HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_ZBA_11.16.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Zoning Board of Adjustment ZBA Meeting
of the City of Georgetown
November 16, 2021 at 5:00 PM
at City Council Chambers - 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's
Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay
Texas at 711.
This Board is now meeting in-person with a quorum present and public is
welcome to attend. If special accommodations are needed, please reach out to
the staff liaison, Stephanie Mcnickle, at stephanie.mcnickle@georgetown.org
or (512)930-3578 for assistance.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the
Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the
Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board
considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the
speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2021 regular meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment -- Stephanie Mcnickel, Planning Technician
C Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 10.06.010 to allow a
freestanding monument sign with a setback of 1.3-feet, a 74% decrease from the minimum setback for a
freestanding monument sign of 5-feet required for a property in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT)
zoning district on S Main St., for the property located at 1202 S. Main Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.18 acres in the northeast part of Block O of the J. C. S. Morrow Addition (2021-11-
VAR). Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Adjournment
Page 1 of 44
Certificate of Posting
I, Robyn Densmore, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626, a place readily
accessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
Robyn Densmore, City Secretary
Page 2 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2021
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2021 regular meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment -- Stephanie Mcnickel, Planning Technician
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mirna Garcia, Program Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 44
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2 September 21, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
Courts and Council Building, located at 510 W. 9th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Board members resent: John Marler, Chair; Stephaney Gipson Lafears, Travis Perthuis, Kaylah McCord
and Ed Whitmore
Board members in training present: Joseph Digiacomo; Tim Haynie
Board members absent: NA
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Travis Baird, Assistant Planning Director; Ethan
Harwell, Senior Planner; Britin Bostick, Historic and Downtown Planner, and Stephanie McNickle,
Planning Specialist
Chair Marler called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 17, 2021 regular
meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment – Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist
Motion by Board member Whitmore to approve the minutes from the August 17, 2021 with
updates. Second by Board member McCord. Approved. (4-1) Lafears – opposed.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 6.05.010.C to allow a
840 sq. ft. accessory structure, a 46% increase over the maximum allowed size of 574.5 sq. ft., for
the property located at 1103 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.518 acres, being part
of Outlots 6 & 7, Division C (VAR-2021-10). Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 4 of 44
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 September 21, 2021
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the limit on the size of accessory
structures to allow for a 24’ x 35’ or 840 sq. ft. garage and personal hobby shop to be constructed
on the subject property. Based on the size of the existing main structure the maximum size
allowed for accessory structure on the property is 574.50 sq. ft. or 25% of the size of the main
structure, although garage structures are allowed up to 600 sq. ft. in size. The subject property
has a 22,657 sq. ft. lot with a large and open back yard which provides space for the accessory
structure without encroaching into setbacks or exceeding impervious cover limits. The
applicant asserts that due to the size of the lot and surrounding features, the additional size of
the structure would have limited visibility from the street and surrounding properties and
would not hinder adjacent uses.
Staff stated it has reviewed the submitted Zoning Variance request in accordance with the UDC
and other applicable codes.
Chair Marler invited the applicant to address the Board. Chad Moore, Moore Liberty Builders
gave a presentation and explained the reason for the larger accessory structure on the property.
The owner, Fred Erwin stated he likes woodworking and iron work as hobbies and would like a
larger work area.
Chair Marler opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. The Public Hearing was closed.
Board member McCord stated does she understands and is sympathetic to the applicant’s
request.
Motion by Board member McCord to deny the Variance due to it not complying with the
approval criteria, UDC Section 3.15.030.
1) Extraordinary Conditions- Does Not Comply.
2) No Substantial Detriment- Complies.
3) Other Property- Does Not Comply.
4) Applicant’s Actions- Does Not Comply.
5) Comprehensive Plan- Partially Complies.
6) Utilization – Does Not Comply.
7) Insufficient Findings- Does Not Comply.
