Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_Agenda&Minutes_2010Notice of Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, November 16, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 06:00 PM in the Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Members: Zoning Board of Adjustment meets every third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified. Call to Order at 06:00 PM This meeting is CANCELLED due to lack of applications. Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Notice of Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, October 19, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 06:00 PM in the Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Members: Leo Wood, Chair, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Tom Crawford, Ercel Brashear Zoning Board of Adjustment meets every third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified. Call to Order at 06:00 PM 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. 2.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Zoning Board of Adjustment. 3.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on September 21, 2010. 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 http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/ZBA/VAR-2010-002.pdf 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 http://www.georgetown.org/gis/plds/ZBA/VAR-2010-001.pdf 6.Adjourn. Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Minutes 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. Notice of Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, September 21, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 06:00 PM in the Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Members: Leo Wood, Chair, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Tom Crawford, Ercel Brashear Zoning Board of Adjustment meets every third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified. Call to Order at 06:00 PM 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. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on May 18, 2010. 3.Consideration and possible action on 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) 4.Adjourn. Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, September 21, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , September 21, 2010. Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair, Tom Crawford , Vice-chair/Secretary, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Ercel Brashear Members Absent: None Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; David Munk, Development Engineer, Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist, 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 on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on May 18, 2010. Motion by Brashear to approve the May 18, 2010 minutes. Second by Crawford. Approved (5-0) 3.Consideration and possible action on 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) Staff report given by Robbie Wyler. Wyler states that the property owners purchased the subject vacant lot in 2000 with the intention of building a house on it. Recently, plans moved forward in designing the house and the owners started the permitting process with the City. Through the City’s review, it was determined the lot is nonconforming due to its size. The applicant then applied for a Legal Lot Determination through the Planning and Development office. After further research, the Planning Department determined the subject lot was not legal due to property line alterations in the 1980’s that were established by deed but never platted . The owners are now requesting a Variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to permit platting of the nonconforming, non-legal lot to allow construction of a residential structure on the vacant lot. The subject property measures 54.5’ by 58.51’ by 60.9’ by 63.85’, totaling 3,528 square feet. UDC Section 6.03.050.A requires the minimum lot size for a RS, Residential Single-Family property to be at least 5,500 square feet, 1,972 square feet greater than the subject property. Based on the area, the property will need to be granted a Variance on the lot dimensions and standards in order for platting to commence and the property to be brought into legal status. Both the lot and proposed house will be compliant with all other lot and dimensional standards detailed in UDC Section 6.03.050, including setback and impervious coverage. Wyler states that there are a total of three (3) comments from the public regarding this Variance for the Board’s consideration. Wyler concludes that Staff recommends approval of the Variance to UDC Section 6.03.050.A, Lot and Dimensional Standards for RS, Residential Single-Family Zoning District, more specifically to the minimum lot size allowance, to allow the platting of the non-conforming vacant lot. Staff considers there to be no items under the review criteria that suggest this request is inappropriate. Further, staff wants to remind the Board that they should consider both UDC Section 3.15.030, noted above, and the intent of the applicant when determining whether or not to grant the Variance. Chair Wood invites the applicant to speak. Currie Hallford, 905 S.Walnut Street states that in 1993 he purchased the primary residence on Walnut Street. In 2000, the Hallford family decided to purchase the vacant lot behind his house at 908 Pine Street, with a future plan of building a home for their eldest daughter and her family . In April of 2010, the applicant was looking into moving forward in designing the house. Through the City’s review, the applicant learned that the lot did not meet the minimal size for a single family home. Applicant states that he has been paying full taxes on the property for over ten (10) years and had no idea there would ever be a problem but with the Board’s concurrence, he intends