HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_ZBA_03.19.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Zoning Board of Adjustment
of the City of Georgetown
March 19, 2019 at 5:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E. 7th 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.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A Nomination and selection of Vice-chair and Secretary for the 2019/20 Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
B Discussion and possible action establishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the Zoning Board
of Adjustment for 2019/20. Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for 1) a variance from Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 6.05.010, which sets the maximum size of an accessory structure at 25% of the size of the
principal structure, to allow an increase in the size of an accessory structure to 70% of the size of the
principal structure (request withdrawn by the applicant), and 2) a variance from UDC Section 6.02.050,
for a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot rear setback, to create a 8.5 foot rear setback, for the
property located at 1500 Timber Street, bearing the legal description of 0.18 acres in Outlot Division A,
Block 2, City of Georgetown (2019-1-VAR). Ethan Harwell, Planner
D Public Hearing and possible action on a request to appeal an administrative decision regarding the
determination of an alternative design to protect a heritage tree pursuant to Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 8.02.050.B.1 (2019-1-APL). Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Adjournment
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 at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said
meeting.
____________________________________
Robyn Densmore, City Secretary
Page 1 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 19, 2019
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for 1) a variance from Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 6.05.010, which sets the maximum size of an accessory structure at 25% of the size of the principal
structure, to allow an increase in the size of an accessory structure to 70% of the size of the principal
structure (request withdrawn by the applicant), and 2) a variance from UDC Section 6.02.050, for a 1.5
foot variance from the required 10 foot rear setback, to create a 8.5 foot rear setback, for the property
located at 1500 Timber Street, bearing the legal description of 0.18 acres in Outlot Division A, Block 2,
City of Georgetown (2019-1-VAR). Ethan Harwell, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The applicant has constructed an approximately 744-square foot accessory structure in the rear yard of the
subject property, 8.5 feet from the west rear property line. The UDC permits an accessory structure, in the
RS, Residential Single-Family, district, to be up to 25% of the size of the primary structure on the lot
(approximately 263.25 square feet). In addition, the UDC requires a minimum rear setback of 10 feet.
Because of this, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from the requirements for the size of an
accessory structure and from the requirements for a rear setback in the RS, Residential Single-Family
district.
Since the time of submittal, the applicant has opted to connect the existing accessory structure to the
primary structure in order to convert them into one primary building. The connection of these structures
into one will remove the 25% maximum building size requirement. Thus, this variance request would no
longer be needed. However, due to the location of the structure within the rear setback, the applicant has
requested a 1.5 foot variance from this requirement to create an 8.5 foot rear setback.
Staff’s Analysis:
Staff has reviewed the zoning variance request for a 1.5-foot variance from the required 10-foot setback in
accordance with the UDC and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed request
meets 1 of the 7 required findings established in UDC Section 3.15.030.A for a Zoning Variance as
outlined in the attached Staff Report.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development Code (UDC), all property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property were notified of the request (28), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the
Sun Newspaper on March 3, 2019 and signs were posted on-site. As of the publication date of this report,
staff has received no written comments in favor and one in opposition of the request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid all required fees
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 2 of 55
Ethan Harwell, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2019-1-WAV - ZBA Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Attachment 2 - Conceptual Plan Exhibit
Attachment - 3 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Attachment 4 - Public Comments Exhibit
2019-1-VAR Presentation Presentation
Page 3 of 55
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street Page 1 of 6
Report Date: March 15, 2019
Case No: 2019-1-VAR
Project Planner: Ethan Harwell, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 1500 Timber Street
Project Address: 1500 Timber Street, within City Council district No. 1.
Legal Description: Being 0.18 acres out of Outlot Division A, Block 2, City of Georgetown.
Property Owner: Celso Martin Rodriguez
Request: The applicant is requesting a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot setback
to create an 8.5 foot setback.
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Page 4 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street Page 2 of 6
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has constructed an approximately 744-square foot accessory structure in the rear yard of
the subject property, 8.5 feet from the west rear property line. The UDC permits an accessory structure,
in the RS, Residential Single-Family, district, to be up to 25% of the size of the primary structure on the
lot (approximately 263.25 square feet). In addition, the UDC requires a minimum rear setback of 10 feet.
Because of this, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from the requirements for the size of
an accessory structure and from the requirements for a rear setback in the RS, Residential Single-Family
district.
