Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_10.19.2010Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, October 19, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , October 19, 2010. Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair; Tom Crawford, Vice-chair/Secretary; Ellen Davis, Ercel Brashear Members Absent: Dustin Elliott Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner III; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Avery Craft, Recording Secretary Minutes Regular Meeting 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. There was no executive Session. 2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Zoning Board of Adjustment. Board and Staff acknowledged that during the April 20, 2010 meeting there was a Motion by Brashear to nominate Crawford as Vice-Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission. Second by Davis. Approved (4-0). No action necessary. 3.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on September 21, 2010. Motion by Brashear to approve the September 21, 2010 minutes. Second by Crawford. Approved (4-0) 4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Variance to UDC Section 10.06.010 to allow additional signage height at Southwestern Plaza, Lot 1, also known as Republic Square Center, located at 900 North Austin Avenue. (VAR-2010-002) ME Staff report given by Mike Elabarger. Elabarger states that the request by the Republic Square Center for a monument sign exceeds the UDC (Unified Development Code) maximum height. Owner is requesting a Variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) to permit a sign that exceeds the UDC maximum height limit (6’) by twenty inches (20”), for a total sign height of 7’8”. The actual area containing the signage is proposed to be six feet in height, but would be on a 1’8” pedestal base. Section 10.06.020(A.) of the UDC (Computation of Area of Individual Signs) states that “the permitted area for all signs, pursuant to Table 10.06.010, shall be inclusive of the sign base and sign cabinet. In no case shall the overall sign structure, including the base, exceed the maximum allowed height nor the maximum allowed sign area.” The proposed location of this sign is at an elevation below that of the existing road grade of Austin Avenue, which is the applicant’s rationale for requesting a sign height that exceeds the limitations of the UDC. Elabarger states that staff is suggesting a motion of denial for the application. Per UDC Section 3.15.030, Criteria for Variance Review, the Board may authorize a Variance from the requirements of the zoning provisions of the UDC if the Variance from the terms of the zoning provisions is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the requirements would result in unneccesary hardship, so the spirit of the UDC is preserved and substantial justice is done. Applicant Bob Strobeck of Facilities Solutions Group is representing the Republic Square Center. Strobeck states the reason Republic Square Center picked the particular position of the sign was to give traffic coming from both directions on Austin Avenue a long opportunity to visually see the sign. Strobeck states that there are 800ft of roadway from one end of the center to the other and the position of the proposed signage will be in the middle. There are trees and parked cars in the area that would block part of the signage. After looking at the sign from different angles, it was determined that the proposed signage would be the most ideal in terms of achieving the following: ·Providing name recognition for the center as there is presently no name anywhere on the center. ·Tenants will be “part of” a center. Tenants would like to be known as part of something and Republic Square Center is what the owner would like to see. ·Visability for tenants in the back which will in turn potentially bring in more business. ·A visually attractive sign. The brick base area and the star adds a “look” and a “feel for” what the center could be. Applicant acknowledges that the proposed sign exceeds the height allowance but it does still remain 50-60ft from the road. In addition, the additional 20” would not be visual from every direction, given the proposed angle in which the sign will be placed. Davis states that she is in favor of the variance, as the proposed sign is attractive and could potentially bring in more business for the tenants. Brashear asks the following questions regarding the requested variance to applicant: ·What is the width of the proposed sign? Applicant: 7’10” ·Is there is a limit on the width or only the height from the ordinances standpoint? Applicant: No, only the height. ·Do the tenants pay you for the right to be listed on the sign? Applicant: Not at this time. ·In regards to design possibilities, what stops you from dropping the 2’ and adding a 3 rd panel so that you are within the height limitation? Applicant: The square footage. ·If the Board denies the request, would you consider an alternative? Applicant: I am open to alternatives. Crawford states that the age of the center is 30 years and asks Strobeck why after all this time there is a need now to identify the building as Republic Square Center. In addition, the center has more than 20 tenants and the sign only has room to list 6 tenants. Crawford states that he sees no special circumstances that would cause the Board to want to approve the request for a variance. Applicant states that the owner of the center wants to upgrade the look of the center for the tenants. Strobeck believes that the sign will be used to help the tenants who have the least amount of ability to obtain exposure. Brashear asks staff if the sign is in a part of the right-of-way or the detention facility assigned to the center and if staff would be supportive of a wider sign that would not be as tall. Brashear inquires about the possibility of erecting a landscaping berm to place the sign on as opposed to the brick base on the proposed signage. Elabarger states that the sign is in the detention facility and outside a 25ft utility right-of-way area. The city engineer did not expect a significant issue with this and would be willing to sign off on a permit. Staff would not have an issue with a wider sign that met standards. Applicant reiterates that the intention of the variance is to produce the right sign for the center. Adding the brick to the sign was part of the decorative plan to add upgrades to the center. Using a berm instead of the brick would certainly add the desired height to the sign but does not add to the visual look. However, applicant states that he would be open to the idea of a berm. Kreger informs the Board