to build within the requirements of the City. Crawford questions staff if the lot complied with the UDC at the time it was acquired in 2000. Wyler states that the lot has always been non-conforming as it did not comply dimension wise. When the applicant brought their plans in for review, it was realized that the lot was smaller than what was allowed. It is a non-legal lot due to the property line changing in the 1980’s, making it a requirement for the applicant to bring the lot into legal status which requires platting. The applicant was not aware that the lot was not legal at the time of purchase. Brashear states that because this is a non-conforming lot there is more than one way to solve a non-conforming lot status. One of the solutions, as read in the UDC, is to combine the lot with adjacent property to bring it into current standards. Brashear asks staff if there has been any discussion in putting the two lots together and re -platting them so they will be in compliance with area requirements, as the parcel is very small. However, the parcel that the existing property sits on is larger than minimum lot standards, making it possible to pick up 2000ft from the other lot to bring into 908 Pine. This would create two lots that are in compliance. Wyler states that the idea to bring the two lots together has been discussed. During discussion, staff and applicant decided that trying to obtain a variance would be the best way to go, as the applicant wants to use the lot as a single property/separate lot. Brashear asks staff what will happen 10-20 years from now when the house is potentially bigger than the lot with no place for children to play . It is then suggested that granting the approval of the variance may not be a wise decision. Wyler states that like most lots purchased in Old Town, it is unpredictable as to what the property will be like in 10-20 years. The applicant bought the property with the intention of using the lot as a single family lot. Chair Wood asks applicant if he purchased the lot through a realtor 10 years ago. Applicant responds that they did not go through a realtor. The family who lived next door sold the lot to him and that he was unaware of the rules and regulations pertaining to the lot at the time of purchase. Crawford asks staff what staff’s justification is for recommending approval in the variance request, knowing that it is 64% of the minimum lot size requirement as stated in the UDC. Wyler states that they have recommended approval due this not being a hardship created by the applicant, as they were unaware of the regulations when they purchased the property. In addition, the lot is not considered to be a visual nuisance by City standards. Crawford explains that the nuisance was created when the applicant purchased a lot that was non-conforming. Wyler states that outside of the fact that the applicant owns the adjacent lot, the hardship with the lot in question is that without platting, the lot cannot be developed at all, essentially making the lot useless. Kreger explains that the applicant will not be granted any permits for this property unless it is platted. In addition, set-backs would have to be maintained on the adjacent property in order to move forward with the plans. Brashear states that according to the staff comments, the following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a variance: ·That the property cannot be used for its highest and best use. ·That there is a financial or economic hardship. ·That there is a self-created hardship by the property owner or their agent. ·That the development objectives of the property owner are or will be frustrated. Brashear states that based on the information staff has provided, the Board can not grant a variance. Cook discusses the idea of the Board doing a Motion to Grant. Per Staff Analysis, no variance shall be granted unless the ZBA finds all the following: ·That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this Unified Development Code will deprive the applicant of the reaonable use of their land. For example, a variance might be justified because of topographic or other special conditions unique to the property and development involved, while it would not be justified due to inconvenience or financial disadvantage. ·That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this Code. ·That the conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. ·That the conditions that create the need for the variance are not the result of the applicant’s own actions. ·That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code. ·That because of the conditions that create the need for the variance, the application of this Code to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. ·The following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a variance: Cook states that a Motion to Grant would be the alternative option to granting the variance. In addition, it is stated that the lot is not a legal lot and unless the Board grants the variance, it will not become a legal lot in its current configuration. Cook states that without the grant, the applicants possible alternatives would be to sell the lot the their next door neighbors, combine the lot with theirs, or leave it as a lot that does not require a permit such as a garden. Chair Wood states that the property is only approx 3500 sq ft and even if applicant were to build only a one bedroom house , the lot would still not conform. Crawford suggests that the applicant and staff revisit with each other to discuss the idea of combining the two lots so the applicant could create two condominium homes on the combined properties with two separate ownerships. Kreger states that only one ownership is allowed on a piece of property. Elliot states that after personally taking a look at the site at 908 Pine Street, he believes that if he were a neighbor he would