HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda ZBA 01.18.2022Notice of Meeting for the
Zoning Board of Adjustment
of the City of Georgetown
January 18, 2022 at 5:15 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 November 16, 2021 regular meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment -- Stephanie McNickle, Planning Technician
C Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 8.07.040. to allow a fence
height of 12-feet at the property line, a 50% increase from the maximum height of 8-feet for a fence on a
single-family property with an adjacent non-residential use, for the property located at 1802 S. Austin
Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.54 acres in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558
(2021-14-VAR). Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
Page 1 of 36
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 _________________, 2022, 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 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the November 16, 2021 regular meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment -- Stephanie McNickle, Planning Technician
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mirna Garcia, Program Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes Cover Memo
Page 3 of 36
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2 November 16, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
Courts and Council Building, located at 510 W. 9th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Board members present: 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 September 21, 2021 regular
meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment – Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist
Motion by Board member Perthuis to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2021, with
updates. Second by Board member Whitmore. Approved. (5-0)
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
Page 4 of 36
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 November 16, 2021
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
This item was pulled from the agenda at the applicant’s request.
Motion to adjourn at 5:02p.m.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
John Marler, Chair Attest, Ed Whitmore, Secretary
Page 5 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 8.07.040. to allow a fence height
of 12-feet at the property line, a 50% increase from the maximum height of 8-feet for a fence on a single-
family property with an adjacent non-residential use, for the property located at 1802 S. Austin Avenue,
bearing the legal description of 0.54 acres in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558 (2021-14-
VAR). Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the required maximum fence height of 8-feet, to
allow the fence height along the north property line to be 12-feet. The 12-feet fence is currently installed
along the north property line, separating the subject property from the apartment complex on the property
directly abutting the subject property to the north. The fence was installed by the prior owner without the
required fence permit, and the applicant is requesting approval of the proposed fence height variance so
that the constructed fence can remain in place as installed.
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 (24 notices mailed), a legal
notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper on January 2, 2022 and signs were
posted on-site. As of the publication date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and
0 in opposition to the request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required application fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 – Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 – Conceptual Plan Backup Material
Presentation Presentation
Page 6 of 36
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 1 of 6
Report Date: January 14, 2022
Case No: 2021-14-VAR
Project Planner: Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 1802 S Austin Ave
Project Location: 1802 S Austin Ave within City Council district No. 1.
Legal Description: 0.54 acres in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558
Applicant: Keepers Land Planning, c/o Ricca Keepers
Property Owner: Sheri Knight
Request: Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 8.07.040. to allow a fence height of 12-feet at
the property line, a 50% increase from the maximum height of 8-feet for a fence
on a single-family property with an adjacent non-residential use.
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Page 7 of 36
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 2 of 6
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The application is requesting approval of a modification to the required 8-feet maximum fence height
for single-family residential properties for a fence height at the north property line of the subject
property of 12-feet. The 12-feet tall fence has already been constructed along the north property line of
the subject property, which separates the single-family residential structures on the subject property
from the multi-family structures on the abutting property to the north. The applicant is proposing to
retain the existing fence, which was installed without a fence permit by the prior property owner, and
the applicant has described the fence height as necessary to secure the privacy, safety and comfort of
their property, as the units on the abutting apartment complex have balconies that overlook the subject
property’s back yard.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on the west side of S Austin Ave in the center of the block between W
17th and W 18th Streets.
Physical and Natural Features:
The subject property lacks distinctive natural features and has historically been used as a single-family
residence, with recent additions to the rear of the historic main structure (constructed c. 1925) and an
accessory structure at the rear of the property.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The subject property has a Community Center Future Land Use designation and is currently zoned
Residential Single-Family, is located within the Old Town Historic Overlay District and the Downtown
Gateway Overlay District, as well as the Courthouse View Overlay District.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the Old Town Historic Overlay District and
in a historic neighborhood that developed with a mix of single-family, multi-family, and commercial
uses through the 20th century. An The Georgian Apartments complex identified on the City of
Georgetown’s 2016 Historic Resource Survey is located on the abutting property to the north, the
Georgetown Housing Authority’s Stone Haven multi-family property is to the west, a single-family
property and printing and sign company is to the south, and single-family properties are across S.
Austin Ave to the east.