Second by Board member Perthuis. Denied (5-0)
Motion to adjourn at 5:31p.m.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
John Marler, Chair Attest, Ed Whitmore, Secretary
Page 5 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2021
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 10.06.010 to allow a
freestanding monument sign with a setback of 1.3-feet, a 74% decrease from the minimum setback for a
freestanding monument sign of 5-feet required for a property in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT)
zoning district on S Main St., for the property located at 1202 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description
of 0.18 acres in the northeast part of Block O of the J. C. S. Morrow Addition (2021-11-VAR). Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the required setback for a freestanding monument
sign of 5-feet, to allow the sign to be 1.3-feet from the property line along South Main Street. A pole sign
previously existed in the proposed location for the new sign, and rather than remove the existing sign base,
concrete and bollards per the approved Site Development Plan, the applicant would prefer to utilize a new
freestanding monument sign to incorporate and screen the remaining structure above ground. The public
notification for this item included a caption that stated the requested variance was for the sign to be located
1.0-foot from the property line, an 80% decrease from the minimum setback for a freestanding monument
sign, however the setback that is requested and that will be considered is for the 1.3-feet.
Staff’s Analysis:
Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other
applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed request meets 0 of the 7 criteria established in
UDC Section 3.15.030 as outlined in the attached Staff Report.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development Code (UDC), all property owners and registered neighborhood
associations within 300-feet of the subject property were notified of the request (29 notices mailed), a legal
notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper on October 31, 2021 and signs
were posted on-site. As of the publication date of this report, staff has received 1 written comment in favor
and 4 in opposition to the request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required application fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Page 6 of 44
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Conceptual Plan Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - Public Comments Exhibit
Staff Presentation Presentation
Page 7 of 44
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 1 of 7
Report Date: November 12, 2021
Case No: 2021-11-VAR
Project Planner: Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Monument Sign Setback
Project Location: 1202 S. Main Street, within City Council district No. 1.
Legal Description: 0.18 acres in the northeast part of Block O of the J. C. S. Morrow Addition
Applicant: V7H, Ltd., c/o Eric Visser
Property Owner: V7H, Ltd., c/o eric Visser
Request: Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 10.06.010 to allow a freestanding monument
sign with a setback of 1.3-feet, a 74% decrease from the minimum setback for a
freestanding monument sign of 5-feet required for a property in the Mixed-Use
Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district.
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Page 8 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 2 of 7
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to the required 5-foot setback for monument
signs located in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district to allow the construction of a
monument sign 1.3-feet from the east property line abutting S Main Street. The proposed monument
sign would be located atop the remaining concrete base of the previous pole sign, and per the
applicant’s assertion would eliminate the need to remove the pole sign base, which they have described
as expensive and difficult.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of University Avenue/SH 29
and S Main Street.
Physical and Natural Features:
The subject property lacks distinctive natural features and was previously used as a convenience store
with surface parking on site and a pole-mounted sign on the northeast corner of the property, which
has since been removed, excepting the pole sign base and protective bollards.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The subject property has a Special Area Future Land Use designation and is currently zoned Mixed-
Use Downtown (MU-DT) and is located in the Downtown Overlay District.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located on the south edge of the primarily commercial Downtown Overlay
District at the point of transition to the primarily residential Old Town Overlay District. The properties
directly adjacent to and extending to the south, southwest, east and southeast are within the Belford
National Register Historic District, designated for the contributions of notable local builder Charles S.
Belford and on the cohesive characteristics of structures constructed primarily between the 1890s and
1920s, although some later structures are included in the district. Properties to the north across E
University Avenue are primarily small commercial structures with surface parking.
The current zoning, Future Land Use designation, and existing uses of the adjacent properties to the
north, south, east and west are outlined in the table below:
DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North MU-DT Special Area Restaurant, Personal
Services, Church
South PUD (w/base
zoning RS)
Mixed Density
Neighborhood
Office, Single-Family
Residential
East PUD (w/base
zoning RS)
Special Area/Mixed Density
Neighborhood
Retail, Single-Family
Residential
West MU-DT/OF Special Area/Mixed Density
Neighborhood Retail, Office
Page 9 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 3 of 7
Approval Criteria
The following are the pertinent sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) related to this request:
• Section 3.15.030 – Criteria for Zoning Variance Review
• Section 10.06.010 – Sign Dimensional Standards
• Table 10.06.010 – Sign Dimensions by District
Staff has reviewed the variance request and the applicant’s stated findings, and has evaluated the
request based on the UDC required findings for a variance in accordance with UDC Section 3.15.030,
which state:
Required Findings
The Zoning Board of Adjustment 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
unnecessary hardship, so the spirit of this Code is preserved, and substantial justice done. No variance
shall be granted unless the ZBA finds all of the required findings established in UDC Section 3.15.030.A.