have an issue with the proposed plan because the structures would be too close to the lot lines. With this being said, Elliot questions the following staff analysis: “The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health , safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area , or to the City in administering this Code.” Davis states that after reviewing the floor plan, it seems as though the ratio to structure to land (floor to area ratio) is too high. Cook suggests postponing action to allow applicant to revisit with staff to create a plan to make this lot more conforming. With that being said, staff explains that the City only controls the size of the house related to the set-backs, height, impervious cover by defaults. City does not regulate the size of the home. The Board agrees that postponing this variance would be the best option to take. Motion by Elliot to postpone the Variance to allow staff to revisit with the applicant. Second by Crawford. (Approved 5-0) 4.Motion to adjourn at 6:47. Notice of Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 18, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 06:00 PM in the Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300 Industrial Blvd., Georgetown, TX If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Members: Leo Wood, Chair, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Tom Crawford, Ercel Brashear Zoning Board of Adjustment meets every third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified. Call to Order at 06:00 PM (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. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on April 20, 2010. 3.Consideration and possible action on a Special Exception for Setback Modification to allow a detached carport to be constructed within the required setback for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), 0.14 acres, located at 601 E. 8 th Street. SE-2010-001 (RW) *Public Hearing held and Item tabled at the April 20 th meeting. 4.Training and discussion regarding the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 5.Adjourn. Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 18, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , May 18, 2010. Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair, Tom Crawford, Vice-Chair/Secretary, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Ercel Brashear Members Absent: Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Candice McDonald, Recording Secretary; Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement Officer; John Hale, Code Enforcement Officer 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. No Executive Session. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on April 20, 2010. Motion by Brashear to approve the April 20 minutes with amendments. Second by Elliott. Crawford abstained. Approved (4-0, 1 abstained) 3.Consideration and possible action on a Special Exception for Setback Modification to allow a detached carport to be constructed within the required setback for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), 0.14 acres, located at 601 E. 8 th Street. SE-2010-001 (RW) *Public Hearing held and item tabled at the April 20 th meeting. Wyler stated that HARC approved the demolition of the previous structure with a vote of 4-2 with no conditions. At the April 20 th meeting, ZBA had inquired about the access easement, named as Tract 2 on the plat. After further research with the Georgetown Utility Department, it was discovered that the easement was a utility and access easement which was going to be turned into a street at one point in time . The City Council later abandoned the access easement but maintained the public utility easement for possible future lay out of utilities. If ZBA were to grant the Special Exception, the applicant would still need to complete one of two processes. The applicant can either apply for a License to Encroach over the utility easement or the applicant can apply for an Abandonment of the easement. Brashear discussed that there are two concerns with the application. The first is the application is imminently practical but does not fit any rules. The building encroaches into a setback, which is a title problem and a technical issue that must be addressed. The property cannot be conveyed without the City’s blessing and that blessing does not come from the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments does not have the ability to approve the Special Exception because the UDC states that one of the limitations on the board is it may not grant a variance when the effect of which is the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in the applicable Zoning District or to extend physically a nonconforming use of the land. ZBA shall consider these criteria, but if it’s solely a matter of convenience no Special Exception may be granted. It is rational to say let the applicant build the structure , but the rules the board has to uphold won’t allow approval . The Special Exception provisions state that if there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without obtaining a Special Exception, no Special Exception shall be granted. Wood questioned whether or not an application needed to be submitted and approved for the release of the Utility Easement. After and if the application is approved, can the Special Exception be brought back to ZBA. Wyler stated that is up to the applicant if they would like to apply for the Abandonment or the License to Encroach. One solution is to table the item and have the applicant look into this matter. The City would then issue the License to Encroach, which would give the City the right to tell the applicant to move the structure in the event it needed to lay utilities. Brashear stated that the structure is an encroachment and in violation of zoning rules. Davis stated that there is