[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.OH, SHE'S OUT MELISSA HAWTHORNE AND BARBARA MACARTHUR HERE.
THANK YOU, MISS AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ HERE, JESSICA COHEN HERE.
SO JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES.
IF YOU HAVE A PARKING TICKET, PLEASE BRING IT UP TO ELAINE HERE, THE DESK, AFTER THE MEETING, AFTER THE MEETING.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR KEYS, YOU CAN EMAIL A CALL ELAINE TOMORROW.
UH, WHEN ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK TO THE BOARD, NOT TO ONE ANOTHER.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT.
SO EVERYONE, WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT.
IF I COULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE STAND DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THANK YOU MUCH.
WHY, WHY WOULD YOU MIND IF I ASK STAFF A QUESTION ABOUT THE FORMAT OF A HYBRID MEETING? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
A QUESTION FOR STAFF DURING A HYBRID MEETINGS, SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE THIS, I KNEW THAT A PHYSICAL CORM HAD TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR US TO STAY WITHIN THE LAW IS A PHYSICAL QUORUM REQUIRED ON THE DICE AT ALL TIME TO MAINTAIN QUORUM, OR DO WE BREAK QUORUM BY LEAVING THE DICE FOR THE BATHROOM OR WHATEVER? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
UH, LISA MINS FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
I THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I, UM, WOULD PREFER THAT NUMBER, STAY ON THE DIET JUST TO MAINTAIN THE, UH, I BELIEVE UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, UH, FOLKS NEED TO BE PRESENT AND VOTING EITHER YAY OR NAY ON ITEMS AS THEY COME ALONG.
SO IF, IF A BREAK IS NECESSARY, I WOULD DEFER TO THE CHAIR ON, YOU KNOW, UM, RECESSING FOR FIVE MINUTES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, OF COURSE.
UH, THERE IS NO STAIRS IN COMMUNICATIONS.
SO FOR THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS, UH, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
WE'LL BE LOOKING BOTH WAYS FOR THOSE OF YOU ON WEBEX.
IF I DON'T SEE YOU RIGHT AWAY, UH, MENTIONED MY NAME AND I'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET TAKEN CARE OF.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM.
[A-1 Staff requests approval August 9, 2021 draft minutes]
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? MOTION? PERFECT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN I THOUGHT IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE COMPLICATED CAUSE I ABSTAINED ON TWO ITEMS ON THEIRS MINUTES, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
SO WHO MADE THE MOTION? I DID.
WHO JUST SAID THAT THAT'S RICHARD.
THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MELISSA HOT FORUM WITH A SECOND BY RICHARD SMITH.
[00:05:01]
RON MCDANIEL.I'M GOING TO HAVE STAIN MADAM CHAIR.
I WATCHED THE VIDEO, BUT I WAS NOT PRESENT.
CARRIE WALLER ALSO ABSTAINING WAS NOT PRESENT KELLY BLOOM.
LEAN, UH, IT'S SIMPLE MAJORITY TO APPROVE, CORRECT.
[B-1 Staff and Applicant requests for postponement and withdraw of items posted on this Agenda]
STOP.AN APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS ON WITHDRAWAL.
ITEM C1, C 16 20 21 0 0 0 8 4 7 15 WEST 23RD STREET HUSBAND, WITHDRAWN ITEM E ONE C 15 20 21 0 0 2 7 1 2 9 0 5.
BIRDIES DRIVE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ITEM.
15 20 21 0 0 5 5 1 2 0 6 WEST
UH, WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON JUST WITHDRAWALS IF THERE'S NO POSTPONEMENTS, UH, MADAM CHAIR.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU DO SINCE THESE WERE APPLICANT WITHDRAWALS.
[F-2 Discussion regarding LA zone permitting training –by Susan Barr.]
TAKE MY LIBERTY AS CHAIR AND I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT WE MOVE ITEM F TWO, WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION REGARDING LA ZONE PERMITTING TRAINING BY SUSAN BARR FROM CITY STUFF TO THE CURRENT POSITION AND THE AGENDA.IS MS. BARR PRESENT? HI, COME ON UP.
WE'VE BEEN REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING.
MY NAME IS SUSAN BARR AND I AM THE MANAGER OF RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW, AND I WILL BE GIVING A PRESENTATION TONIGHT ON LAKE AUSTIN ZONING.
SO THE PURPOSE OF LAKE AUSTIN ZONING AND THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAID DISTRICT IS TO PROTECT THE SCENIC RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LAKE AUSTIN BY RESTRICTING THE SCALE INTENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE LAKE.
AND SO THIS IS THE 25 TO 5 5 1, THE LAKE AUSTIN SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND SO I'LL BE GOING THROUGH BIT BY BIT, BUT NOT JUST READING CODE TO YOU.
SO WE HAVE LOTS OF VISUALS, SO HOPEFULLY THIS SHOULD BE ENTERTAINING AND EDUCATIONAL AS WELL.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE SHORELINE.
SO WHAT IS THE SHORELINE OF LAKE AUSTIN? TWENTY-FIVE 2, 5, 5
AND SO YOU CAN SEE IT HERE IN THIS SLIDE AND IT'S KIND OF THE, THE THICKER JAGGED LINE.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER TYPOGRAPHY,
[00:10:01]
UM, TOPOGRAPHIC LINES, UM, THAT ALSO ARE IN THE AREA.SO WITH THE TOPOGRAPHIC 4 92 0.8 CONTOUR IN MIND, WE GET INTO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE.