Staff has reviewed the submitted Zoning Variance request in accordance with the UDC and other
applicable codes. Staff has determined that the request does not comply with 7 of the 7 required findings
established in UDC Section 3.15.030.A for a Zoning Variance as outlined below.
ZONING MAP VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary Conditions
That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land Does Not Comply
Page 10 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 4 of 7
ZONING MAP VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
involved such that strict application of the provisions of this Unified
Development Code will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
their land. For example, a Zoning 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.
The subject property is an approximately 118’ x 65’ or 7,800 sq. ft. site at the southwest corner of the
University Avenue/ S Main Street intersection. The site has an approximately 2,400 sq. ft., one-story
structure on the west part of the site which was previously used as a convenience store. The
building is approximately 13-feet from the north property line that abuts W University Avenue and
approximately 6-feet from the west or rear property line, with the paved surface parking area on
the east half of the lot abutting S Main Street. The setback required for a freestanding monument
sign does not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the subject property, as there are no
extraordinary conditions affecting the land and the applicant has other options for signage that
would meet the UDC requirements and the Historic District Design Guidelines. Based on the
building façade width of 46-feet on the W University Avenue façade and the façade width of 50-feet
on the S Main Street façade, façade-mounted or canopy-mounted signs of 46-feet and 50-feet could
be installed on the building. A Projecting sign with a maximum of 15 square feet could be proposed
to attach to the building and be oriented toward drivers. Pole signs and roof-mounted signs are not
permitted in the Downtown Overlay District. A monument sign could be proposed that would
observe the 5’ setback. Monument signs in the Mixed-Use Downtown zoning district are limited to
6-feet in height with a maximum area of 48 sq. ft. In addition to the required 5’ setback, monument
signs and other structures may not block the sight triangle described in the Code of Ordinances Sec.
12.44.010: “The areas in the City hereinafter referred to as the "sight triangle" are restricted at all
intersections as follows: On local streets, the sight triangle shall be based on the back of the curb or
edge of pavement where no curbs are in existence. On all other streets, the sight triangle shall be
based on the right-of-way. The sides of the sight triangle shall extend for 25 feet along the right-of-
way/curb from the projected intersection of said right-of-way/curb.” University Avenue is
designated as a Major Arterial and S Main Street is designated as a Collector, meaning that the sight
triangle described would extend 25-feet along both rights-of-way from the intersection of
University Avenue and S Main Street, as illustrated in the staff presentation, and bounds an area in
which structures could not be constructed as they would block line of sight for vehicles and
pedestrians.
2. No Substantial Detriment
That the granting of the Zoning 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.
Does Not Comply
As the proposed setback encroachment would be directly adjacent to a right-of-way intersection,
the reduction in setback presents a potential obstruction to traffic visibility within the sight triangle
described in the section above. Additionally, the previous pole sign was removed, and the removal
of the base was a part of the approval of the approved Site Development Plan to eliminate a sign
that had the potential to cause a view obstruction and that was located adjacent to a driveway, and
which had potential to conflict with vehicle circulation on the site, as the on-site parking does not
provide standard drive aisles. Nearby properties along University Avenue have façade signs or
Page 11 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 5 of 7
ZONING MAP VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
freestanding and monument signs that are located away from intersections as this is a heavy traffic
area with short block lengths, creating multiple intersections along University Avenue. Signs in the
Downtown Overlay District require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and are reviewed
for compliance with the Unified Development Code and Historic District Design Guidelines. Signs
found to comply with the Historic District Design Guidelines may be administratively reviewed,
and signs that do not comply with the Guidelines are reviewed by the Historic & Architectural
Review Commission. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness must be issued before a sign
permit can be issued. Although a final design for the monument sign is not proposed with this
application, granting a variance for the required 5’ setback for a monument sign may conflict with
other considerations for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and/or a sign permit.