Since the time of submittal, the applicant has opted to connect the existing accessory structure to the
primary structure in order to convert them into one primary building. The connection of these
structures into one will remove the 25% maximum building size requirement. Thus, this variance
request would no longer be needed. However, due to the location of the structure within the rear
setback, the applicant has requested a 1.5 foot variance from this requirement to create an 8.5 foot rear
setback.
The applicant’s letter of intent (Exhibit 3) lists their reasons for justification of the variance request,
which include no detrimental impact to the abutting properties and that there are special conditions on
the site.
Location:
The subject property is located on Timber Street between W. 14th Street and W. 16th Street. It is
approximately 1.5 blocks south of W. University Ave.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The Future Land Use designation is Moderate Density Residential and the zoning designation is
Residential Single-Family (RS).
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is in the center of an established single-family neighborhood close to the Old Town
Overlay. Single-family and multi-family residential uses are located within the area.
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:
LOCATION ZONING DISTRICTS FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North
Residential Single-Family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Residential
Single-Family
South
East
West
Page 5 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street Page 3 of 6
Approval Criteria
The applicant is requesting a 1.5-foot variance to Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.02.050,
which sets a minimum rear setback of 10 feet, to allow a residential structure 8.5 feet from the rear
property line.
The following are the pertinent sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) related to this request:
Section 6.02.050 – Residential Development Standards, RS – Residential Single-Family 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 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 6 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street 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 zoning variance request for a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot setback
in accordance with the UDC and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed request
meets 1 of the 7 required findings established in UDC Section 3.15.030.A for a zoning variance as
outlined below.
ZONING VARIANCE CRITERIA FINDING COMMENT
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
There are no unique conditions
present on this property. The
placement of the existing structure
and the size of the lot limit the
amount of buildable area on the lot,
but even in the limited area the
applicant could still build the
proposed structure in compliance
with the minimum requirements of
the UDC. There is sufficient room on
the property to move the wall to the
10-foot rear setback line while
maintaining the square footage
desired for the structure (addition).
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
The primary condition that creates
the need for this variance is the
placement of the accessory structure
within the rear setback prior to
review and approval of a building
permit. If the structure or rear wall
were shifted the need for the
variance would not exist.
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
If this request were not granted, the
applicant could still be able to build
an accessory structure or addition.
The condition that creates the need
for variance was the construction of
the structure at its current location
prior to review and approval of a
building permit.
Comprehensive Plan -
That the granting of the Zoning
Variance would not substantially
conflict with the Comprehensive
Complies
The variance would not substantially
conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive plan
loosely recommends removing
Page 7 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street Page 5 of 6
ZONING VARIANCE CRITERIA FINDING COMMENT
Plan and the purposes of this Code. impediments to re-investment in
older, developed areas (Land Use
Policy 2.A). The proposed use is
allowed by the zoning district and
building separation requirements
may still be met.
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 subject property is zoned and
developed as single-family
residential, and thus meets all of the
requirements to be used as it is now.
An accessory structure or addition
may still be built on this property
within the regulations of the UDC.
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 condition that creates the need
for the variance is a hardship created
by the applicant as no permits were
obtained prior to commencing
construction.
In summary, there appears to be no special conditions that would deprive the applicant of reasonable
use of the property if this variance is not granted. The conditions that create the need for the variance
are the size and location of the proposed structure. The applicant has the option to move the rear wall
of the structure to the 10-foot setback line and maintain the addition once it is connected to the primary
structure.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the
subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the variance request (28 notices
mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 3, 2019)
and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received one letter of objection (Attachment 4).
Page 8 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
Case No. 2019-1-VAR
1500 Timber Street Page 6 of 6
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Conceptual Plan
Attachment 3 – Applicant’s Letter of Intent
Attachment 4 – Public Comments
Page 9 of 55
W 17TH ST
S MAIN ST
SCENIC DR FOREST ST
S AUSTIN AVE
W 18TH ST
RAILROAD AVE
W UNIVERSITY AVE
W 16TH ST
TIMBER ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 15TH ST
ALLEY
HART ST
W 14TH ST
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
W 13TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
BRIDGE ST
CANDEE ST
C Y R U S A V E
LEANDER ST
ROCK ST
W 19TH ST
WEST ST
GEORGE ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
STONE CIR
W 14TH ST
W16THST
HART ST
W 18TH ST
2019-1-VARExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Feet
Page 10 of 55
Page 11 of 55
Page 12 of 55
Page 13 of 55
Page 14 of 55
1500 Timber Street2019-1-VAR
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 19, 2019
1Page 15 of 55
Items under consideration
•2019-1-VAR
–Request for a variance from Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.05.010, which sets the maximum size of an accessory structure at 25% of the size of the principal structure, to allow an increase in the size of an accessory structure to 70% of the size of the principal structure.
