HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_03.21.2006Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, March 21, 2006 Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
March 21, 2006, at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Danny Swafford, Chair; Earl Watson, Vice-Chair; Williams Moore,
Secretary; Jim Jarvis; Ann Snell; Richard Vasquez III.
Alternates present: Dale Ross
Members absent: Patrick Lawson
Staff present: Bobby Ray, Director, Planning & Development; Jennifer Bills, Planner; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary.
This is a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown. The
Board, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, acts on requests for variances,
interpretations and special exceptions under the Georgetown Zoning Ordinance.
Order of Hearing Process:
Staff makes a presentation of the project to the Board;
The applicant is provided an opportunity to present their project to the Board;
The Board asks questions of both Staff and the applicant;
*The Public Hearing is open, and both proponents and opponents are allowed to speak;
The Public Hearing is closed and the Board deliberates on the merits of the case; and,
The Board generates findings to support their decision, a motion is made and seconded,
and a vote is taken on the motion presented.
Variance approvals require an affirmative vote of 4 members of the Board.
* Those who speak please identify yourselves for the meeting record.
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Call to order: 6:05 p.m.
Chair Swafford led the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized
by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
1. Action from Executive Session. There was not an Executive Session.
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Zoning Board of
Adjustment meeting of the December 20, 2005.
Motion by Moore to approve the minutes. Second by Vasquez. Approved 6-0.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, March 21, 2006 Page 2 of 4
Chair Swafford discussed his recent resignation from the Board due to his moving outside
the Board’s jurisdiction. Will Moore was appointed by the Mayor to serve as Chair. Patrick
Lawson was elevated to a regular member and Dale Ross was appointed as an alternate.
For this meeting, Swafford served as Chair for a total of six members on the dais.
3. Public Hearing to Consider a Variance from Table(s) 6.03.020 and 9.02.030 (A) of the
Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow construction of a building addition within the
required side yard setback, and to vary the provision of required on-site parking, for Lot 33
of the Industrial Park North Subdivision located at 40210 Industrial Park North.
Bobby Ray introduced Jennifer Bills, the new staff member of the Planning & Development
Department. He stated she will be presenting most of the applications to this Board in the
future.
Staff report was given by Jennifer Bills. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to
the rear of the current structure. This addition would add 750 square feet of space to the
current 1800 square feet of interior space. He would like the addition to follow the building
line with the existing structure and extend the back of the building by 30 feet. This will
extend the existing 5-foot side yard by 30 feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance
from the UDC, which requires 1 parking space per 600 square feet of the ground floor area
of the indoor facility, which would require 1 additional parking space on the lot, bringing
the total to 4 parking spaces. Presently, the outside yard space is being used for materials
storage and as the increase in development will not lead to an increase in employees at the
site, the applicant does not feel that the additional requirement is necessary and will limit
the available storage on site. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance from UDC
Section 6.03.020 to allow a 5 foot side setback where a 20 foot side setback is required based
on the fact that there are no extraordinary conditions. The building is small on such a large
lot and the building extension can be designed to comply with the regulations. Staff also
recommends denial of the requested variance from UDC Table 9.02.030(A), to waive the
requirement for 1 additional parking space.
Commissioner Moore questioned when and why the UDC setback standards were changed
from 5 feet to 20 feet for setbacks. Ray explained the history of these standards is not
available, but this subdivision is specifically noted in the UDC as a non-conforming use, and
no specific accommodations for setbacks have been made.
Commissioner Moore questioned the parking variance requirement, stating he didn’t see the
existing parking. Staff reported that there is space on the lot for the additional parking
space, but the applicant was requesting a variance because it was inconvenient to provide.
Jim Caskey, owner of the property spoke. He stated he has leased the property to the
masonry contracting business since 1984 and is trying to help them expand. He stated the
leasee employs 3 people, 2 people on-site and 1 person comes and goes. His justification for
the extension of the building is that the rear setback is 20 feet and that the addition of the
extra square footage, an added length of 25 feet to the building would only bring it within
50 feet of the rear property line. He stated it is a logistical problem to offset the building
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, March 21, 2006 Page 3 of 4
because the movement of the materials in the building would be restricted. The masonry
company needs to extend the building to continue their growing business in Georgetown.
Jarvis questions the availability of parking and where the owner would place the parking
spaces. Caskey stated he didn’t know the UDC rules but would have to work with the staff
to determine where to designate the parking. Caskey says adding a parking space on the lot
will not help any of the parking problems in this area.
Chair Swafford stated he agrees with Jarvis in that after reviewing the building site, the
variance for the building setback seems to be reasonable, but that the rules are pretty clear
on the parking issue and he is not supportive of the parking variance.
Snell stated this was not a board of equity and in her opinion, it was up to the Board to
apply the rules, however, the rules show that the City cannot achieve the goals of growth
with the existing standards. She agrees that this is a reasonable request, but the rules are
there to be followed.
Jarvis stated he thinks the rules are subjective in nature and reasonable people can disagree
on how they are applied. He thinks this is can be justified and went through those points.
Snell called the question.
Motion by Jarvis to make the necessary findings to grant the variance for the extension of
the building only and not the additional parking and that the Board find the facts in the
affirmative for all six items. Second by Moore. Ray stated that the Findings of Fact would
need to be specifically completed and read.
Moore questioned the parking requirements on this lot. He asked if they could be on-street
parking. Ray stated that parking would have to be on-site, not on-street, and specifically
designated on the property.
Swafford amended the motion to include the following findings of fact for the extension of
the building:
(1) There are special circumstances existing on the property on which the
application is made related to size, shape, area, topography, surrounding
conditions and location, that is, prior setback and configuration of the building
would allow compliance with the regulations prior to the UDC;
(2) The granting of the variance on the specific property will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to other property in the area, or
to the City in administering this code, that is, there is no change in use; and
(3) The conditions creating the need for the variance do not apply generally to other
property in the same area and the same zoning districts, that is, specific to this
industrial use; and
(4) The conditions that create the need for the variance are not the result of the
applicant's own actions, that is original construction was performed under other
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, March 21, 2006 Page 4 of 4
standards that allowed a 5 foot setback and continuance of the construction of
the building will not create a detriment to this area; and
(5) The granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this code, that is the continued use of
industrial property; and
(6) Because of the conditions that create the need for the variance, the application of
this code to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, that is this doesn’t allow the
applicant to expand the building in a feasible and efficient manner; and
(5) Based upon the foregoing evidence and criteria, I move that the Board approve
the variance to Section 6.03.020 of the UDC requested by the applicant for the
property located at 40210 Industrial Park North.
Motion passed 5 – 1. (Snell opposed.)
Motion by Snell to deny the requested variance from UDC Table 9.02.030(A), to waive the
requirement for 1 additional parking space, based on the fact that there are no special
circumstances to justify this and there is adequate space on the lot. Second by Jarvis. The
Variance request is denied 6 -0.
4. Comments from Director. No comments.
5. Comments from Board Members. No comments.
Motion by Watson to adjourn. Second by Moore. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Danny Swafford, Chair Attest, Will Moore, Secretary