3. Other Property
That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance do not
generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Does Not Comply
In the vicinity of this property are other properties with pole signs or freestanding signs located
adjacent to right-of-way intersections, including Strickland Brothers Oil Change at 1121 S Austin
Avenue, the Exxon gas station at 1202 S Austin Avenue, and the Knitting Cup at 102 E. University
Avenue, which all have signs installed at the property corners adjacent to the right-of-way
intersections. If the signs were to be removed or abandoned in the future, new signs would have to
comply with the current requirements, and all properties provide building façade width sufficient
to support signs visible from the right-of-way.
4. Applicant's Actions
That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance are not
the result of the applicant's own actions.
Does Not Comply
The applicant proposes the sign setback variance in lieu of removing the existing sign base. The
applicant received approval of a Site Development Plan for the subject property which included the
removal of the sign base, concrete and bollards, which the applicant has not completed. The pole
sign base has been abandoned through the removal of the pole sign, and per UDC Sec. 10.01.080
must be removed.
5. Comprehensive Plan
That the granting of the Zoning Variance would not substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code.
Does Not Comply
Other pole-mounted signs exist in the Downtown Overlay District, which are no longer permitted
under the UDC and Historic District Design Guidelines. Once a sign has been abandoned it no
longer retains a legal non-conforming status, which would be the case with any of the now-
prohibited sign types in the Downtown Overlay District, for which the sign structure would need
to be removed and current UDC requirements would apply as referenced in the above section.
The Downtown Master Plan identifies the subject property in the “Downtown South” character
area and recommends improvements to streetscapes in this area. Page 48 of the Plan reads:
“Commercial uses that support the surrounding residential neighborhoods are encouraged to
locate in this area. A mix of retail and office space should be provided with new buildings that are
located at the street edge with parking to the rear are preferred. The eastern, western and southern
edges should continue to serve as a transition to the abutting neighborhoods. Development along
Austin Avenue and University Avenue should be the most intense uses. The intersection of
Page 12 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 6 of 7
ZONING MAP VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
University and Austin should be enhanced as a pronounced “gateway” into downtown with
signage and landscaping. The intersection of Main and University should also be upgraded as a
secondary gateway.” Although the subject property is an existing site with a prominent parking
area and a sign that previously existed at the property corner, the installation of a monument sign
on this property reinforces the auto-oriented development that the Downtown Master Plan
envisions moving away from and providing enhanced landscaping and public signage along
University Avenue, which is recognized as a gateway.
6. Utilization That because of the conditions that create the need for the
Zoning Variance, the application of this Code to the particular piece of
property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
utilization of the property.
Does Not Comply
UDC Sec. 10.06.010 limits the size of freestanding signs in the Mixed-Use Downtown zoning district
to a maximum of 6-feet in height and a sign area maximum of 48 sq. ft. As façade signs are
permitted to be a maximum of 1-sq. ft. per linear foot of façade width, and the building has façade
widths allowing for façade signs of a similar size, proposed façade signs would be able to be
administratively reviewed for 46-sq. ft. on the W University Avenue façade and 50-sq. ft. on the S
Main Street façade. Façade signs of the maximum size permitted for administrative review would
provide similar if not improved visibility to a monument sign, and the Historic & Architectural
Review Commission is able to consider proposals for larger façade signs when the signs are scaled
and located compatibly to the building façade and composition.
7. Insufficient Findings
The following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient
grounds for granting a Zoning Variance:
a. That the property cannot be used for its highest and best use.
b. That there is a financial or economic hardship.
c. That there is a self-created hardship by the property owner or their
agent.
d. That the development objectives of the property owner are or will be
frustrated.
Does Not Comply
The expressed development objective of the property owner is to avoid the removal of the
remaining pole sign base, which they have described as expensive and difficult. The proposed
setback encroachment for a monument sign is proposed to facilitate construction of a sign atop the
existing sign base rather than complete its removal. However, the sign base is part of a sign type no
longer permitted for the subject property, and the removal of the remaining sign base, concrete and
bollards was part of an approval of a Site Development Plan for the property.