–A variance from UDC Section 6.02.050, for a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot rear setback, to create a 8.5 foot rear setback.
Page 16 of 55
Location Map
3Page 17 of 55
Aerial Map
4Page 18 of 55
•The Residential Single-Family District (RS) is intended for areas of
medium density with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The
RS District contains standards for development that maintain single-
family neighborhood characteristics. The District may be located
within proximity of neighborhood-friendly commercial and public
services and protected from incompatible uses. All housing types in
the RS District shall use the lot, dimensional and design standards
of the District.
o Max height 35 ft.
o Min lot width 45 ft.
o Side setback 6 ft.
o Rear Setback 10 ft.
Residential Single Family (RS)
7Page 19 of 55
Site Plan
10 ft.
Page 20 of 55
Existing Structure
Page 21 of 55
Staff Findings –UDC
Criteria For Variance Complies Does not
Comply
Partially
Complies
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
Main Findings:
•The Comprehensive Plan supports re-investement in existing neighborhoods
•The conditions that create the need for the variance are self-inflicted.
•An accessory structure can be built on this property within the guidelines of the UDC.Page 22 of 55
Public Notifications
Page 23 of 55
Public Notifications
•28 property owners, who are within 200’ of the subject property to be rezoned, were notified about the public hearing;
•Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun News on March 3, 2019; and
•Signs were posted on the property in accordance with the UDC.
•To date, staff has received 1 written comment in opposition of the request.
10Page 24 of 55
Summary:
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a variance from UDC Section 6.02.050, for a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot rear setback, to create a 8.5 foot rear setback
•Per UDC Section 3.15.020 E, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall hold a Public Hearing… and make a decision.
Page 25 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 19, 2019
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to appeal an administrative decision regarding the
determination of an alternative design to protect a heritage tree pursuant to Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 8.02.050.B.1 (2019-1-APL). Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The applicant has submitted a request to appeal an administrative decision that allowed for the
encroachment of a new single-family home into the rear setback of the subject property in order to protect
a heritage tree. The applicant’s letter of intent can be found as Exhibit 1.
Since the filing of this appeal, the property owners have proposed a new design for the residential structure
in compliance with the UDC requirements for Heritage Tree protection and minimum residential
development standards, including setbacks.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development Code (UDC), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was
placed in the Sun Newspaper on March 3, 2019. As of the publication date of this report, staff has
received no written comments in favor and one in opposition of the request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Ethan Harwell, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2019-1-APL - Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent for Appeal Exhibit
Exhibit 2 – Petition Exhibit
Exhibit 3 – Administrative Determination Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit
2019-1-APL Presentation Presentation
Page 26 of 55
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-APL
Nichols Nunn Residence, 643 River Bluff Page 1 of 4
Report Date: March 15, 2019
Case No: 2019-1-APL
Project Planner: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Item Details
Project Name: Nichols Nunn Residence
Project Location: 643 River Bluff Circle, within City Council district No. 7.
Property Owner: Tom Nichols & Karalei Nunn
Applicant: Darrell Willner
Decision Appealed: Appeal an administrative decision regarding the determination of an
alternative design to protect a heritage tree pursuant to Unified Development
Code (UDC) Section 8.02.050.B.1.
Page 27 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-APL
Nichols Nunn Residence, 643 River Bluff Page 2 of 4
Summary
The applicant has submitted a request to appeal an administrative decision that allowed for the
encroachment of a new single-family home into the rear setback of the subject property in order to
protect a heritage tree. The applicant’s letter of intent can be found as Exhibit 1.
Since the filing of this appeal, the property owners have proposed a new design for the residential
structure in compliance with the UDC requirements for Heritage Tree protection and minimum
residential development standards, including setbacks.
Site Information
The subject property is approximately 0.37 acres in size and is located in the Katy Crossing
neighborhood south of FM 971, east of N. Austin Ave. The subject property abuts single-family lots on
each side to the east and west that have existing homes, and to the rear the Katy Crossing Trail Park –
which fronts on the San Gabriel River.
