HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_10.19.2010Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 1 of 6
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
October 19, 2010, at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members: Leo Wood, Chair; Tom Crawford, Vice-chair/Secretary; Ellen Davis, Ercel
Brashear
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
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. 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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 2 of 6
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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 3 of 6
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
3rd 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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 4 of 6
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
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 5 of 6
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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda, October 19, 2010 Page 6 of 6
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.
Approved, Leo Wood, Chair Attest, Tom Crawford, Secretary