AND SO I'VE TRIED TO MAKE THESE VISUALLY, UM, APPEALING ALSO TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT I'M, WHAT, WHAT I'M DISCUSSING.
SO 25, 2 5 5 1 8 3 TALKS ABOUT THE SHORELINE SETBACK AREA.
AND SO THAT IS THE AREA IN YELLOW, AND THAT IS A SHORELINE SETBACK.
THAT'S MEASURED FROM THE 4 92 0.8 CONTRA LINE INWARD.
AND SO WHAT WE ALSO HAVE IS A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT IF YOUR SHORELINE SETBACK IS LESS THAN 200 FEET FROM YOUR PROPERTY LINE BACK, THEN YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT SHORELINE STUFF BACK.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IT'S A VERY LARGE PROPERTY AND A LOT OF IT IS UNDERWATER.
SO WE ALSO HAVE A SECTION 25, 1 22 MEASUREMENTS THAT TELLS US THAT THE AREA OF SOMEONE'S PROPERTY THAT IS UNDERWATER DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THEIR CALCULATIONS OF ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN IS THAT THEY HAVE THE TOTAL AREA OF THE TRACT.
SO IT'S OVER 52,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT THEY HAD TO MINUS SUBTRACT OUT THE INUNDATED AREA AS WELL AS THE SHORELINE SETBACK AREA.
CAUSE THOSE TWO, NEITHER OF THOSE CAN FACTOR INTO THE CALCULATIONS NEXT, PLEASE.
SO WHAT WE ALSO HAVE IN REGARDS TO THE SHORELINE STEP BACK IS THAT DEPENDING ON HOW DEEP YOUR LOT IS, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR TWO DIFFERENT SETBACKS FROM YOUR SHORELINE.
SO AS NOTED, IN THE OTHER EXAMPLE, THEY HAD LESSON 200 FEET FROM THEIR FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO THE 492 POINT CONTOUR LINE.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY HAD A 25 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK.
HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN, UH, 200 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE A 75 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK.
AND THIS EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE BOTH.
SO THEIR LOWER PROPERTY LINE IS 192 FEET.
AND THEN YOU KNOW, ABOUT A QUARTER OR THIRD UP, IT GETS TO 200 FEET AND THEN ABOVE THAT 200, SO THEY HAVE 25 FEET AND THEN THE 75 FEET SETBACK.
AND SO THIS IS JUST, I'M BRINGING UP THE 4 92 0.8 CONTOUR LINE IN REGARDS TO THE SHORELINE SETBACK, IS THAT THE CODE DOESN'T TALK ABOUT INLETS OR COVES AND THAT THEIR SHORELINE SETBACK WOULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE 75 FEET OR THE 25 FEET NEXT, PLEASE.
SO THE NEXT PART ABOUT LAKE AUSTIN IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO SOME, SOME ZONING CODE OR, UM, AS LONG AS WE HAVE
SO DEPENDING ON YOUR SUB CATEGORY DEPENDS ON THEN HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER YOU GET.
AND IT ALSO IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT YEAR THE LAND WAS PLANTED, OR IF IT'S A TRACK THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED.
SO IF IT HAPPENED BEFORE APRIL 22ND, 1982, AND THAT IS THE DATE THAT THE LA ZONING B CAME INTO CODE, THEN YOU HAVE THREE SLOPE CATEGORIES WITH MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER VERSUS AFTER APRIL 22ND, WHERE YOU JUST HAVE TWO SUB CATEGORIES AND LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS DO ALLOW YOU TO TRANSFER IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN JUST ONE MOMENT NEXT, PLEASE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE THINKING TO YOURSELF, WELL, WHAT DOES THE SLOPE MAP LOOK LIKE? WELL, HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE AND THIS ONE IS VERY NICE BECAUSE IT'S COLOR CODED.
UH, USUALLY WE JUST GET BLACK AND WHITE IMAGES AND THEY USUALLY HAVE, UM, A POST-SHAVE OR A GRADIENT ADDED TO THEM.
AND SO THIS ONE, SINCE IT'S SO NICE, UM, I ADDED THIS ONE AND IT'S EASIER TO, TO DESCRIBE ALSO.
SO THEY'VE BROKEN DOWN THE WHOLE PROPERTY INTO, UM, THE DIFFERENT SUB CATEGORIES AS THEY'RE ALLOWED, AND THAT THIS IS BASICALLY JUST HIGHLIGHTING HOW MUCH SQUARE FEET THEY HAVE IN EACH OF THOSE SLOPE CATEGORIES.
AND THEN I JUST PUT THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF ITEM E SO IT WOULDN'T GET FORGOTTEN ABOUT, UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT RESIDENTIAL REVIEW REALLY REVIEWS ABOUT, CAUSE IT'S ABOUT LANDSCAPING, BUT, AND ALSO GRADIENTS OF, FOR DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35%.
AND WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THOSE AND YOUR DRIVEWAYS AND NON MECHANIZED, PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES, FOOTPATHS, AND SUCH TO GET DOWN TO THE WATER.