The subject property was platted in 2013 after the introduction of the Heritage Tree Ordinance, with
two large Heritage Trees generally located in the middle of the lot. The two trees are both Live Oaks
and are 34” and 37” in diameter at breast height (DBH). In order to develop on this property, new
structures must comply with all applicable UDC requirements, to include protection of the critical root
zone (CRZ) of the trees (no structure may encroach into the CRZ), and issuance of a permit to prune
the trees to allow for movement during construction (UDC Sec. 8.02.030.D).
The CRZ is a circular region measured outward from the tree trunk representing the essential root area
that must be protected for the tree's survival and is calculated as one foot of radial distance for every
one inch of DBH. This creates a 17 foot buffer around the 34 inch tree and an 18.5 foot buffer around
the 37 inch tree that cannot be disturbed.
Administrative Determination
On December 13, 2018 the property owners submitted an application for a Building Permit that
included a site plan in compliance with the Heritage Tree protection requirements regarding the critical
root zone and that was sensitive to the amount of pruning required on the trees. However, the site plan
(Exhibit 4) did not show compliance with the minimum rear setback of the RS, Residential Single-
Family district. The proposed structure was encroaching 8 feet into the 10 foot rear setback in order to
avoid encroachment into the CRZ. After consultation with staff, the property owner requested an
administrative action, through the Planning Department, to approve an alternative design to protect
the tree.
In accordance with UDC Section 8.02.050.B.1, Heritage Tree protection may be considered for priority
over conflicting UDC development requirements, including, but not limited to, setbacks, lot design
standards, building heights, sidewalks, lighting, signage, parking design and numbers, drainage
criteria, connectivity, driveway separation, and utility extension and location. Where a conflict exists
between a Heritage Tree protection and other provisions of the UDC, the applicant may request an
alternative standard or design, provided that public health and safety is maintained with all proposed
designs. After consultation with the Urban Forester, an alternative standard or design that gives
Page 28 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-APL
Nichols Nunn Residence, 643 River Bluff Page 3 of 4
priority to Heritage Tree protection may be approved by the Director for administrative applications.
Staff reviewed the request and found that it complied with all of the criteria for a Heritage Tree Priority
Decision as laid out in Section 8.02.050.B.1 of the UDC:
• Staff found that the location of the trees on the site make it difficult to build a structure within the
normal setback standards. Due to the size and location of the Heritage Trees, encroachment into
the minimum setbacks is inevitable to develop the subject property if the heritage trees are to be
preserved.
• Staff found that granting the alternative design will ensure an equal level of design and land use
compatibility as the proposed development will compatible with the surrounding residential lots
that abut the San Gabriel River.
• Staff found that this request would not adversely affect adjacent land uses and that it would
preserve the character of the neighborhood. All side setbacks are being maintained and are
consistent with those of adjacent properties, and the rear of the subject property, where the
encroachment is proposed abuts the Katy Crossing Tail Park and the San Gabriel River. Setback
requirements are used to provide separation between buildings and allow for air and light. Due to
the park and river along the rear of the subject property, no other use or structure would be
adversely impacted by the proposed encroachment. This request also preserves a significant
natural resource in the neighborhood.
• Staff found that the granting of this request would be consistent with UDC Section 8.02.050 which
provides for alternative standards and designs to preserve heritage trees.
The determination was issued on February 4, 2019, and the determination was revised on February 13,
2019, to better reflect the authority of the UDC on the matter. This determination is included with this
report as Exhibit 3.
Approval Criteria
Pursuant to Section 3.14.030 of the Unified Development Code, the applicant shall have the burden of
proof and present sufficient evidence to justify the reversal of the action being appealed.
All findings and conclusions necessary to the permit or Appeal decision shall be based upon reliable
evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a court of law) will be preferred whenever
reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based solely upon incompetent evidence unless
competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence in question appears to be particularly
reliable, and the matter at issue is not seriously disputed. In exercising its authority, the Board or
Commission may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part or modify the Administrative Official's order,
requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order,
requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose the Board or Commission has the same
authority as the Administrative Official.
Public Notification
As required by the Unified Development Code, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed
in the Sun Newspaper on March 3, 2019. To date, staff has received no written comments on the request.