The subject property provides adequate allowance for façade signs of a size similar to the maximum
size permitted for a freestanding monument sign, or other sign types, which would have similar or
improved visibility to the proposed monument sign without requiring a variance from the required
setbacks or design standards. Other properties in the vicinity are similarly situated with freestanding
or pole signs that, if abandoned or removed in the future, would require the removal of the sign base
and compliance with design standards for any new signs. The Downtown Master Plan envisions a
future condition in which the University Avenue gateway is enhanced with buildings constructed to
the primary property line, landscaping improvements and public signage, and the proposed auto-
Page 13 of 44
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-11-VAR
Monument Sign Setback Page 7 of 7
oriented sign is not consistent with the adopted goals for the area.
Public Notification
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the
subject property were notified of the Zoning Variance request (29 notices), a legal notice advertising the
public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper on October 31, 2021 and signs were posted on-site.
To date, staff has received 1 written comment in favor, and 4 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 4).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 4 – Public Comments
Page 14 of 44
Location
2021-11-VAR
Exhibit #1
W 11TH ST
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
W UNIVERSITY AVE
W 14TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 14TH ST
E 13TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E 11TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
RO
C
K
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 15 of 44
STATEMENT OF INTENT
To: Zoning board of Adjustment, City of Georgetown
From: Eric Visser, on behalf of V7H, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership
Re: Zoning Variance Request, Monument Sign Setback Variance Only; 1202 S. Main Street,
Georgetown Texas 78626
Date: September 27, 2021
Dear Zoning Board of Adjustment,
We request approval for installation of a monument sign at the southwest corner
of University Avenue and S. Main Street. As some of you may recall, this former 7-Eleven/Check
Cashing site has recently been repurposed for GR use, and the site is included in the MUDT
overlay.
As part of the recent renovations, and as an express condition to Site Plan
approval, the City required removal of an old backlit pylon sign which is centered in the middle
of 4 bollards currently shown on the as-built survey and the extract of the site plan:
EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
EXISTING PARKING
UNIVERSITY DR.
MAIN ST.
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERT
Y LINE
EXISTINGRAMPS
EXISTING CONCRETE CURB
43'
-
0
"
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
ADA
STALL
REMOE EXISTINGPOLE SIGN &BOLLARDS
REMOVE EXTERIORSHED
9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"
18' -
0
"
18' -
0
"
FILL IN CURB CUT & CLOSE OFF
ENTRANCE FROM UNIVERSITY
DESIGNATED SIDEWALK
DESIGNATED SIDEWALK
DESIGNATED S
IDEWALK
ADA COMPLIANTRAMP @ 1:20 MAXSLOPE
35' - 9 1/4"
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
Wood
h
i
l
l
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
,
I
n
c
.
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
n
o
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
.
Woo
d
h
i
l
l
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
,
I
n
c
.
Sea
n
E
u
b
a
n
k
s
-
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
&
C
.
E
.
O
.
979
-
2
5
5
-
9
9
4
3
s
e
a
n
@
w
ood
h
i
l
l
-
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
.
c
o
m
Res
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
&
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1/8" = 1'-0"
A1
SITE PLAN &SPECS
EV 01
12
0
2
S
.
M
a
i
n
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
11-08-18
1/8" = 1'-0"3 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
6 FULL-SIZED EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY5 MIN. @ 1/500 RATIO
N
LOT AREAZONING DISTRICTEXISTING & PROPOSED USE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AREAEXISTING FAR
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREAPROPOSED CONC. ON SITEPROPOSED FAR/IMPERV.
7,532 sfDOWNTOWN MU-DTCOMMERECIAL
2,400 sf31.8%
2,400 sf2,400 sf31.8%
PROJECT INFORMATION
EXISTING EXTERIOR CONDITION OF BUILDING
AREA MAP - GEORGETOWN, TX
Page 16 of 44
We request approval of the location of the monument sign to be constructed on the old
pylon sign anchor, which is situated at a 45 degree angle inside of our property line. The center
line of the anchor, the distance from the Main Street ROW to the center of the proposed
monument, is 32 inches. Code requires a 60” setback.
The proposed monument sign would be 4 feet wide by 3 feet tall, and would be
mounted on the existing 24 inch tall pylon sign anchor in the center of the bollards.