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:
Page 8 of 36
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 3 of 6
DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North Office/Residential
Single-Family
Community Center/Mixed
Density Neighborhood
Apartment Complex/Single-
Family Residential
South
Residential Single-
Family/Local
Commercial
Community Center
Single-Family
Residential/Printing
Company
East Office Community Center/Mixed
Density Neighborhood Public Housing
West Residential Single-
Family Community Center Residential Single-Family
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 8.07.040 – Residential Fences
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 stated:
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
Page 9 of 36
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 4 of 6
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 complies with 0 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
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.
Does Not Comply
The required 8-feet maximum fence height does not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the subject property as the primary residential structure on the subject property was constructed c.
1925 and the apartment complex on the abutting property was constructed prior to 1974, with the
current, respective property uses in place for at least 48 years. There are no unique, extraordinary,
or special conditions effecting either property as both the subject tract and neighboring multi-
family development are located on generally flat ground, neither tract being substantially elevated
above the other.
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 fence height exceeds the maximum height permitted by 4-feet and is located
approximately 6-feet from the apartment building and dwelling units with openings facing the
subject property, the fence blocks both light and air from the apartment complex dwelling units, the
protection of which is a core purpose of the Code per UDC 1.01.020(D). This is considered to and
presents a real and significant detriment to the health, safety and welfare of those residents and the
abutting property.
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
Several multi-family and non-residential structures and properties are in close proximity to single-
family residential structures and lot lines in the surrounding neighborhood as the development
patterns in the surrounding historic neighborhood are intact. Proximity to lot line, building heights
and setbacks vary, but non-conforming structures generally exist in the vicinity due to the large
proportion of historic structures constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations, including
setback requirements.
Page 10 of 36
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 5 of 6
ZONING MAP VARIANCE 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.
Does Not Comply
Although the applicant did not install the fence but purchased the subject property with the fence
recently installed, the applicant was notified by the City of Georgetown Code Compliance
Department that the fence was in violation of the City’s requirements, and the applicant chose not
to comply with the requirement to reduce the height of the fence to the maximum permitted height
of 8-feet. Additionally, the proximity of certain portions of the residence on the subject property,
area direct result of expansions to the original structure by a prior owner(s) built ca. 2014. These
changes included the rear addition, including north facing windows and relocation of the driveway
to the south side of the Subject from its original location between the home on the Subject tract and
the shared property line with the Georgian Apartments tract.
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
The purposed of a maximum fence height is to limit impacts to abutting properties that might be
impacted by the fence, particularly for structures and buildings located on or near property lines,
which is a common condition in Georgetown’s historic neighborhoods. The subject property is in
the Old Town Overlay District, and both it and the apartment complex on the abutting property
have been identified as historic structures on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. The proposed
variance conflicts with the purposes of the UDC in that it exceeds the maximum height permitted
without an administrative exception by 50% and creates a condition in which the proposed and
installed fence height of 12-feet directly and negatively impacts the residents on the abutting
property, which is not the purpose of the Unified Development Code.
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
The historic main structure on the subject property and the historic apartment complex structure
have been constructed since at least 1974 and have had the same uses since on or before that time.
The single-family use of the subject property has, up until the time of the most recent sale of the
property in 2021, not been effectively prohibited or unreasonably restricted without a 12-foot fence
for at least 48 years and is not effectively prohibited or unreasonably restricted with a maximum
fence height of 8-feet as permitted by the UDC.
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.
Does Not Comply
Page 11 of 36
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-14-VAR
1802 S. Austin Ave. Page 6 of 6
ZONING MAP VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
d. That the development objectives of the property owner are or will be
frustrated.
The applicant has the option to retain an 8-feet tall fence, which is taller than the normal privacy
fence height of 6-feet, in order to address the multi-family structure on the abutting property to the
north. The subject property and abutting property retain the uses in place since before 1974, and
those uses were in place at the time the current owner purchased the subject property.