Page 29 of 55
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-APL
Nichols Nunn Residence, 643 River Bluff Page 4 of 4
Meetings Schedule
March 19, 2019 – Zoning Board of Adjustments
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent for Appeal
Exhibit 2 – Petition
Exhibit 3 – Administrative Determination
Exhibit 4 – Proposed Site Plan
Page 30 of 55
Appeal to Zoning Board of Adjustments
- 1 -
Darrell Willner 2/15/19
639 River Bluff Circle
Georgetown, TX 78626
We hereby file an appeal with the City of Georgetown including the Zoning Board of Adjustments,
Planning Department, relative other boards, and the City Council.
We are very concerned for the investment we have made in our property as well as the safety and
protection of our home and the adjacent homes on the bluff above the San Gabriel River.
The homes on the San Gabriel side of River Bluff Circle were built following the statues placed by the
entities to include, the city of Georgetown, Williamson County, and the State of Texas.
The home design and materials as proposed are not in keeping with completed or new build within the
subdivision. This would greatly diminish the aesthetic and financial value of the existing and planned
homes for the area. The home design is not in keeping with published city of Georgetown designs and
square footage requirements for single family dwellings
We respectively charge that building should not commence until this matter is resolved.
We affirm that all parties would agree that transparency among governmental agencies and employees
and support of all of its citizens is of tantamount importance.
Request the City of Georgetown and the relative boards within please:
1. Request the City revoke the tentative building exemption(s) and Enforce the City of Georgetown
Unified Development Code (UDC)
2. Request the enforcement of City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code (UDC) to include
the property, fence, and building lines specified within the UDC
3. Request the protection of the fragile bluff area.
a. In areas along the bluff where the trees were previously removed from the bluff edge,
approximately 3-4 years ago, there are significant erosions of the bank. An estimate is
the bluff has eroded 2’ in the last 4 years.
b. To permit building beyond the established UDC build lines, especially into the Park area
along the fragile bluff area could
i. Cause irreparable damage to the established adjacent homes
ii. Cause irreparable damage to the City Park and River Bluff
iii. Cause pain and suffering to the current homeowners
4. Request the City protect the natural springs that flow approximately 15-20’ below the Bluff Edge
a. Building on top of the spring(s) especially beyond the established lines may cause the
springs to collapse and or create terrain slides
5. Request the City enforce the building code and protect the neighborhood subdivision
a. Representative homes have more than 12’, closer to 20’+ foot, easement between
structures
i. Property values and property appeal will be otherwise diminished
Page 31 of 55
Appeal to Zoning Board of Adjustments
- 2 -
ii. Established Homeowners may/will sustain financial and personal suffering
6. Request the City revoke the potential approval to build the structure within 2’ of the Park line
a. Context. The homes on River Bluff backing up to the City Park were each plotted and
approved by the City with respect to UDC. In the last couple of years three new homes
were constructed and adhered to the UDC including the easements.
b. The homes are plotted to enhance the view collectively for all homeowners
c. Placing the structure beyond the standard UDC may cause the bluff to further erode
7. Request the City replant trees recently removed from the River Bluff Edge to prevent further
erosion.
a. The trees were removed from the City Park area approximately first week of February
b. It is unclear if the City removed the trees or if the plot owner is responsible
c. Many native and migrating birds utilized the Cedar Tree and other trees for roosting,
nesting, and food source.
8. Request the City enforce the “no build” in the Critical Root Zone as specified in the City UDC.
The City previously enforced the CRZ with the two previous property owners.
a. Tree A is 9’ 6” diameter at approximately 4.5’
i. The CRZ Radius = 18’ Root Zone 36’-54’ Radius
b. Tree B is 8’ 11” diameter at approximately 4.5’ elevation
i. The CRZ Radius = 17’ Root Zone 34-51’ Radius
c. The city had advised the current owners of the CRZ
9. Request the City consider and follow the precedence set when the City purchased the property
located at 113 River Park Lane to preserve the Heritage Tree
a. Georgetown is known as an advocate for protecting the environment and nature.
10. Request the City consider buying the plot at 643 River Bend and convert into a City Park
Background.
When the property located at 643 River Bluff Circle went up for sale, our neighborhood did experience
encounters with many potential buyers. The buyers would inquire about the trees and building on the
land. We and other neighbors referred the personnel to check with the City of Georgetown. The City
has a code for to protect the Critical Root Zones of heritage trees.