that a berm is excluded, as stated in the UDC – Chapter 10-10: “The height of a sign shall be computed as the mean distance from the base(s) of the sign at normal grade to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. Normal grade shall be construed to be the lower of (1) existing grade prior to construction or (2) the newly established grade after construction, exclusive of any filling , berming , mounding, or excavating solely for the purpose of locating the sign.” Crawford asks if there have been any other exceptions for signage height since the current UDC was written. Cook believes the only variance that was granted was approximately 3 ½ years ago for a set-back on Austin Avenue. Brashear states that based on the evidence presented and that the conditions that create the need for the variance are not the result of the applicant’s own actions, a variance should be granted. Motion by Brashear to approve a Variance to UDC Section 10.06.010 to allow additional signage height at Southwestern Plaza, Lot 1, also known as Republic Square Center, located at 900 North Austin Avenue. Second by Davis. (Approved 4-0) 5.Consideration and possible action on an item tabled from the September 21, 2010, meeting regarding a Variance to UDC Section 6.03.050.A, Lot and Dimensional Standards within a RS, Residential Single-Family District, to allow the platting of a nonconforming lot at Dimmit Addition, Block 92, being 0.081 acres, located at 908 Pine Street. (VAR-2010-001) RW Wyler states that as directed at the September 21, 2010 meeting, applicant met with staff to discuss possible alternatives to the 908 Pine Street variance that would allow the property to be utilized for its intended residential use rather than requiring a variance. Debbie Sparkman of 505 College Street serves as the agent for the owner of the 908 Pine Street property. Sparkman states that after the September 21, 2010 meeting, the idea of joining the 908 Pine Street and 905 South Walnut Street lots together, then subdividing to create two legal lots was discussed with the applicant. Sparkman put the surveys of both lots together while pointing out that the 908 Pine Street lot was smaller. Sparkman determined that the two lots could be put together by taking roughly 33 feet off the back of the 905 South Walnut Street lot to create two legal lots. After speaking with an engineer at Steiger & Bizzel, Sparkman learned that it would cost anywhere between $8,000 - $10,000 to combine the lots and subdivide. The engineer also informed Sparkman that considering there is still a mortgage on the 905 South Walnut lot, he would not begin the process until the applicant has received an approval and had an agreement from the lien holder. Sparkman states the applicant met with the lien holder and they were not open to the request, as they did not qualify. Sparkman states that the applicant is trying to create a cottage style, two-story home with an attic used as living space. There were comments submitted by neighboring lot owners expressing that the look of the proposed house would not fit into the neighborhood. Sparkman took pictures of homes in the area that she felt were similar in look to what the applicant had in mind. Sparkman determined that the proposed home would in fact be a higher house but it would fit into the neighborhood. Chair Wood states that the neighbors did not want a two-story home in the neighborhood. Brashear states that the challenge at hand is the magnitude of the house relative to the lot. The square footage inside of the house was approximately 3600sq ft vs. about 3000sq ft. Crawford states that the size of the house is not the issue. The issue is building anything on the lot that is 64% of the minimum required. Crawford asks why staff recommended approval of this variance. Wyler states that the subdivision regulations were implemented in 1977. In 1985, 908 Pine Street was de-divided and unfortunately there was a small deed not platted by about a few feet that kicked the lot into non-legal status. Had that not have happened, this would have been a legal, non-conforming lot and this variance would not be required. Sparkman states that after reviewing the Sanborn maps dating back from 1925, the lots seemed to have moved around quite a bit. Tom Norell of 505 College Street lives around the corner from 908 Pine Street. Norell states the Sanborn map is based off of who is paying taxes on the property. The 1925-1940 map shows that the property changed from being on the Walnut lot to going to the corner lot, meaning that the people who purchased the lot were paying the property taxes. Norell states that because some of the plats prior to 1977 are missing, it is difficult to prove that the lots were subdivided into the separate lots they are today. Brashear states that one of the reasons the city has all of the regulations that it has is because it has a history of divisions just like the variance being discussed and the process over time has produced results that the city has not found to be desirable. Even though the applicant has what seems to be a reasonable request, the Board still has rules they need to abide by. Brashear states that it was the 1985 action that created the illegal lot status. In 1985, the city had a set of development regulations that were put in place. There was a process to follow in order to legally subdivide property. The 908 Pine Street parcel was created without any recognition of the development regulations that were on the books at that time. Chair Wood states that when the home owners are able to pay off the mortgage, the recommendation for approval can be brought back to the Board. Wyler states that staff is recommending approval of the variance because it was not a direct action of the applicant. Chair Wood states that the applicant purchased a flawed lot. Karen Hallford 905 South Walnut Street states that when they purchased the lot, they thought they would be able to build a property for their daughter when she had a family one day. Now that Hallford’s daughter has a family, they are ready to build and have found builders that are very cognizant of Old Town and creating a home that would fit into the neighborhood. Hallford had no idea that they would not be able to carry out their plans when they purchased the lot they have been paying taxes on all this time. Motion by Brashear to deny the Variance to UDC Section 6.03.050.A, Lot and Dimensional Standards within a RS, Residential Single-Family District, to allow the platting of a nonconforming lot at Dimmit Addition, Block 92, being 0.081 acres, located at 908 Pine Street. Second by Davis. (Approved 4-0) 6.Motion to adjourn at 7:14.