Page 17 of 44
If we are not allowed to repurpose the anchor, we will have to remove it, and that will
create great hardship. The anchor is buried at least 17 feet in the ground and is encapsulated in
solid concrete. The proposed monument sign would be static, slightly angled towards the
center of the University/Main Street intersection, and would not exceed 5’ in height.
Otherwise, the monument sign will comply with the UDC as follows:
1. Sign area Complies. Sign area will be 15 square feet, each side. The UDC prescribes a
sign area limitation of one square foot per linear foot of storefront of the building
the sign serves, subject to a maximum size of 48 square feet. The Main street façade
is 50’ wide, the University Ave façade is 44 feet wide.
Page 18 of 44
2. Only one monument sign on property. This will be the only monument sign on site.
There are no multiple monument signs, and therefore this limitation satisfies UDC
10.06.030 (1)(a).
3. No other freestanding signs for which a permit is required within 80’. There is no
other monument sign on site, and none within the 80’ required set back per UDC 10-
06.030(1)(c).
4. Monument sign to be constructed of compatible materials. The monument sign will
have a concrete and steel base and a metal non-backlit sign structure. Electric power
is present at the monument, any lighting will comply with overlay requirements.
UDC 10-06-030(1)(b).
5. Monument Sign will not encroach in ROW setback. UDC 10-06-030(H) states that:
“Signs Along Streets, Public Ways or Railroads.
1. Except as set forth below, no sign may be placed on or over the area located:
a. within ten feet of the back of the street curb for City or County rights-of-
way or the actual right-of-way, whichever is greater […];”
There is a generous amount of ROW setback, including 6’ wide sidewalk and lowered
(ADA accessible) curbs, between the base on the monument anchor and the University
as well as the Main Street ROWs. The setback is closer to 15 feet measured from the
inside of the curb on each of University and S. Main.
The only requirement which cannot be met by current site limitations is the 5’ setback from the
S. Main Street ROW. This forms the basis of this application and is supported by the following
arguments:
1. Extraordinary Conditions. That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting
the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this Unified
Page 19 of 44
Development Code will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land. There
are unique attributes of this property that would create a hardship to move any
monument sign over. The site is almost entirely covered by concrete. Removing a 17’
anchor, cutting concrete slab and re-wiring the existing electrical conduit to move the
sign over 2-3 feet would be extraordinary difficult and expensive. This is a high traffic
mostly commercial corridor that warrants signage to announce the presence of the
business on site to passing vehicles.
2. No Substantial Detriment. That the granting of the Zoning 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. The actual setbacks from the inside curb
of the ROW along each of University and S. Main is right at 15 feet. Even with an
encroachment of 2-3 feet within the 5’ required setback from the ROW, there is still
more that the 10’ of distance between the monument sign and the inside curb of the
ROW to satisfy UDC 10-06-0309(H) as a matter of public safety policy.
3. Other Property. That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance do not
generally apply to other property in the vicinity. There are no other properties with old
pylon signs in the immediate vicinity of this property. The conditions that gave rise to
the need for this application are directly related to the City’s requirement that the old
pylon sign be removed, and are unique to the area, and unique to this site, even though
there are multiple other existing pole and pylon signs on other properties along the
ROW of University Drive.
4. Applicant's Actions. That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance
are not the result of the applicant's own actions. The pylon sign dated back to the
1970s. We purchased the site in 2017-2018, and have gone through the technically
difficult, expensive and arduous task of repurposing what used to be a public eyesore.
We are seeking to adapt the remnants of what is now considered an illegal pylon sign
into an acceptable and attractive alternative, by being able to save the base (anchor)
and electrical infrastructure under the old pylon sign.
5. Comprehensive Plan. That the granting of the Zoning Variance would not substantially
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code. The variance
requested results in a setback variance of a few feet only, does not otherwise frustrate
or conflict with the general purpose and requirements of UDC 10-06-030.