We inquired with the City of Georgetown and we were referred to the UDC Tree Preservation area.
8.01.040 “D. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is a circular region measured outward from the tree trunk
representing the essential root area that must be protected for the tree's survival and is
calculated as one foot of radial distance for every one inch of DBH.
We asked the City if they would be interested in converting the property to a City Park. We
offered to assist with purchasing the property and donate to the City. The City declined.
The current owner(s), Nichols did inquire about the property and building potential with multiple
residents. We informed the Nichols that the previous two property owners were denied building
permits because per the UDC the property would not support building a home in keeping with the
current neighborhood.
Page 32 of 55
Appeal to Zoning Board of Adjustments
- 3 -
Page 33 of 55
Appeal to Zoning Board of Adjustments
- 4 -
Duplicity
Section 8.01.040
The City of Georgetown rebutted the requests by previous owner(s) and potential owners to build into
the Critical Root Zone Protection Plan 8.05.010. Mr. Regan, the previous owner requested exemption
but was denied.
The Arborist for the City of Georgetown stated she and the zoning commission personnel were “tired of
being asked about the property at 643 River Bluff Circle.”
We asked the City of Georgetown if the city would consider converting the property into a city park. We
even offered to assist with the purchase of the said property to preserve the trees.
When asked again why the City of Georgetown would issue a permit going against the Heritage Tree
ordinance, the City personnel with zoning commission re-iterated, “We are tired of being asked about
the property and trees.”
Summary
It is reprehensible to allow a city government entity to shirk its duty to the citizens and taxpayers of the
City of Georgetown in favor of a complacent desire to reduce job performance. Furthermore it is noted
this City denied homeowners a voice in the development and destiny of our community.
We do not except the excuses offered by City employees, because they are tired of being asked
questions, same questions, about the property at 641 River Bluff.
We do not accept the reasoning by the owners of the property or the city personnel charged with the
performance and duty to perform within legal statutes. However, the Heritage trees cannot and should
be used as an excuse to circumvent the established City UDC, especially when the current plot owner
noted he was “well informed” and knew of the building restrictions prior to purchase of the plot. A
heritage tree is not a hardship.
We are greatly concerned there are potential activities by City of Georgetown to circumvent the City,
County, and State laws and building codes.
The dismissing of responsibilities of certain City department /employees has resulted in false hopes,
missed communication, decrease in trust between our community and its leaders and potential side
stepping the laws and procedures aimed to protect citizens.
Please assist! The City of Georgetown is a great place to live and is perceived to be a City that enforces
the Unified Development Code and proactively serves and protects its constituents.
Sincerely,
Darrell Willner
Page 34 of 55
Page 35 of 55
Page 36 of 55
Page 37 of 55
Page 38 of 55
January 9, 2019
Karalei Nunn and Tom Nichols
Re: Project 2018-48461, Administrative Exception
To whom it may concern
This site benefits from two designated live oaks covering at least 1/3 of the site front to
back, and from the presence of a 60’ dedicated easement at the rear property line
facing the bluff. After review with staff, we request an alternative setback standard to
preserve the 37” heritage tree. This will place the structure primarily outside of the
existing tree canopy, requiring the least amount of lift and pruning.
In accordance with 3.16.030 of the UDC,
1.This Administrative Exception serves an obvious and needed purpose. It will
minimize the impact on the tree while allowing an average size residence to be built on the
property.
2.Granting this Administrative Exception will ensure an equal or better level of
design as the otherwise applicable standards. Allowing the structure to be moved closer
to the property line ensures an equal level of design for the residence thus permitting a
better level of design for the site overall.
3.The granting of this Administrative Exception will not materially and adversely
affect adjacent land uses and the physical character of uses in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed development. The direct neighbors have tall fences on the rear
property line, with others two lots down have fences extending beyond the property line
into the bluff. This action will not affect the adjacent land use not change the physical
character of the area.
4.Granting the Administrative Exception will be consistent with the purposes and
intent of this Unified Development Code. Granting this action will serve the intent of
the UBC to preserve heritage trees while also allowing reasonable construction.
