Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_02.20.2007Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, February 20, 2007 Page 1 of 3 City of Georgetown Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 20, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members present: William Moore, Chair; Earl Watson, Vice Chair, Jim Jarvis, and Ann Snell Alternates present: Steve Lampinstein, Patrick Lawson, and Dale Ross Members absent: Richard Vasquez III Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Planner; and Stephanie McNickle, 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. Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked two alternates, Lawson and Ross, to serve on the dais. (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. No Executive Session. 2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting of the December 19, 2006 meeting. Motion by Snell to approve the minutes with noted corrections. Second by Watson. Approved 6-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, February 20, 2007 Page 2 of 3 3. Public hearing to consider a variance from Section 6.02.040 B (3) g requiring parking in the front yard of a residential lot be screened from the street view, for Pleasant Valley Subdivision, Lot 8, Block F, located at 2605 Silver Valley Drive. (VAR-2007-001) Staff report was presented by Jennifer Bills. The applicant requests to use the existing driveway for the two parking spaces required for single-family residential. The property owner would like to convert the existing two-car garage to living area. The UDC requires single-family homes to provide two parking spaces, which is currently being met by the two spaces in the garage. Section 6.02.040.b.3.g of the UDC provides for the following: parking areas that cover up to 50% of the required front yard may be permitted provided that: i. Parking is screened from the street view; ii. The parking surface material is acceptable to the Development Engineer; and iii. The maximum impervious coverage requirements are met. Pursuant to this Section, the applicant could provide the required parking within the front yard subject to the above referenced screening requirements. The applicant has indicated that he does not want to comply with the provisions of this section and is seeking the subject variance. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The Board asked questions for clarification. Moore asked if the applicant had an option to park on the northwest corner of the lot with screening. Bills confirmed that was an option. Moore asked if they could put in a driveway on the south end of the house. Bills confirmed that was an option up to the five-foot PUE. Moore confirmed that all they have to do is find space for two vehicles to park. Bills confirmed the vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway because they cannot park in the front yard setback without screening, and they can’t screen the driveway and still have access. Watson offered that in his experience converting a garage to a room reduces the value of a home. He also offered that there appeared to be additional room in the back yard for adding onto the house, instead of using the garage for the extra room. The applicant, Marybeth Barrett, addressed the Board. She introduced her husband. They are making this request to put in living area for her mother. They stated that they have talked to the neighbors and the neighbors agree that they can do this without changing the aesthetics of the house or the streetscape. They have reviewed all the building codes and this is the most feasible way to meet their needs. The Board members asked more clarification questions of the applicants. There was a discussion of the possible materials that could be used for additional driveway. Mr. W.E. Rhode of 2601 Silver Valley Lane asked to speak. He stated that these neighbors are parking in the driveway now and the neighborhood would prefer that they be allowed to continue doing that, rather than changing the look of the house by adding concrete or whatever for additional driveway. He stated the neighbors are in favor of the variance request. Snell commented that the state statutes and laws must be followed and that the Board might feel like they want to help or allow a variance but without the required findings of fact the Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, February 20, 2007 Page 3 of 3 board is limited in their actions. There also are not any conflicting rules to allow a judgment call. She feels there is not any allowable discretion on the board’s part. Motion by Snell to deny the variance as requested. Second by Lawson. Board members made comments in support of the motion. The following findings of fact were given: 1. Extraordinary Conditions There are no conditions that warrant a variance. There are several locations on the property that would allow for parking either screened or out of the required front yard. Using the driveway is not the only option. 2. No Substantial Detriment Not providing parking other than the driveway could be detrimental for the neighborhood. Two parking spaces are required in order to keep cars from encroaching into the right-of-way. 3. Other Property Any single family home with a front loaded garage would require a variance in order to use the driveway in the setback to meet the parking requirement. All of the other properties in the subdivision have a similar layout and none have required a variance for the parking. 4. Applicant’s Actions have not created condition The applicant’s actions will cause the condition. The current parking provided in the garage meets the parking requirement for the residence. The desire to convert the garage to living space and not construct replacement parking spaces is creating the need for the variance. 5. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is not affected in this instance. The use of the property will still be residential. 6. Utilization The property will not suffer any significant loss of utilization without a variance. The variance request is purely for convenience. Motion for denial was approved, 6 – 0. The variance was not granted. 4. Comments from Staff. Bills reported there were not any applications received for next month’s meeting. Bills gave the list of appointees for the new Board of Adjustment, pointing out that there were not any alternates appointed for the new Board. Will Moore was reappointed as Chair. 5. Comments from Board Members. None. Meeting was adjourned by Chair Moore at 6:46 p.m. __________________________________ _______________________________ Approved, Will Moore, Chair Attest, Earl Watson, Secretary