6. Utilization. That the granting of the Zoning Variance would not substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code. This is a single setback
variance request along the S. Main Street ROW. The setback complies with the 5’
setback requirement along the busier of the two arterials. For reasons specified above,
there is no prejudicial or continuing negative impact on the comprehensive code. MU-
DT district consists mostly of older properties that must be tastefully reapportioned and
repurposed from time to time without requiring the property owner to incur unusual
costs or burdens.
Page 20 of 44
7. Insufficient Findings. That because of the conditions that create the need for the Zoning
Variance, the application of this Code to the particular piece of property would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The
restriction above applies only to future use of a monument sign. We cannot
economically justify tearing out he old anchor and bollards and moving the electrical 2-3
feet to the West just to comply with the setback. Realistically, our options are to
repurpose the pylon sign anchor, or to remove it at great expense and burden. It would
require heavy equipment including a crane to move the anchor. It is doubtful the
concrete could be chipped off the steel anchor to cut the 17+ foot metal post
underground.
Thank you in advance for your review and consideration of this application.
Page 21 of 44
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
EXISTING PARKING
UNIVERSITY DR.
MAIN ST.
PROPERTY LINE
PRO
PER
T
Y LINE
EXISTING
RAMPS
EXISTING CONCRETE CURB
43
'
-
0
"
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
ADA
STALL
REMOE EXISTING
POLE SIGN &
BOLLARDS
REMOVE EXTERIORSHED
9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"
18
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
FIL
L
IN CURB CUT & CLOSE OFF
ENTRANCE FROM UNIVERSITY
DESIGNATED SIDEWALK
DESIGNATED
SIDEWALK
DESIGNATED
S
IDEWALK
ADA COMPLIANT
RAMP @ 1:20 MAX
SLOPE
35' - 9 1/4"
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
Wo
o
d
h
i
l
l
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
,
I
n
c
.
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
n
o
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
.
Wo
o
d
h
i
l
l
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
,
I
n
c
.
Se
a
n
E
u
b
a
n
k
s
-
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
&
C
.
E
.
O
.
97
9
-
2
5
5
-
9
9
4
3
s
e
a
n
@
w
oo
d
h
i
l
l
-
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
.
c
o
m
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
&
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1/8" = 1'-0"
A1
SITE PLAN &
SPECS
EV 01
12
0
2
S
.
M
a
i
n
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
11-08-18
1/8" = 1'-0"3 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
6 FULL-SIZED EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY
5 MIN. @ 1/500 RATIO
N
LOT AREA
ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING & PROPOSED USE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA
EXISTING FAR
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA
PROPOSED CONC. ON SITE
PROPOSED FAR/IMPERV.
7,532 sf
DOWNTOWN MU-DT
COMMERECIAL
2,400 sf
31.8%
2,400 sf
2,400 sf
31.8%
PROJECT INFORMATION
EXISTING EXTERIOR CONDITION OF BUILDING
AREA MAP - GEORGETOWN, TX
Page 22 of 44
Page 23 of 44
Page 24 of 44
1
Britin Bostick
From:Kelly McClennahan
Sent:Monday, November 8, 2021 3:11 PM
To:Mirna Garcia
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Variance request for signage of building located at the southwest corner of University
Avenue and Main Street, 1202 S. Main Street, Georgetown, Texas
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear Planning and Zoning Board
I am a resident living at 1250 S Main Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
It is my understanding that the building owner is requesting a variance regarding signage for the liquor store entering
that building space. It is also my belief that the requested variance would result in an 80% variance from current zoning
requirements. This requested variance would result in signage for this business being only one foot away from the
property line rather than the required five feet away.
I am notifying you of my objection to this proposed variance. As a resident of Old Town since 1997, I have seen
significant growth and change to the area — some of it good and some of it not so good.
Part of the allure of Old Town and Main Street specifically is the ability to walk the area and that despite the economic
growth it still feels like an safe and welcoming environment. I do not believe that having signage that close to the
property line is serving the interests of Old Town and the citizens who live here. There cannot be sufficient justification
for this vast departure from the zoning requirements.
As such, I would respectfully ask that the requested variance be denied and that any proposed signage comply with the
current zoning requirements.
Thank you,
Kelly McClennahan
5128180975
NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND
MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you.