Sincerely,
Karalei Nunn
Page 39 of 55
Page 40 of 55
To: Ethan Harwell
From: Heather Brewer McFarling
Date: 2-1-2019
Re: 643 River Bluff’s AE
/ 2019-1-AE
The above mentioned lot was a poorly designed lot at platting. This was one of the first subdivisions to
come in under the HT ordinance when it was passed. This lot would never be allowed if the subdivision
came in for platting today. It was a learning curve mistake on my part. I can’t remember how many
different potential buyers have tried to make this lot work for their home, but it’s been at least 7. I am
excited the lot is now owned by the current owners, two architects who love trees. It has taken them a
high level of commitment to create a design solution that would allow for a home and preserve the HT’s.
Being able to push the homes footprint further back into the lot than typically allowed is key to this
design working. Doing this allows the homes footprint to be outside the half Critical Root Zone of both
trees. This decreases the need to change grades, and trench utilities, close to the trees. This also
decrease the compaction under the trees and decrease the amount of pruning needed to go vertical
with walls. The driveways curved design further helps lessen CRZ disturbance. The products chosen for
the driveway are pervious and help the trees obtain water and air.
For a typical easily designed home to be built on this lot, at least one of these magnificent trees would
have to be removed. I applaud this homes design and hope the City accepts their AE request.
Page 41 of 55
Page 42 of 55
Nichols Nunn Residence
643 River Bluff
2019-1-APL
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 19, 2019
1Page 43 of 55
Item(s) under consideration
•2019-1-APL
–Appeal an administrative decision regarding the
determination of an alternative design to protect a
heritage tree pursuant to Unified Development
Code (UDC) Section 8.02.050.B.1
Page 44 of 55
Location Map
3Page 45 of 55
Proposed Site Plan
5Page 46 of 55
Proposed Site Plan
6
10 ft.2 ft.
~55 ft.
Page 47 of 55
Heritage Tree Priority
–Drainage criteria
–Connectivity
–Driveway separation
–Utility extension
–Utility location
UDC Section 8.02.050.B.1
•Allows the Director to approve deviation from,
but not limited to, the following on
administrative applications:
–Setbacks
–Lot design standards
–Building heights
–Sidewalks
–Lighting
–Signage
–Parking design
–Parking amount
Page 48 of 55
Approval Criteria
UDC Section 8.02.050.B.1
•Approval of Alternative Standard or Design
–Consultation with the Urban Forester
–Public health and safety are maintained
Page 49 of 55
Determination Findings
2019-1-AE
•Heritage Tree Priority Determination
–The requirements for protecting the tree make
developing the site cumbersome.
–Granting the alternative design will ensure an equal
level of design and land use compatibility with the
surrounding areas.
–The request will not adversely affect adjacent land
uses and preserve character of the neighborhood.
•Front and side setbacks are exceeded.
–Preserves a significant natural resource in the
neighborhood.
Page 50 of 55
Approval Criteria –Sec. 3.14.030
•Burden of Proof in Appeals
–When an Appeal is taken to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Director's or other Administrative Official's
action is presumed to be valid. The applicant shall
present sufficient evidence and have the burden to
justify a reversal of the action being appealed. The
Director may present evidence and argument to the
contrary.
10Page 51 of 55
Approval Criteria –Sec. 3.14.030
•Findings and Conclusions
–All findings and conclusions necessary to the permit or Appeal
decision shall be based upon reliable evidence. Competent
evidence (evidence admissible in a court of law) will be
preferred whenever reasonably available, but in no case may
findings be based solely upon incompetent evidence unless
competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence
in question appears to be particularly reliable, and the matter
at issue is not seriously disputed. In exercising its authority, the
Board or Commission may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part
or modify the Administrative Official's order, requirement,
decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and
make the correct order, requirement, decision, or
determination, and for that purpose the Board or Commission
has the same authority as the Administrative Official.
11Page 52 of 55
Approval Criteria –Sec. 3.14.030
•Decision
–Requires a 3/4 vote of the board to overturn an administrative
decision.
12Page 53 of 55
Public Notifications
•Notice of the public hearing was published in
the Sun News on March 3, 2019.
13Page 54 of 55
Summary:
•Public Hearing and possible action on a
request to appeal an administrative decision
regarding the determination of an alternative
design to protect a heritage tree pursuant to
Unified Development Code (UDC) Section
8.02.050.B.1
•Per UDC Section 3.14.040, it shall require a 3/4
vote to overturn an administrative decision.
Page 55 of 55