "in- house" is under the current regulations and the ordinance is currently going through post amendments; and this had first reading by a 4-3 vote - there still needs to be a second reading in order to adopt the changes. Sondgeroth said that if the second reading includes the same action to exempt this particular property, then the ordinance will change, and the applicant could then re -file the application under the new regulations. Sondgeroth explained that applicant would have to wait until the second reading, which is February 18th. Sattler confirmed that the applicant could then re-apply on February 19th, and staff would have to review the site plan, which would take a matter of weeks, not months, to be approved. Don Martin, owner and applicant, gave his presentation. Martin gave background on property - last lot in San Gabriel Village and on the market for 9 years. Lot is a part of a mixed-use development that planned to have hotel, residential, retail, office and bank. Martin informed the Board that the proposed development was to be a 3-story, 66-room hotel on 4-acre lot. Martin's concern was the language in the Courthouse View Corridor being particularly vague - has no height definition, has nothing that constitutes a Courthouse view, or how long in t ime the view needs to be present before it was considered a Courthouse view. Martin said that he felt the intent of the Ordinance was not to prote ct momentary views, but to protect those views that are wide -open, and the way the ordinance is written, there is no room for interpretation - he feels that the director needs to be given the authority to interpret. Martin said his reason for bringing this before the Board was to resolve this issue so n o one else would have to go through this again. Sondgeroth said that the basis for the decision of the provision under the appeal of the administrative decision is as follows: all findings and conclusions necessary to permit or appeal decision shall be based upon reliable, competent evidence (admissible in a Court of Law). Sondgeroth said the staff has prepared an attempt to find within the public hearings some indication from either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council, language that would provide the specific intent by going back to the tapes and meetings of four hearings that discussed the issue. Sondgeroth read from the minutes of the policy hearing of August 7, 2003, of the City Council, under item 18, Courthouse Corridor. Sondgeroth said that what was in writing, and that Staff is going through the process of going back to the Council to improve the Ordinance. Sondgeroth said she concurs with Martin that the Ordinance does not elaborate on the purpose, on the intent of whether it should be a minimal view or a wide view - so since this was not in the Ordinance, Sondgeroth said she made her decision on what she had - which is interim, and incomplete. Sondgeroth said that she believes that is why the Council thought it very important for you to be provided the tape from yesterday evening m eeting, and asked for the Staff to explain to the Commission what occurred at Council. Sondgeroth said that Council did t ake action to exempt Martin's particular piece of property. Sondgeroth said throughout the evidence, th ere is never any indication from any of the public officials as to what the intent was - whether the intent was to provide short views - glimpses - or wide broad view, while driving. This intent is what has not been obtained through the public hearings. Sondgeroth said that last night staff got a better indication of what Council wants, through the decision they made and the action of exempting the Martin site. Dal y confirmed that the Council did not tell staff what would be included or not included, they did say t hat they did not intend to include something like the site in question. City Attorney, Carls, advised Sondgeroth to present this issue to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, as it is the cleanest administra tive way to resolve the issue. Daly confirmed that the staff could not find Legislative intent, and now you have it. Martin said that Council made it abundantly clear that the intent was not to protect momen tary views, and directed Staff to make changes to the Ordinance to include that the intent was not to protect momentary views. Sondgeroth told the Board that Staff had asked for a delay to identify specific Corridors, and that would require actually doing metes and bounds description. Sondgeroth said that even if we come up with what the description of what the description is, momentary vs. broad, it still will fall back to the Staff to have to make that decision - it's a difficult decision to make, because for one person momentary would not be the same as another. Gabe Sansing, 217 John Thomas, a Council member, who made the motion last night, was present to answer any questions as to what the intent was of the Council - which was not to have momentary views. Sansing said that he felt the reason Dr. Snell did not want to start over was his concern of losing what work had been done so far, and wanted to make it proceed with the amendments. Sansing confirmed that the reason for Council to exempt Martin's property was for him to be able to go ahead with the project thus showing that the intent was to have a broader view of the Courthouse, not momentary. Steve King, 315 Bowie, with Consort Incorporated (the firm who prepared the site plan for the Comfor t Suites Hotel), discussed the owner being a small business man, financially committed and excited about the project. Charles Toubin, broker representing Comfort Suites owner, discussed the hotel design and accommodation plans, and was present to answer any questions. Martin discussed all the work that had been done on the Corridor. Sondgeroth said that she would li ke for the Corridor to be articulated. Sansing said that the Council would like to give Director author ity to use her discernment on variances in the Corridor. William Sattler made the motion to deny the recommendation of the Director's Administrative Decision pursuant to Section 3.14, regarding the Applicability of the Unified Development Code, Section 4.09 ("Courthouse View Protection Overlay District") on Lot 3, Block 1 of San Gabriel Village Section 1, located at 11 Waters Edge Circle. Ken Fuller seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of 5-0. Motion to deny Director's recommendation was passed. Sattler made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Fuller seconded the motion. Motion passed. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. /tas