(Include a 2-3 paragraph summarizing your findings above)
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 (XX notices), a legal notice advertising
the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (newspaper edition date) and signs were posted
on-site. To date, staff has received XX written comments in favor, and XX in opposition to the request
(Exhibit 4 – if applicable).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 3 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 4 – Public Comments (if applicable)
Page 12 of 36
Location
2021-14-VAR
Exhibit #1
E 18TH ST
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
CYRUS AV
E
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E 17TH ST
B
R
US
H
Y
S
T
PA
I
G
E
ST
W 18TH ST
W 17TH ST
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
GE
O
R
G
E
S
T
FOREST
ST
W 18TH ST
HART
ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 13 of 36
Ricca Keepers, MUP 1
Keepers Land Planning
Land Planner
512-520-5388
KeepersLandPlanning.com
December 1, 2021
Letter of Intent
Zoning Variance
1802 S Austin Ave., Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
The owner of property 1802 S Austin Ave and Keepers Land Planning come to you today
with a principal request to secure the privacy, safety, and comfort of a proud, new resident of the
City of Georgetown. Both parties are requesting a zoning variance of 4 feet from the maximum
height of 8 feet that provides protective screening and crucial privacy from the neighboring
apartment complex, the Georgian Apartments. The owner’s side yard is directly adjacent to the 2-
story apartment complex where multiple units’ balconies overlook the owner’s backyard and into
the windows of the home. This vantage point results in a valid concern on behalf of the owner, and
the solution would be the ability to keep the fence. The apartment was built in the 1980s, prior to the
appropriate compatibility standards used by the City of Georgetown today. Conclusively, the
current setting and height of the apartment complex would not have been approved today. In
reference to compatibility, the ordinance code for fencing states:
“If the fence is placed in a location where the topography of the land dictates the need for additional
height for privacy, [it is] at the discretion of the Building Official (Sec. 8.07.040.B.2.d).”
Along the line where these two properties meet, the topography dictates that any fence built under
the original code would be too short to allow enough privacy, and safety, for the homeowner.
The client purchased the property with the understanding that all of the buildings and
improvements had been properly processed through the City of Georgetown, as would any
homeowner. Safety is the number one concern for a planner, and allowing residents to live and
feel safe on their own property is crucial to the success of mutual understanding between a property
owner, business, and city. With not only peeping eyes intruding into the windows of the home, the
property owner has witnessed and documented intruders walk on to the property on a regular basis.
The tenants that live 5-feet away seem to have the understanding this is public property and
threatens the comfort, safety, and privacy, all of which are unalienable rights to one residing in the
City of Georgetown when following appropriate steps in accordance to city guidelines.
The owners bought the house with the understanding that the fence was protecting their
privacy and were willing to pay top dollar because of the comfort afforded by its existence. A
requirement to take the fence down would diminish the property value and, more importantly, the
comfort of feeling safe on their own property. If the owner is required to remove the fence, she
will not be able to live safely in this home nor will she be able to sell it in the future. This was the
situation that the previous owner was in when trying to sell the home, and it led them to have to
construct the fence in order to make the sale. We are now aware that the prior property owner did
Page 14 of 36
Ricca Keepers, MUP 2
Keepers Land Planning
Land Planner
512-520-5388
KeepersLandPlanning.com
not follow steps needed to be taken with the city to have the fence approved, but the current owner
should not bear the burden of someone else’s mistakes.
The following are requirements for the Zoning Variance addressed according to Sec.
3.15.030. Criteria for Zoning Variance Review from the Georgetown Municipal Code:
1. Extraordinary Conditions.
This home has special conditions that are unique to the property. The side building face of the
neighboring Georgian Apartments is only 5 ft. away from the client’s property line, meaning that
the apartment tenants can see into the backyard from their second story balconies even with the
12-foot fence.
2. No Substantial Detriment.
The granting of the Zoning Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
nor will it be injurious to other property in the area or to the City in administering this Code. The
variance will promote public safety and welfare for all concerned.
3. Other Property.
The conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance do not generally apply to other
properties in the vicinity. In this case, the home and property were established in 1935, well before
the apartment complex was built. If there is any party that should have an issue with the lack of
buffer zone between the properties, it should be our client, the owner of 1802 S Austin. Per
Georgetown’s current code in Section 8.04.060, relating to the standards for required Buffer Zones,
this property would require a medium level bufferyard. The Medium level bufferyard must consist
of a 15-foot-wide planting area, 1 shade tree, 2 evergreen ornamental trees and 8 evergreen shrubs
per 50 linear feet. These features simply do not exist at this time.
The Current Setbacks for this apartment (zoned C-1) are laid out in Sec. 5.02.010, “…where
located adjacent to a residential zoning district the side and rear setbacks shall increase to 30 feet.”
We understand that the city has very strict guidelines for the required setbacks in order to provide
privacy and safety to land owners and believe that there should be no exception in this case.
Although both of the referenced codes above were not adopted when the Georgian Apartments
were built, there is a reason why the codes have since been put in place with such standards and
there should be some level of allowance in this case based on the existing conditions.
4. Applicant's Actions.
The current conditions that create the need for a Zoning Variance are not the result of the
applicant's own actions, rather the previous land owner’s actions. Granting this variance would
prove to benefit the apartment complex by providing protective screening for them as well.