still adequate room on the property to place a garage and be legal. If the applicant is granted a Special Exception, it would strictly be a convenience and that is not what ZBA is permitted to do. Crawford questioned whether, if the City was to approve an encroachment on the easement, this would have to go back to ZBA. Wittie discussed that if the building has to be torn down it would not be rebuilt anywhere on the property due to finances. Wood asked what would be the next process if there are no finances to demolish the structure, whom would be responsible for the demolition. McCartney discussed that the course of action would be to take the owner of the structure to court if not removed. The judge would then decide if a violation had occurred. If a violation did occur then the judge would order the structure to be removed. The City would then remove the structure and put a lien on the property . Wood stated that a solution would be to tear down and rebuild the structure to where it would be a conforming structure. Elliott discussed that this is a matter of a zoning issue and is convenient to the applicant. The matter of convenience is not the purpose of the Board. Cook requested the Board to go into an Executive Session per the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Wood states that there will be a recess to have an executive session. There was no action taken at the Executive Session. Regular session convened at 6:28. Motion by Davis for denial of the Special Exception application based on UDC Section 4.09.040.B.1 stating if the proposed setback modification is solely a matter of convenience, no Special Exception shall be granted. Second by Brasher. Approved (5-0) 4.Training and discussion regarding the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Kreger discussed the role and the by-laws of ZBA. Chapters 2, 3, and 14 of the UDC were also presented to the Board. 5.Adjourn. Motion by Brashear to adjourn . Second by Crawford. Notice of Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 20, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will meet on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 06:00 PM in the Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Members: Leo Wood, Chair, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Tom Crawford, Ercel Brashear Zoning Board of Adjustment meets every third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified. Call to Order at 06:00 PM (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. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on December 15, 2009. 3.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission. 4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Exception for Setback Modification to allow a detached carport to be constructed within the required setback for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), 0.14 acres, located at 601 E. 8 th Street. SE-2010-001 (RW) http://planning.georgetown.org/files/2010/04/SE-2010-001.pdf 5.Adjourn. Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2010, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 20, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , April 20, 2010. Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Ercel Brashear Members Absent: Tom Crawford Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Candice McDonald, Recording Secretary; Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist 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 on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on December 15, 2009. Motion by Elliott to approve the December 15, 2009 minutes. Second by Davis. Brashear abstained. Approved (3-0, 1 abstained) 3.Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice Chair and Secretary for the 2010-2011 Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission. 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) 4.Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Exception for Setback Modification to allow a detached carport to be constructed within the required setback for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), 0.14 acres, located at 601 E. 8 th Street. SE-2010-001 (RW) Staff report given by Robbie Wyler. The applicant is requesting Special Exception to build a detached carport within the required setback, where a detached garage once stood. The carport, now nearly completed, measures 10.3 feet wide by 28.4 feet long and stands 13 feet tall. The new concrete foundation and structure have the same dimensions as the original structure and are being constructed in the same location. The structure is being rebuilt up to the property line. The reason for maintaining the encroachment into the setback is to maintain the residential backyard and to continue the use in the same location. Moving the structure 10 feet from the rear property line, as required by the Unified Development Code (UDC) for RS-Residential Single-Family zoned properties, would place it very close to the main house due to the property’s layout and dimensions. An access easement/rear alley provides additional space between the carport and the property directly to the north. The applicant has stated that they prefer to maintain the look and layout of the residential property by keeping the parking structure in the same location. They also feel that the structure complements the main house and neighborhood. In early February, 2010, the agent came into the Permitting and Planning offices and discussed procedures for either demolishing or renovating a detached garage in Old Town that was in extremely poor condition. Soon after, the applicant obtained a roofing permit and proceeded with remodeling the structure and states that due to inclement weather and poor structural conditions, the structure collapsed. Concerned with the deteriorated materials blocking an alley driveway, the owner and agent