[00:15:01]
AN EXAMPLE OF SLOPE TRANSFER.SO THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES AND IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER, UH, YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE ADJACENCY TO ONE ANOTHER.
SO THEY ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING ON THE ONE THAT IS, UH, TO THE NORTH.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT A LARGE AREA OF THEIR LAND IS UNDERWATER.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT TO DEVELOP ON NECESSARILY.
SO WHAT THE SLOPE TRANSFER ALLOWS THEM TO DO IS TO TRANSFER AREA FROM ONE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND SO THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S LIKE A CROSS HATCHED, UH,
THAT IS THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A SECTION OF LAND THAT IS BEING TRANSFERRED.
AND SO THAT AREA OF THAT PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.
IT HAS TO BE LEFT NATURAL AND UNTOUCHED.
AND WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THEY, UH, THE INSTRUMENTS GET RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY.
AND SO IT IS FOREVER WITH THESE TWO PIECES OF LAND THAT ARE TIED TOGETHER.
SO THIS IS, UM, THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND SO THIS BOUNDARY IS 1000 FEET OUT FROM LAKE AUSTIN.
AND SO ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH 25, 2 5 5 1, EVEN IF THEIR ZONING IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT NEXT, PLEASE.
AND SO THE PARTICULARS OF THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAYED DISTRICT ARE FOUND IN SECTION 25 TO 180.
IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE AUSTIN AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THOSE ZONING CATEGORIES, OR IF IT IS LOCATED ON A SITE OF ONE ACRE OR MORE, THAT IS COMPRISED OF TWO OR MORE LOTS ON OUR AFTER JUNE 24TH, 2014.
AND THE SPECIAL PART ABOUT THAT DATE IS THAT IS WHEN THE OVERLAY BECAME CODE AND THESE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED OR REZONED
AND SO 25 TO 6 47 THEN GIVES THE DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO, IF YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY DISTRICT, THEN YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 25, 2 5 5 1, WHICH IS WHAT I'D PREVIOUSLY GONE OVER.
AND THEN ALSO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WITH AND SETBACKS FOR LA UNDER 25 TO 49 11.
SO WHAT I'M SHOWING HERE IN THE RED BOX IS AN SF THREE ZONE PROPERTY.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS A QUICK LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY TO SEE IF IT NEEDS TO COMPLY OR DOES NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE LA OVERLAY.
SO LOOKING AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSER, UH, WE CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE TWO, TWO LOTS, AND WITH AN SF THREE ZONE PROPERTY, YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE SLOPE CATEGORIES.
YOU JUST HAVE YOUR FORTY-FIVE PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
YOU HAVE YOUR 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, YOU'RE FIVE FOOT SIDE YARDS, AND THEN YOUR 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A SHORELINE STEP BACK LOOKING AT THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND SPECIFIC.
THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH LA IF THEY WERE BEING DEVELOPED TOGETHER AS A SITE, HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALLY, THEN THEY DO NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE LA OVERLAY NEXT, PLEASE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.
UH, THE GRAPHICS WERE REALLY VERY RIGHT ON.
UM, SO IF YOU HAD THE TWO BOTS THAT IN THE LAST EXAMPLE AND THEY WEREN'T, THEY WERE DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALLY, EVEN THOUGH THE ONE LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A MANMADE CHANNEL ON IT, IT WOULD ONLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SF THREE.
NOW I, UH, I DO BELIEVE THERE'S A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT MAN-MADE CHANNELS AND I CANNOT RECALL THE SPECIFICS OF IT.
IT'S BEEN PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN YEARS SINCE I WORKED ON A PROJECT LIKE THAT.
SO MY APOLOGIES ON THAT, WELL, IT JUST WAS INTERESTING.
IT WAS A GOOD CHOICE BECAUSE IF THEY WERE DEVELOPED TOGETHER, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE SHORELINE SETBACK ON THAT CHANNEL.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MANMADE CUT IN BOATS LIFT.
SO IT WAS A GOOD, IT WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, OF THE CONUNDRUM OF THESE LOTS, BECAUSE
[00:20:01]
IF THEY WERE TOGETHER, THEY'D BE LA.IF THEY'RE SEPARATE, THEN, THEN THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT IT.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS IT GOOD CHOICE.
UM, WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT SHORELINE SETBACK BASED ON THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? UM, WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND HAVING A DIFFERENT SHORELINE SETBACK, UM, FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT DEPTHS, LIKE THE 200 FOOT DEPTH? WHY IS THAT 25 FEET? BUT IF IT'S DEEPER, IT'S SEVEN.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S BECAUSE, UM, MOST ELLIE PROPERTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ONE ACRE IN SIZE.
AND SO THEY ALSO ARE SEEING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A PROPERTY THAT HAS A LOT OF IT UNDER WATER.
AND SO WITH THAT, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A MUCH SMALLER AREA TO DEVELOP.
AND SO WITH THAT, THEY ARE THEN LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE EQUITABLE, I GUESS, TO DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY AND GIVE YOU A SHORTER SHORELINE STEP BACK, LIKE ELON NOLAN.
YES, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE WOULD, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, IT'S A LITTLE LATE FOR TODAY'S CASE.
