HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_11.19.2009Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, November 19, 2009 Page 1 of 3
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
November 19, 2009 at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair; Steve Lampinstein, Vice Chair; Marjorie Herbert, Jenel
Looney.
Absent: Patrick Lawson
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Planning Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; 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.
Call to order: 6:00 p.m.
(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 on September 15, 2009 Motion
by Lampinstein, to approve the September 15th minutes. Second by Herbert. Approved.
(4-0)
3. Presentation and discussion regarding recent UDC amendments regarding Special
Exceptions. Valerie Kreger explained the reason for adding Special Exception to the UDC.
Creates less strict criteria for the applicant.
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Exception for a setback modification for
the expansion of a residential structure located in the Old Town Historic Overlay, for
Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block A (nw/pt), located at 803 S. College Street. (RW) EXP-
2009-001
*Postponed to the December 15th Board of Adjustment meeting at the request of the applicant*
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, November 19, 2009 Page 2 of 3
5. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Exception for a setback modification for
the expansion of a residential structure located in the Old Town Historic Overlay, for
Eubank Addition, Block 4, Lot 3, located at 1806 Eubank Street. (RW) EXP-2009-002
Staff report given by Robbie Wyler. The applicant is requesting Special Exception
approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to rebuild a covered patio that is
partially within the required setback and incorporate it into a larger covered porch that
will be part of an overall expansion to the house. They are proposing to expand the
approximately 992 square-foot, two-bedroom, one-bath house to just under 2,100 square
feet to accommodate their growing family. Beyond the covered porch, the remaining
portion of the expansion will be compliant with Unified Development Code (UDC)
regulations. As previously stated, the applicant would like to replace the existing
covered patio with a larger expanded covered porch. The new covered porch footprint
will not extend any further into the setback than the current patio footprint that is 3 foot 8
inches from the property line. The reason for maintaining the encroachment into the
setback is to keep a door that provides access from the house to the backyard. UDC
Section 4.09.040, Special Exception for Setback Modification, allows the new covered
porch to encroach into the setback with approval from ZBA. The applicant has stated
that they prefer to maintain cover over the door that will provide access to the proposed
covered porch.
Chair Wood acknowledged the applicant. Chair Wood opened the public hearing. No
one came forward, the public hearing was closed.
Motion by Herbert to approve of the Special Exception for setback modification to allow
the reconstruction of a covered porch to within 3 feet 8 inches of the side setback and no
taller than 8 feet 1/8 inches higher than the foundation. Second by Looney. Approved. (4-
0)
6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Variance for screening of roof mounted
mechanical equipment, as described in Section 8.09.020 of the Unified Development
Code, for R&M Subdivision, Lot 1, also known as BB’s Restaurant, located at 4701
Williams Drive. (CB) VAR-2009-007
Staff report given by Carla Benton. The applicant is requesting to allow a variance to
Sections 8.09.020 A, B and C of the Unified Development Code (UDC) that state:
A. All mechanical equipment (e.g. air handling equipment, compressors, duct work,
transformers and elevator equipment) shall be screened from view from all public
rights-of-way and adjoining properties.
B. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be shielded from view on four sides.
Screening shall consist of materials consistent with the primary building materials, and
may include metal screening or louvers which are painted to blend with the primary
building.
C. Screening shall result in the mechanical equipment blending in with the primary
building, and not appearing separate from the building.
The proposed variance would allow the existing roof-mounted exhaust vent and
mechanical unit to remain without screening in accordance with the requirements of the
UDC visible from Williams Drive. The applicant’s request is based on three perspectives.
The first is that from an engineering and construction standpoint they consider a
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, November 19, 2009 Page 3 of 3
screening wall to be unadvisable based on structural support and multiple penetrations
to the roof. Second, from an aesthetic and design viewpoint they feel that a screening
wall would be a greater distraction than the mechanical equipment and the
improvements to the building mitigate the negative visual effects of the equipment.
Thirdly, they believe there would be maintenance problems associated with any screen or
wall.
R & M Subdivision was recorded on April 13, 2004. A Site Plan application was
approved on September 14, 2007 that included multiple buildings in the redevelopment
of this site. Building 1 was an existing single story metal structure that was part of the
larger site redesign and is located directly adjacent to Williams Drive.
During the Site Plan review process the applicant’s engineer was advised by memo that
all mechanical equipment must be screened. The engineer’s response assured staff that
all mechanical equipment would be screened. A note was placed on the Site Plan stating,
“Screening of mechanical equipment, dumpsters and parking shall comply with Section 8
of the UDC.” During the Building Inspections review of the building construction plans,
they were advised that, “No roof-mounted equipment may be visible.”
Notice of the screening requirement was provided from the beginning of the design
phase of this building in order to provide ample opportunities to address all design and
engineering needed to ensure that no mechanical equipment would be visible or to
resolve this issue prior to construction. The Certificate of Occupancy needed to complete
the project remains open pending the resolution of this issue.
Mr. Wood invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Richmond stated the he did not address
any screening because it’s a 30 year old building. Lampinstein suggested not voting on
the issue tonight.
Chair Wood opened the public hearing. No one came forward, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion by Margory to allow the roof-mounted mechanical equipment to remain. To
clarify the applicant proposes screening by planting 1-2 evergreen trees approved by the
City’s Urban Forester. Second by Lampinstein. Approved. (4-0)
7. Motion to adjourn at, 6:40 p.m.
____________
Approved, Leo Wood, Chair Attest, Steve Lampinstein, Vice Chair