5. Comprehensive Plan.
Page 15 of 36
Ricca Keepers, MUP 3
Keepers Land Planning
Land Planner
512-520-5388
KeepersLandPlanning.com
The granting of the Zoning Variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
of this neighborhood. It is zoned for residential and is staying zoned residential because of its
proximity to downtown.
6. Utilization.
Because of the conditions that create the need for the Zoning Variance, the fence height would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, its ability to sell, and
the ability to have its residence feel safe and provide privacy.
7. Insufficient Findings.
The following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a Zoning
Variance:
Ø That the property cannot be used for its highest and best use.
§ The property is already fully developed to its highest and best use. The owner has no
intentions of further development.
Ø That there is a financial or economic hardship.
§ The current height of the fence does not bestow any type of financial or economic
hardship onto the current owner of the property.
Ø That there is a self-created hardship by the owner or their agent.
§ The height of the fence was the previous owner’s doing as to ensure that he was able to
sell the house. Therefore, there is not self-created hardship by the current owner of the
property because she was not the one who put up the fence at its current height.
Ø That the development objectives of the property owner are or will be frustrated.
§ The property is already fully developed and the current owner has no intention of further
development.
In reviewing this variance, we hope that you can see that Sheri Knight, the proud owner of
1802 S Austin Ave, wants to retain the privacy and safety in her own home that she assumed she
was attaining when purchasing the home. Georgetown is highly sought after by families as stated
on the city website: “People choose Georgetown because we are a safe city with a high-quality of
life, great parks, an award-winning library, a low tax rate, and the most beautiful town square in
Texas.” Clearly Georgetown is a coveted place with a high sense of community and security that
residents look for and appreciate in the city they call home. If she must change the current condition
of her home by being forced to remove the privacy fence, the discourse of a current lack of privacy
would turn into a battle on one’s rights to comfort as a property owner. With the limited privacy
she currently has from the apartments next door, dropping the height of the fence would allow for
the neighbors’ balconies to sit in plain sight of her property and home. Georgetown is a community
that Sheri is excited and honored to be a part of, but with the request to lower the fence and with
Page 16 of 36
Ricca Keepers, MUP 4
Keepers Land Planning
Land Planner
512-520-5388
KeepersLandPlanning.com
the current apartment tenants walking onto her private property, this has made for a very difficult
experience. Both parties understand that this is a unique issue, but the safety of the property owner
and proud resident in the City of Georgetown is the ultimate goal, and the solution to these issues
would be solved with the granting of the variance request to keep the fence in its current state.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ricca Keepers, MUP
Page 17 of 36
Page 18 of 36
Page 19 of 36
Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36
1
1802 S Austin Ave
2021-14-VAR
Zoning Board of AdjustmentJanuary 18, 2022
Page 22 of 36
2
Item Under Consideration
2021-14-VAR
•Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 8.07.040. to allow a fence height of 12-feet at the property line, a 50% increase from the maximum height of 8-feet for a fence on a single-family property with an adjacent non-residential use, for the property located at 1802 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.54 acres in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558.
Page 23 of 36
3
Georgian Apartments
Minuteman Press
Georgetown Housing Authority
Page 24 of 36
4
Georgian Apartments
Minuteman Press
Georgetown Housing Authority
Page 25 of 36
5
12’ Fence Constructed Along North Property Line
Page 26 of 36
6
12’ Fence Constructed Along North Property Line
Page 27 of 36
7
1974 Aerial Photo
Georgian Apartments
Minuteman Press
Georgetown Housing Authority
Page 28 of 36
8
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 29 of 36
9
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 30 of 36
10
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 31 of 36
11
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 32 of 36
12
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 33 of 36
13
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 34 of 36
14
Public Notifications
•24 property owners within the 300’ buffer
•Notice in Sun News on Jan. 2, 2022
•Signs posted on the property
•To date, staff has received:
•0 written comments IN FAVOR
•0 written comments OPPOSED
Page 35 of 36
15
Summary
•Public Hearing and possible action on a Zoning Variance from UDC Sec. 8.07.040. to allow a fence height of 12-feet at the property line, a 50% increase from the maximum height of 8-feet for a fence on a single-family property with an adjacent non-residential use, for the property located at 1802 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.54 acres in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558
•Four votes (a supermajority (3/4) vote of the Board) are required to grant a Variance. A variance that does not receive four votes is considered denied. (Code of Ord. 2.29.040)
•When making a motion, the Board must make a finding of the criteria.
Page 36 of 36