WE HAVE TODAY WITH MAN-MADE INLET.
BUT IF, IF SOME OF THAT INFORMATION THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE YOU'VE REVIEWED, BUT IF YOU COULD LOCATE SOMETHING THAT COULD GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ON MAN-MADE INLETS, WE HAVE A CASE IN FRONT OF US TODAY, WHICH HAS A MAN-MADE INLET.
AND SO IT WOULD HELP US IN OUR DECISIONS ON WHEN THESE VARIANCES COME BEFORE US.
YES, I WILL, UM, FIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE AND I WILL GET WITH ELAINE ON IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU REMEMBERS WHAT YOUR PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LA ZONING CASES.
SO YOU CAN THINK OF ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
NOW'S THE TIME TO ASK? OH, THERE'S A HAND.
COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF ME TO ME THAT, UM, IF THOSE LAST FOUR TOGETHER YOU HAVE TO COMPLY AND IF THEY'RE NOT, YOU DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
I THINK IT WAS 25, 2, 8, 8 1 TALKS ABOUT IF THEY ARE OVER MORE THAN TWO ACRES, IF IT'S TWO OR MORE LOTS AND THEY'RE OVER ONE ACRE.
AND SO, BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO LOTS, IF THEY'RE BEING DEVELOPED TOGETHER, THAT'S WHY THEY NEED TO COMPLY.
BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THEY DON'T NEED TO COMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THEY'RE LESS THAN AN ACRE EACH OR WHAT, NO, THE, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE TWO OR MORE LOTS.
AND SO IF YOU JUST HAVE ONE LOT, THEN IT DOESN'T NEED TO COMPLY.
BUT IF YOU HAVE THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED TOGETHER, THEN THAT'S WHAT REQUIRES THEM TO COMPLY.
WELL, WHY WOULDN'T PEOPLE JUST SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOTS THEN SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WELL, SO, SO THESE ARE TWO STANDALONE LOTS.
AND SO THAT, THAT POSSIBLY IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT THEY COULD DO.
UM, IF THEY HAVE ALL THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS TO SUBDIVIDE, UH, THESE LOTS ARE ALREADY THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL LOTS THOUGH.
RIGHT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
MS. FARR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS AS A VERY WELL DONE PRESENTLY.
I THINK MELISSA HAS HER HAND UP.
SO JUST SAY, IF YOU HAD THOSE TWO LINES, LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THESE TWO LOTS AND SAY THEY WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE AND THEY'RE IN THE OVERLAY.
WOULD THEY HAVE TO MEET THE ONE ACRE MINIMUM? UH, WELL, THEY'RE SF THREE.
AND SO IF THEY'RE GONNA SUBDIVIDE THEIR S3 LOT, THEN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH FOR AN S3 IS 50 FEET.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 5,750 FEET.
SO THEY COULD COME AND SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS THAT WERE THERE AND DEVELOP THEM INDEPENDENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE WITHIN THE OVERLAY.
AND IF THEY HAD THE, IF THEY HAD THE FRONT FRONTAGE.
[00:25:01]
OKAY.THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS, UM, WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.
THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY HARD TOPIC AND YOU WERE VERY, VERY CLEAR AND DEMONSTRATED VERY WELL.
UH, YEAH, YOUR PRESENTATION WAS GREAT AND THE ILLUSTRATIONS REALLY, REALLY HELPED ME UNDERSTAND.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT IN 4.4 0.6 PLUS 0.1 OF WHITE GOSTEM, IT SAYS SHORELINE SETBACKS, INCLUDING MANMADE INCLUDE MAN-MADE INLETS AND BOAT SLIPS.
IS THAT THE BUILDING CRITERIA MANUAL THAT YOU'RE CITING? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION.
I MAY CONTINUE TO JUST VOTE ALONG WITH WHATEVER BRETT BAILEY DOES, BUT AT LEAST I'LL BE MORE INFORMED WHEN I DO RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FIRST
[D-1 C15-2021-0083 Victoria Haase for 1207 Taylor Series, LLC-Les Canter 1207 Taylor Street]
CASE.IT'S GOING TO BE ITEM D ONE C 15 20 21 0 0 8 3.
THIS IS FOR 12 0 7 TAYLOR STREET, UH, VICTORIA HOUSE OR TAYLOR OR TAILOR SERIES.
BOARD MEMBERS, VICTORIA HASI WITH A THROWER DESIGN REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 1207 TAYLOR STREET.
SO THE SUBJECT TRACKS YOU SEE HERE IS IN BLUE AND IT IS A THROUGH LOT.
UM, WITH SF THREE ZONING, IT HAS FRONTAGE ON BOTH TAYLOR STREET AND HOLLY STREET.
THE LOT SIZE IS JUST SHY OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, UH, PRESCRIBED BY THE CODE.
AND THE PURPLE LINE THAT YOU SEE IS THE BOUNDARY OF THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
AND THE VARIANCES WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
SO THE TWO VARIANCES WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT ARE FOR A DECREASE IN THE STANDARD LOT SIZE FROM 57, 50 SQUARE FEET TO 5,676 SQUARE FEET.
SO THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF 74 SQUARE FEET.
