HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_11.16.2004CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustments
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 East 7th Street. Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners Present: Audrey McDonald, Cornelius Daly, Danny Swafford, Ken Fuller, Dan Popejoy, Richard
Vasquez
Commissioners Absent: William Sattler
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 6:00
McDonald called alternate Vasquez to the dais.
1. Action from Executive session-NONE.
2. Review of the minutes from the August 17. 2004 meeting.
6:10 Board member Popejoy arrives
Motion made by Sattler to approve the minutes as written. Second by Daly. Motion Approved 6-0.
3. Public Hearing to consider a Variance from Section 10.06.030 D of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) to allow a sign height of 50 feet , where 28 feet is allowed, for City of Georgetown, Tilson
Subdivision, Lot 1., located at 2900 N. IH 35, Tilson Home Builders.
Consideration and possible action on a Variance from Section 6.03.020 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) to allow a maximum building height of 53 feet, where 40 feet is allowed, for The City of
Georgetown, Block 40, Lot’s 1 & 4, located at 114 E. 7th Street.
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
Richard Webb presented the application. Points reviewed:
- Existing Pole sign is 24 feet in height at an area of 200 square feet (double sided).
-Requesting a variance for a height increase to 50 feet, the applicant will use the same sign cabinet,
sign area will not be increased.
-The proposed interchange flyover will be approximately 40 feet in height which would obscure the
current signage.
Board questions to Staff and Applicant
Fuller asked if TxDOT would have any problems with a sign that large so close to the ramp. Bobby
explained that he has talked to the Department of Transportation where they explained that they have
no say of signs on private property as long as it does not encroach or hangs over any right-of-way.
Motion by Fuller to approve the variance was based upon the following findings of fact as required
by Section 3.15.030 of the Unified Development Code:
1. The future construction of the S.H. 130 / I.H. 35 interchange west and south of the subject property
constituted special conditions and / or exceptional circumstances related to the subject property th at
warranted variance approval. The proposed height of the interchange (40’) would visually obstruct a ny
sign less than the height of the interchange.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or inj urious
to other property in the area, or the City in administering this Code in that the proposed sign is t o be
located in exactly the same place as the existing sign, and for the same sign area.
3. The conditions surrounding this variance request do not apply to any other property in the vicinity of
the subject site since the location of the proposed interchange is directly contiguous (west a nd south)
to the subject property.
4. The need for the variance request is clearly not the result of the applicant’s own action, but a res ult of
public road construction impacting the applicant’s property.
5. The granting of the variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this
Code in that it is the Board’s determination that granting the subject variance is warranted by the
special conditions surrounding the property.
6. The conditions that create the need for the variance (road construction) would render compliance
with the Code an unreasonable restriction upon the utilization of the property in that compliance wi th
the 28’ height limit for pole signs would render the sign invisible to freeway motorists.
Second by Daly. Motion Approved 6-0
IN FAVOR
Fuller, Daly, McDonald, Swafford, Popejoy and Vasquez (Alternate)
OPPOSED
None
ABSENT
Sattler
4 Public Hearing to consider a Variance from Section 10.06.030 D of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) to allow a sign height of 40 feet, where 28 feet is allowed, For the City of Georgetown, Kelly
Trust Subdivision, Block 1, Phase 1-3, Lot 5, located at 7201 S. IH 35, Mac Haik Ford.
Staff Presentation
Bobby Ray presented the staff report to the board.
Applicant Presentation
Gordon Baker presented the application to the board. Gordon explained the main reason for the
Variance request is that the applicant feels the grade of the highway is to low. People would not be
aware of that the Lincoln Mercury automobiles where sold there.
Board Members
Swafford asked if the building had signage on it. Gordon explained that there was but people would
not be able to see it from the highway.
Motion by Vasquez to deny the application based on the following.
1. The applicant did not present any evidence that there were any special conditions or exceptional
circumstances related to the subject property that warranted variance approval.
2. There were no physical circumstances related to the property that necess itated the need for the
additional sign height.
3. The conditions surrounding this variance request would apply to any other property in the vicinit y of the
subject site. Therefore the approval of this variance would establish a precedent for other property
owners along this section of I.H. 35 frontage road to seek similar relief from the sign code.
4. As a new sign, designed for the proposed height of forty feet, the need for the variance request is clearly
the result of the applicant’s own action.
5. 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 twen ty-eight
foot height limit would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. A new sign, whic h
complies with the Code, could be designed, constructed and utilized on this site.
Second by Popejoy. Motion Denied 6-0
IN FAVOR
Swafford, McDonald, Fuller, Popejoy, Daly, Vasquez
OPPOSED
NONE
ABSENT
Sattler
Meeting adjourned at 6:40