proceeded with removing the materials and reconstructing the structure with as much of the original material as possible. The agent states that due to poor conditions, not much of the original materials could be reused on the new structure. A few days after the collapse, Code Enforcement put a stop work order on the project stating all required permits and approvals were not obtained prior to commencing work. By the time Code Enforcement noticed the demolition and reconstruction, the new detached carport was nearly finished. Code Enforcement and Planning allowed the carport to be completed to a point where it would not be affected by weather and due to safety reasons. Subsequently, the City required the applicant to receive approval from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) for the demolition of the original structure, approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for the reconstruction of the structure up to the property line, within setbacks, and to obtain all required permits, before the project could recommence , to ensure full compliance with City regulations. The applicant is set to go to HARC on Thursday, April 22, 2010. Staff will update HARC on the ZBA’s decision at that meeting. All other required permits either have been or are being obtained. Per UDC Section 4.09.040.B, Review Criteria for Special Exception for Setback Modification, the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) shall base a decision to allow setback modification on review of the factors included in this Section as well as the site’s specific circumstances. Staff recommends approval of the Special Exception for setback modification to allow the reconstruction of the carport on the property line where a detached garage once stood. The new structure has been built within the same footprint and has the same dimensions as the original and does not negatively impact the property or surrounding properties. Staff considers there to be no items under the review criteria that suggest this request is inappropriate. Further, staff wants to remind the Board that they should consider both UDC Section 4.09.040.B, noted above, and the intent of the applicant when determining whether or not to grant the Special Exception. Commissioner Davis questioned Wyler why this case was coming to this commission before going to the Historical and Architectural Review Committee (HARC). Wyler explained that there are two independent approvals for this application. One approval is required of HARC and the other is required of ZBA. Davis also inquired about the age of the garage that was demolished. Wyler stated in his research that the age of the garage could not be determined. Davis also inquired to know if code enforcement has cited this property before for deposition before the applicant came into the office . Wyler stated that he was not sure if there were any citations issued. Wood stated that the structure’s foundation is being rebuilt where the old structure was located. Brashear stated that he has concerns that the structure is in tract 2, which is subject to the City’s right to lay water and sewer lines and right to install infrastructure. When a non-conforming structure, due to no fault of its own, finds itself in a catastrophic position we want that structure moved under the current UDC requirements so that it becomes conforming. Brashear also noted that by moving the structure to where it becomes conforming the City is preserving its right to tract 2. The purpose of setback lines is to set standards all property owners surrounding the property can rely on. If the garage is moved out of Tract 2 and put it where it should be according to UDC, it would be beneficial to other property owners. Kreger stated that the UDC process is set up so that once this nonconforming structure has been removed it needs ZBA approval to be replaced . Wood stated that the structure is nearly rebuilt. Brashear said that it was rebuilt inside the area it is not supposed to be in and impedes the City’s right to lay infrastructure. If the city wants to lay infrastructure where is the City’s right to come in and build. If the city wants to build then they will have to condemn the structure. Elliott would like to know when this was originally platted. The easement is critical to where the current structure is being built. Chair Wood opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Wood closed the public hearing. Chair Wood invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was not available, but had an agent to represent them. Patty Wittie with Westview Homes spoke on behalf of the applicant. Wittie stated that the applicant purchased the property 6-8 years ago and has been using the property as rental. The owner contacted Westview homes a few years ago and Wittie had the job bid, but the owner did not have funds to fix the structure . The roof of the structure collapsed and Code Enforcement came out and told the owner that the structure had to be fixed at that time. Code Enforcement said that the roof and the support of the structure at that time was sitting on the easement. The owner has not been able to determine the ownership of the access easement. The carport is being built instead of a garage because when the original structure collapsed the agent was going to salvage materials and limit new materials. The construction crew put together what they could and the owner’s main concern was to have some storage. Commissioners discussed if HARC did not approve the demolition then the ZBA commission did not want to approve the building of the structure. Motion by Brashear to table to the May 18 th ZBA meeting with a request that the city be approached about vacating the easement or granting a license to encroach and to be informed of HARC’s recommendation. Second by Davis. Approved (4-0) 5.Adjourn. Motion to adjourn at 6:29.