AND WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING A DECREASE OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 19.25 FEET, WHICH IS A DECREASE BY 4.31 FEET DUE TO SETBACK AVERAGING ON THE TAYLOR STREET SIDE OF THE LOCK.
SO STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY, LOTS OR SF THREE ZONE, LOTS IN THE CITY ENJOY THE ABILITY FOR, UH, TWO, UH, MAIN STRUCTURE AND AN ADU OR A TWO FAMILY SCENARIO.
UM, THEY ALSO ENJOY SIMILAR SETBACKS.
UH, THE OTHER PROPERTIES WITH EITHER THE SAME SF THREE OR SIMILAR ZONING HAVE, HOWEVER, THESE LOTS ARE NOT ABLE TO ENJOY THESE REASONABLE USES DUE TO THE LOT BEING, BEING PLANTED AT JUST LESS THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS SET TODAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MATURE TREES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE, UH, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF CRITICAL ROOT ZONES.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT DOES DECREASE THE AREA THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PLACE THE BUILDING, WHICH IS THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR DECREASE IN THE SETBACK.
SO THE CHARACTER OF THE BLOCK IS SUCH THAT, UH, UH, MOST PROPERTIES THAT YOU SEE HERE, UH, HAVE A HOUSE OR A STRUCTURE FACING BOTH THE TAYLOR STREET SIDE, AS WELL AS THE HOLLY STREET SIDE.
SO THE FOUR, LOTS OF THE MIDDLE, THE, THE SUBJECT TRACT, AS WELL AS THE THREE, LOTS IN GREEN SHADED IN GREEN ARE THE THREE LOTS THAT REMAIN TODAY.
AND OF THOSE FOUR, THE THREE LOTS SHADED IN GREEN HAVE ALL RECEIVED, UH, VARIANCES SIMILAR, UM, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT EITHER AN ADU OR A TWO HOUSE CONFIGURATION.
SO THE LOT THE GREEN STAR, THE GREEN STAR REPRESENTS, UH, THE AREA WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN ADU BUILT ISN'T REFLECTED IN THIS BUILDING FOOTPRINT DATA THAT WAS USED TO CREATE THIS MAP.
UM, AND THE OTHER LOT WITH THE YELLOW STAR REPRESENTS A PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY IN REVIEW FOR A TWO FAMILY
[00:30:01]
SCENARIO, UH, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN RIGHT NOW, NEXT SLIDE.SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED SET, UH, THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE LOT AND SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE STREET FRONTAGES AND THE LOT LINES.
UM, THE PLAN DOES MEET THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE FAR LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY CODE.
AND WE DO HAVE THE ARCHITECTS HERE TONIGHT, IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS OF HIM, NEXT SLIDE.
AND SO THIS IS HOLLY STREET LOOKING EAST, UM, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THERE ARE OLD HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PROXIMITY OF THE FRONT OF THOSE HOUSES TO THE STREET FRONTAGE.
AND THEN IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THE NEWER CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS COME FORWARD.
AND AGAIN, A SMALLER FRONTAGE IS, UH, TO, TO FACE THE STREET TO MEET THE STREET.
SO THAT IS, UM, WHAT WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR TODAY.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST LOOKING THE OTHER DIRECTION TOWARDS DOWNTOWN, UH, ON HOLLY STREET.
AND AGAIN, YOU SEE THE SAME SIMILAR SETBACKS, UM, ON THE HOLLY STREET SIDE, UM, WITH THAT I'M, I'M AVAILABLE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND WE DO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ADAM CHAIR THAT YES FOR MEMBER VON NOLAN EAST AUSTIN, THAT HE SAYS A CHILDHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THERE.
AND EVEN AS YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE, WHAT SHE PROVIDED A SHOW IS THAT THEY DO HAVE A CLEAR PREFERENCE BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE, THE 74 FEET IS PRETTY MINIMAL AS WELL AS THE, I HAVE 5.75, BUT THE FOUR FEET IS MINIMAL.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH, FOR OUR MEMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
ARE YOU, UH, WHO SECONDED THE MOTION HAWTHORNE SECOND? UH, BUT I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.
DID YOU CALL FOR OPPOSITION? I DID NOT SUE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER BY NONLINEAR, YOGI TABLING THE MOTION FOR A MINUTE WHILE WE ALLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS.
SO THERE WAS AN OBJECTION LETTER I NOTED THAT WAS RECENTLY FILED IN THIS CASE.
I WONDER IF THE REPRESENTATIVE COULD SPEAK TO THAT, WHAT THAT'S BASED ON AND WHAT THEIR POSITION IS ON THAT OBJECTION LETTER.
I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THE OBJECTION LETTER IN THE BACKUP.
WAS IT INCLUDED AS A SEPARATE ITEM LISTED ON THE WEBSITE? I BELIEVE IT WAS.
THAT'S THAT MIGHT BE WHY I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT.
UM, SO, SO THERE'S BEEN MANY EXCEPTIONS, UH, FOR THIS AREA AND ESPECIALLY ON THIS STREET, UM, FOR THESE LOTS THAT WERE, THAT ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH LOT IT IS FROM THE MAP YOU PROVIDED THE OBJECTION? YES.
[00:35:21]
SO IT'S, IT'S ON THE NEXT BLOCK EAST OF, OF THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK OF HOLLY AND TAYLOR.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, BOARD MEMBER? YEAH, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE, UM, IN ORDER TO FIND IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO FIND THAT THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, RULES DON'T ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE.
