HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_01.23.2013City ofGeorgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
January 23, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, 'Texas 78626
Members gresent: Dustin Elliott, Chair; Pat Armour; Porter Cochran; Ellen Davis; and
Gerald Sensabaugh_
Absent: NA
Staff Present: Andrew Spur -girt, Planning Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Matt
Synatschk; Historic District Planner; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Skye Masson, Asst.
City Attorney; Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to order by Chair Elliott at 6:02 p.m.. and the (Dreier of Hearing Process was- read_
This was 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 ort requests for variances,
interpretations and special exceptions under the Georgetown Zoning di -dinar -ice.
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.
F Those who speak please identify yourselves for the meeting record.
Regular Session - To begirt no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
(The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene art 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 on December 1E3, 2012.
Davis noted scrivenerserrors on page: 4 of 4. Elliott,. should have two t's; condition should be
plural, Chair Elliott amended the motion to include additional language_
Motion by Porter to approve the minutes as changed_ Second by Armour_ Approved 5 - O.
Zttrtirtg Soars of Atl)ustmertt, Jartuary 23, 2U13 Page i of 3
3. Public Hearing and possible action concerning an Appeal of an Administrative Decision
regarding the determination of an unlisted use pertaining to event centers, per Section 5.01.030
of the Unified Development Code (LIDO)_ (API--2012-002)
Chair Elliott opened the item by reading the Authority of The Board, as written in the staff
report page 9. "ZBA authority includes hearing and deciding an appeal that alleges error in a
determination made by an Administrative Official in the enforcement of the Code and In exercising its
authority, the ZBA may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the Administrative Official's
determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct determination. 'The ZBA does not
have the authority to consider the appropriateness of the land use or its impact at a specific location.
The purview of the 'ZBA is limited to determining whether or not the Director erred in the
interpretation."
Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director, presented the staff report. He gave a presentation.
explaining the specific portion of the Director's determination that is being appealed is the
allowance of Event Facilities in the Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) zonirlg district pursuant
to a Special Use Permit. UDC Section 5.01.030 establishes a process for addressing unlisted
uses. Any land use that is not listed as a Specific Use in the Chapter 5 Use Tables is reviewed
by the Planning Director to determine whether it falls within the parameters of a listed
Specific Use or requires consideration as a separate Specific Use, taking into consideration the
District Purpose Statements in UDC Section 4.04, the descriptive characteristics of each Use
Category, and definitions of similar uses -'The Director then determines the appropriate
classification of any unlisted use that warrants a separate Specific Use. The Director may
determine that the use is permitted by right, permittedwith limitations, permitted with
approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the City Council, or not permitted in a zoning
district.
Spurgin gave a brief description of the analysis and criteria that he used to determine the
decision and recommended denial of the appeal.
Chair Elliott called the appelartt to the floor to state his case. Larry Olsen, appellant, explained
that he is a registered architect. He appreciated the work that was done by the planning
department for this case. He stated he agrees with allowing a Special Use Permit in an AG,
agricultural or C-1, local commercial district, but does not agree with the determination to
allow an event center to have a Special Use Permit in the MU-DT zoning district_ He went on
to report that the code allows 400 people in a 6000 square foot facility. He cited that no other
party spaces in the downtown area come close to this. He gave examples of the San Gabriel
Community Center allowing 440 people and the Page Rouse allowing 1.50 people. He also
explained that nothing in the Unified Development Code requires anyone to close at midnight
and suggested the code be amended.
Chair Elliott reminded the Board and Mr. Olsen that they were not looking at the specific use,
in this case the Union on St'• Street, but were to consider allowing the use of an event center
anywhere in the MU-DT district. Olsen stated lie did not want anything of this scale in the
MU-DT area. Elliott asked Spurgin if the approval of a Special Use Permit could be
conditional. Spurgin stated the SUP can have conditions of items such as parking, hours of
operation, etc.
Justin Bohls spoke as the new owner of the proposed Union on Street_ H.e explained that
when he saw the building he thought it would be a great venue for events in the downtown
area. I-ie appreciates the historic nature of the building and worked with the 'Texas 1-listorical
Zoning Huard o[ Adjusla-rt¢nq January 23, 2013
Page 2 of 3
Commission to restore it and make it a "beautiful space for Georgetown"_ He explained that
the Historic and Architectural Review Commission approved the plans unanimously and that
he wants to work with the neighbors. He cited that there was a church next door with 699
members that the neighbors don't complain about so he is hoping for the same_ He is looking
at valet parking and security will be arranged with off -duty police officers_ The building is not
currently insulated but will be, and windows repaired to buffer any interior noise. He plans to
abide by the noise ordixtance and all code requirements.
Chair Elliott thanked the applicants and Director_ He opened the Public Hearing at 6:25 p.m.
and no .speakers came forth, so heCime diately)closed the Public Hearing. Note: A letter by Mel
Pendland, President Georgetown Chamber of Commerce ire support of the director's determination, was
submitted to all Board Members on the dais prior to the meeting. A copy of that letter is included with
the official minutes. Mr. Pendland did not choose to speak publicly.
The Board members began deliberation. Serisabaugh stated he feels this would be a desirable
use if the parking situation can be worked out, the applicant is working with the Presbyterian
church and has addressed the security issues. He also stated the city could use the increase in
tax dollars and this seems a good use for that. He feels the SUP would allow checics and
balances and supports the use.
Davis stated she feels the same and that it is not right to prohibit all event centers in the /vSCJ-
DT area. She also stated she feels the director followed all the steps to reach the
de termination _
Cochran agreedthat this was a gooddetermination for Georgetown but was still concerned
about the parking_
Elliott agreed that the SUP process was good for the complete analysis of the use and it would
allow specific items to be addressed.
Motion by Armour to affirm the Administrative Decision of the UnlistedUsedated
November 1.3, 2012. Second by Sensabaugh_ Affirmation approved 5 — O_
4_ Adjourn. Motion by Sensabaugh to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m_ Second by Cochran.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Dustin Elliott; Chair
Pat Armour, Secretary
Zoning Board of Adjustrnenq January 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3