HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_03.15.2005CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustments
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 East 7th Street. Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners Present: Audrey McDonald, Richard Vasquez III, Jim Jarvis, Ann Snell, Earl Watson
Commissioners Absent: Danny Swafford, Dan Popejoy
Staff Present: Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner, Paula Dessler, Recording Secretary
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board Of Adjustments, for consideration and possible action on the f ollowing:
Audrey McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:08
1. Action from Executive session-NONE.
2. Will table the election of a Vice Chair and Secretary for the next meeting.
3. Public hearing to consider a Variance from Section 6.02.040 B. 3g of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) to allow parking in the front setback for Parkview Estates, Section One, Block D, Lot 176,
located at 119 Benchmark St.
Staff Presentation
Bobby Ray presented the staff report to the board and explained that the Board must have at least
four members to approve the application.
Applicant Presentation
Tommy Bell presented the application. Points reviewed:
1. The court requested that the applicant have a separate room for the daughter coming to stay at the
house.
It would cost him additional time and money to build the additional parking out front. In addition the
applicant thought the screening would anger his neighbors.
Findings of Fact
1. The applicant did not present any evidence that there were any special conditions or except ional
circumstances related to the subject property that warranted variance approval. There were no
physical circumstances related to the property that necessitated the need for the parking space to
be located within the 25-foot front yard setback.
2. There was no evidence presented which would indicate that granting the variance would have been
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
3. The conditions surrounding this variance request would not apply to any other property in the
vicinity of the subject site, due to the fact that the need for the variance was the result of the
owners attempted enclosure of the garage. Other properties within the vicinity of the subject site
attempting to enclose, and / or eliminate, required garage parking would be subject to the same
variance process.
4. The need for the variance are the direct result of the applicant’s own action. The attempted
garage enclosure was constructed without required building permits and without demonstrated
compliance with applicable building codes. Enforcement was initiated by the City in response to a
complaint received (TAKE-96UPH9). As part of the enforcement action the applicant was made
aware of the need for the variance in order to relocate the eliminated off-street parking space to
the front yard setback.
5. The granting of the variance would substantially conflict with the purposes of the UDC, which
allows for 50% of the front yard setback to be used for parking subject to screening of parking
from the public view. This Code allowance recognizes the need for flexibility by providing an
administrative process for parking in the front yard setback, provided the aesthetic impacts are
lessened by appropriate screening. The requested variance would allow for the benefit of parking
in the front yard setback without providing any screening from the public right of way.
6. There was no evidence presented which clearly demonstrated that, due to conditions which
created the need for the variance, application of the Unified Development Code and adherence to
the required off-street parking location would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the
property. The use of the property for single-family residential purposes would not be impacted by
compliance with the parking requirements. The applicant would not be allowed to increase the
livable area of the structure by enclosing a garage space. Since required parking for a single -
family residence is 2 off-street spaces, and is not based upon living area, there would be no
parking limitation associated with a legally constructed addition.
Motion By Snell to deny the Variance request based on it does not comply with the findings of facts
(with the exception of #2) as required by the ordinance. Second by McDonald. 3-2
IN FAVOR
Snell, McDonald, Watson
OPPOSED
Jarvis (Alternate), Vasquez
ABSENT
Swafford, Popejoy
Meeting adjourned at 7:42