I WAS WONDERING WHAT YOUR, UM, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION IS REGARDING, UH, REASONABLE USE.
AND SECONDLY, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT, UH, THERE IS NO REASONABLE USE, UH, OTHER THAN THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND ADU THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AS I UNDERSTAND, IT'S A, IT'S A VACANT LOT AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT RIGHT FOR MY REPORT? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? YES.
MS. OZZIE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST STAY THERE FOR A FEW MINUTES.
SO TO ADDRESS YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE CURRENT ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE.
UM, IN MY, IN MY OPINION, REASONABLE USE IS A REASONABLE USE WOULD BE THAT AS COMPARED TO OTHER LOTS OF THE SAME TYPE OF ZONING, UM, AND OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE SF THREE STANDARD SF, THREE ZONING HAVE THE ABILITY TO WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO OR NOT.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY, THE OPTION FOR A HOUSE, UH, AND AN ADU OR TWO FAMILY CONFIGURATION.
SO REASONABLE USE WOULD BE EQUAL AND FAIR TREATMENT OF THAT.
UM, AND THE SECOND, WHAT WAS THE SECOND QUESTION? MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING SMALLER, SO YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCES, UH, WOULD BE A REASONABLE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO THE S THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURES ARE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S PROHIBITING, UH, CURRENTLY AT LEAST FOR, UM, THE TWO FAMILY OR ADU USE.
IT'S THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT IS PROHIBITING THAT ABILITY.
UM, AND WITH REGARDS TO THE SETBACK, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE LA AREA THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT IS TAKEN UP BY THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OF TREES.
AND, UM, YEAH, THERE, I GUESS IT COULD BE CONTEMPLATED TO LOOK AT A SMALLER ADU SIZE OR TWO FAMILY HOUSE SIZE.
UM, I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO THE ARCHITECT AND THE LANDOWNER ABOUT THAT, BUT, UM, THAT'S YEAH.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR? JEREMY DID THE OBJECTION FILED IS BY ANOTHER DEVELOPER.
HE BOUGHT A VACANT LOT THERE, AND HE'S BUILDING A PROPERTY THERE RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK IF YOU READ THE OBJECTION, IT'S KIND OF MAY BE A POLITICAL STATEMENT RATHER THAN AN OBJECTION TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
LIKE IT'S EITHER LIKE, MAKE THE LOT SIZE SMALL, EVERYWHERE, OR IT'S LIKE, DON'T MAKE ANYONE GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU KNOW? CAUSE IT COSTS MONEY.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY GERMANE, BUT SURE.
ANYONE ELSE BRILLIANT? ALL THE THINGS WE'RE THINKING OF? I CAN'T SAY NO, NO MORE QUESTIONS.
I ALREADY MOVED AND I, I GUESS I WILL GET THE FINDINGS IF YOU'D LIKE MADAM CHAIR.
SECOND, IF YOU NEED A VICE-CHAIR YOU SECONDED ALREADY, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
AND TO COMMISSIONER MACARTHUR'S COMMENT, I WILL SAY THIS AND ALL BY YOU SITTING
[00:40:01]
UP THERE, YOU'LL FIND QUITE A BIT OF THOSE UNTIL IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO COME TO THE BOARD AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE.SO IF THEY LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES, SHOULDN'T THROW STONES, UM, REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DEMONSTRATES CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THAT INCLUDES SECONDARY APARTMENT AND TWO FAMILY USES THIS LOT HAS AN SF THREE AND P ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A SECONDARY APARTMENT SPECIAL USE AND TWO FAMILY USE.
HOWEVER, THE LOT WAS PLANTED AT 5,663 SQUARE FEET, JUST UNDER THE MINIMUM STANDARD LOT LIES REQUIREMENT OF 5, 7 50, OR AN SF THREE LOT FURTHER.
THE PROPERTIES THAT THROUGH LAW REQUIRING GREATER GROUP REAR BUILDING SETBACKS, LENDING, GREATER CHALLENGE TO ACHIEVING THE SAME ENTITLEMENTS AFFORDED UNDER ANY OF THE SF THREE LOTS.
THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THIS AND I'LL CONTINUE ON TO THE HARDSHIP IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY HAVE MORE THAN JUST A LOT SIZE AS A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP.
ACCORDING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES, THE SECONDARY HARDSHIP FOR WHICH HAS VARIANCES REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE PROPERTY HAS THREE PROTECTED TREES, WHICH TO OUR HERITAGE AND MUST BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED.
NO CONSTRUCTION CAN OCCUR WITHIN A HALF INCH CRITICAL ROOT ZONE, THEREBY REDUCING THE BUILDABLE AREA.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MANY OF THE LOTS IN THIS AREA HAVE STRUCTURES DECADES AGO ALREADY THERE.
AND THEREFORE THEY'RE NOT REALLY, AND THEY ARE NOT CONSTRAINED BY TREE ROOT SYSTEMS, REDUCING THE BUILDING AREA, THEIR CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT LOTS.
AND I AM SURE I HAVE ONE ADDITION.