In compliance with regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice
contained in this communication including any attachments was not written to be used and may not be used by any
person to avoid any penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
Page 25 of 44
1
Britin Bostick
From:Kim Stanczak
Sent:Monday, November 8, 2021 5:11 PM
To:Mirna Garcia
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Variance for Liquor Store on Main Street/University
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello Ms. Garcia,
I write to you about the proposed variance for the sign at the future liquor store occupying the building on the corner of Main and University. I
understand a letter was sent to residents regarding the variance which I did not receive at my address of 1225 S Main Street. Perhaps you didn’t
think my location should be included in the limited mailing. However, I am the sixth house from the corner on the opposite side of the street and
will see any sign that is a foot away from the property line.
I don’t understand why the city would grant this variance because it would "cost less to the store owner and is more convenient". Those are not
valid reasons to grant the variance.
I have concerns about this liquor store six doors down affecting my property value, not to mention the increased traffic on Main Street. Granting a
various based on cost and convenience is not a valid reason. I wonder if you or any of the other city officials involved in this decision that lived six
houses away from the liquor store would feel the same?
Please do not grant the variance for this property. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kim Stanczak
Page 26 of 44
Page 27 of 44
1
Monument Sign Setback
2021-11-VAR
Zoning Board of AdjustmentNovember 16, 2021
Page 28 of 44
2
Item Under Consideration
2021-11-VAR
•Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 10.06.010 to allow a freestanding monument sign with a setback of 1.3-feet, an 74% decrease from the minimum setback for a freestanding monument sign of 5-feet required for a property in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district on S Main St., for the property located at 1202 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.18 acres in the northeast part of Block O of the J. C. S. Morrow Addition.
Page 29 of 44
3
Dos SalsasCVS
Page 30 of 44
4
Dos SalsasCVS
Page 31 of 44
5
Removed Pole Sign –December 2018 View
Removed Pole Sign Page 32 of 44
6
Existing Site
Proposed Sign Location Page 33 of 44
7
Approved SDP-2018-048
Page 34 of 44
8Page 35 of 44
9
Site Triangle Example
Proposed Sign
Sight Triangle
25’
25
’
Page 36 of 44
10
Zoning Variance
The Zoning Board of Adjustment may authorize a Zoning Variance from the requirements of the zoning provisions of this Unified Development Code if the Variance from the terms of the zoning provisions is:
•Not contrary to the public interest
•Due to special conditions
•A literal enforcement of the requirements would result in unnecessary hardship
•The spirit of this Code is preserved
•Substantial justice done
Page 37 of 44
11
Approval Criteria
1. Extraordinary Conditions
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 reasonable use of their land. For example, a Zoning 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.
Page 38 of 44
12
Approval Criteria
2. No Substantial Detriment
That the granting of the Zoning 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.
3. Other Property
That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
Page 39 of 44
13
Approval Criteria
4. Applicant’s Actions
That the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance are not the result of the applicant's own actions.
5. Comprehensive Plan
That the granting of the Zoning Variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code.
Page 40 of 44
14
Approval Criteria
6. Utilization
That because of the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance, the application of this Code to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.
7. Insufficient Findings
The following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a Zoning 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.
Page 41 of 44
15
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.15.030
Criteria for a Variance Complies Partially Complies Does Not Comply
1. Extraordinary Conditions X
2. No Substantial Detriment X
3. Other Property X
4. Applicant’s Actions X
5. Comprehensive Plan X
6. Utilization X
7. Insufficient Findings X
Page 42 of 44
16
Public Notifications
•29 property owners within the 300’ buffer
•Notice in Sun News on October 31, 2021
•Signs posted on the property
•To date, staff has received:
•1 written comment IN FAVOR
•4 written comments OPPOSED
Page 43 of 44
17
Summary
•Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 10.06.010 to allow a freestanding monument sign with a setback of 1.3-feet, an 74% decrease from the minimum setback for a freestanding monument sign of 5-feet required for a property in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district on S Main St., for the property located at 1202 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.18 acres in the northeast part of Block O of the J. C. S. Morrow Addition.
•A supermajority (3/4) vote of the Board is required to grant a Variance.
•When making a motion, the Board must make a finding of the criteria.
Page 44 of 44