IF YOU ACTUALLY WERE ALLOWED TO DO SETBACK AVERAGING ON THE REAR SIDE, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN ALIGNMENT AND AS EVERYTHING IS PITCH PUSHED BACK FOR THE HERITAGE TREE AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE TREE, IF YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DO SETBACK AVERAGING ON THE THROUGH LOT, THEN THAT WOULD BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT ELSE IS ON THE STREET.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER, BON OLIN WITH A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
[D-2 C15-2021-0085 David Cancialosi for Estates at Lake Austin, LP 1717 Channel Road]
NEXT ITEM WILL BE ITEM D TO C 15 20 21 0 0 8 5.DAVID KENT CLOC FOR STATES THAT LIKE AUSTIN 1 7 1 7 CHANNEL ROAD.
MR. KINSLER IS THE, FEEL FREE TO TAKE YOUR FIVE AS SOON AS YOUR PRESENTATION'S UP.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GO TO MY ORIGINAL PACKET TO SHOW A CERTAIN SHEET? OH, WELL, OKAY, COOL.
UH, IT'S GOING TO BE BACK IN THE CHAMBERS AFTER SO LONG APART.
UH, I THINK WITH THIS CASE, IF YOU DON'T MIND IN YOUR PACKET, IF YOU WOULD TURN FIRST TO PAGE, UH, D I THINK IT'S D TWO 12 AND THAT'S AN AERIAL PHOTO OFF THE INTERNET THAT I THINK WILL ORIENT, OR DO YOU REALLY QUICKLY WITH THE, UM, IT WAS A SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED AREA BACK THERE.
UM, IF I'M SUPPOSED TO, DO I TELL YOU TO GO THROUGH THAT OR DO I UH
[00:45:01]
HUH.YOU CAN GO TO THE GRAPHICS ACTUALLY, IF YOU DON'T MIND A PICTURE, BUT, UH, SO I'M ASKING FOR BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, A SHORELINE SETBACK, UH, PRODUCTION FROM 75 FEET TO 25 FEET AT 1717 CHANNEL ROAD.
UM, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SCREEN.
UM, WE HAVE A, UH, LEGAL TRACT AS WAS REFERENCED BY MRS. BARR'S, UH, UH, PRESENTATION EARLIER.
THIS IS NOT A PLATTED LOT, BUT IT'S A LEGAL TRACK, UH, ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CITY AS A BUILDABLE TRACT.
UM, BUT THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE TRACK.
IT'S AN IRREGULAR SHAPE, UH, SITE, WHICH IS A ONE HARDSHIP.
IT, UM, HAS A MANMADE CHANNEL, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS A HARDSHIP.
IT HAS AN ACTUAL CONCRETED, UH, BULKHEAD THAT AT SOME POINT WAS DONE.
UH, BUT THERE'S NO BOAT DOCK BACK THERE.
SO THERE WAS A CUT IN INTO THE EARTH AND THAT EXACERBATES THE ACTUAL END POINT OF THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH GOES, UH, PRETTY FAR INTO THE LOT, UM, THE LAGOON, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE THERE IS, IS VERY DISTINCT.
JUST THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND IN AUSTIN.
AND TO GET OUT OF THE SITE, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MANMADE CHANNEL FROM THE CUT IN SLIP THAT WAS CREATED SOMETIME BETWEEN 55 AND 1968, GO TO THE LAGOON AND THEN MEANDER TOWARDS THAT TURQUOISE COLOR AREA AND UNDER THE BRIDGE, WHICH IS CHANNEL ROAD AND OUT TO THE MAIN BODY, BOTH OF THOSE HOUSES, 1704, AND I THINK 1700, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE, WHICH HAVE BOTH, UH, ACCESS ON THE CHANNEL AND MAIN BODY ALSO IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND TIME HAVE RECEIVED VARIANCES FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS ALONG THE CHANNEL.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A REDUCTION, NOT SO MUCH FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER REASONS, BUT FOR BUILDABLE AREA.
SO WE CAN PUT, UM, A NEW STRUCTURE IN A, IN A REASONABLE AREA WHERE THE CIRCLE IS, THERE IS A LIGHT AREAS, SEEING THE PICTURE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S AN EASEMENT THAT SERVES THREE SEPARATE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THIS ONE.
AND SO IT BIFURCATES A 1.7 ACRE TRACT INTO BASICALLY TWO SPOTS.
AND SO WE CAN'T BUILD ACROSS IT.
UM, WE HAVE A LITANY OF TREES ALONG THE FRONT AND ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THE LOT, UM, AND THE RIGHT RELATIVE CRITICAL ROUTES ZONES.
AND SO ONCE WE TAKE AWAY THE SETBACKS AND ADD IN THE RELATIVE SEPTIC FIELD SIZE AND THIS TREE CRCS AND THE NET SIDE AREA IS REDUCED BY ABOUT 30, ABOUT 33% FROM ABOUT 75,000 SQUARE FOOT, LOT DOWN TO ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 25,000 SQUARE FOOT.
AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THIS IN MORE DETAIL AFTERWARDS, BUT THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
THAT'LL STILL BE UNDER THE ALLOTTED 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT YOU FIND IN ZERO TO 15% SLOPE CATEGORIES.
SO WE ARE PROPOSING SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT 32%, BUT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A VERY FLUID DESIGN AT THIS POINT, UM, BARRING YOUR DECISION TONIGHT.
AND SO, UM, IN MY EXPERIENCE, UH, FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, THE STAFF HAS NOT UNIT CONTINUOUSLY OR UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT, UH, THAT THE CHANNEL SHOULD HAVE A SHORELINE SETBACK.
THAT WAS NEVER REALLY, THE INTENTION IS I'M TOLD BY, UH, OTHER PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN MYSELF WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, AND THEN BACKDATED BACK TO 82 FROM 84.
AND SO NOW IT'S BEING ENFORCED VERY RIGIDLY AS A LETTER OF THE LAW.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS WHEN YOU DO HAVE A SHORELINE, SO BACK, IT, IT, IT PLACES A UNIQUE ENCUMBRANCE ON THE LOT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MAKES IT NEARLY UNBUILDABLE AND ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS MORE ROOM TO MOVE SOME STUFF AROUND, GIVEN ALL THE HARDSHIPS THAT EXIST.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:50:01]
QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION, REMEMBER BLOOM.SO THE, UM, DRAWING OR THE PAGE HAVE PAGE D TWO SLASH 15, IT'S, UM, SHOWING IT'S SHOWING THE, EXCUSE ME, IT'S SHOWING THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WITH A BUILDING ENVELOPE OVERLAID ON TOP OF IT.
AND IT SHOWS THREE STRUCTURES AND PART OF A SWIMMING POOL WITHIN THAT WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
WHAT ARE THOSE THREE STRUCTURES? I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT ATTACHED TO THE MAIN HOUSE.
I HAVE THE ARCHITECT WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, MR. SAM BIRCH HERE, IF THAT WOULD HELP YOU HE'S HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
AND BOARD MEMBER BLOOM, WHICH, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? IT'S PAGE D TWO DASH SLASH 1515, THE LAST ONE.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE FOR THE RECORD? I'M SORRY, MY NAME IS SAM BIRCH.
UM, AS DAVID MENTIONED THAT THE DESIGN IS REALLY PRETTY FLUID AT THIS POINT.
UM, BUT, UH, WE'VE CONTEMPLATED, UH, ONE OF THE STRUCTURES BEING A GUEST HOUSE, UH, AND THE OTHER STRUCTURE BEING A, AN EXERCISE GYM AND THE SMALL STRUCTURE IS A STUDY.
SO THEY'RE ALL PART OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
THEY'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST KIND OF SEPARATING SOME OF THE STRUCTURES.
SO SORT OF WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IF YOU HAVE 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE THAT YOU CAN BUILD ON AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES, HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO BUILD A, A HOUSE THAT'S REASONABLE FOR THE AREA WITHIN THAT 25,000 SQUARE FEET? LIKE, WHY DO YOU NEED TO TALK 25 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK TO MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN? WHY NOT 50 FEET OR 40 FEET OR, WELL, I THINK THE BIGGEST, UH, HARDSHIP ON THIS LAW IS, IS THE, UH, EASEMENT THAT'S THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE LAW.
WE'D REALLY NOT LIKE TO BUILD ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT.
IF AT ALL POSSIBLE WE ARE SHOWING STRUCTURES THERE, BUT IN AN IDEAL WORLD, THAT'S NOT, WE DON'T WANT CARS GOING THROUGH THE PROPERTY, UM, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO FENCE IT OFF.
UM, SO WHAT IT DOES IS IT FREES UP AREA TO, TO PLACE THOSE STRUCTURES, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THE PERFECT SCENARIO FOR US.
AND AS DAVID MENTIONED, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT AN IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE.
IT'S, IT'S REALLY ABOUT GETTING FLEXIBILITY WITH THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
UM, I WONDERED IF YOU MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO MOVE THE EASEMENT.
SO THE ACCESS TO THE FOUND PROPERTIES WOULD BE DOWN ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND SET INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE CENTER.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE A 44 INCH COTTONWOOD ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND THE CRITICAL REASON OF THAT TREE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO PUSH THE, THE DRIVE TO THE LEFT SIDE.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE? WELL, THE PROPERTY THAT'S SERVING THE MAIN PROPERTY IS STRAIGHT BACK AND TO THE LEFT.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? REMEMBER MACARTHUR? YES.
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, THE QUESTION, UH, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM ASKED YOU, UH, IT SEEMED TO ME YOU'RE STILL, YOU STILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BUILD THE HOME.
AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT WHY YOU NEEDED A 25 VERSUS 75 ON THE SETBACK.
WELL, THE, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON LAKE AUSTIN AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS IS, UH, A, A BUILDING SPREE.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THE REAL ESTATE MARKET HERE IN AUSTIN IS AT, YOU KNOW, IT'S OFF THE CHARTS.
SO WHEN THIS TYPE OF LAND IS PURCHASED, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUILD THE TOP OF AMENITIES THAT MORE CONDUCIVE AND MORE CONTEMPORARY THAN A STANDARD HOUSE THEY MIGHT BUILD IN TARRYTOWN OR WHEREVER.
[00:55:02]
LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT WITH THE 40 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, 10 FOOT SIDE, AND THE SEVENTY-FIVE THAT NOT ONLY COMES, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY IT WOULD COME FROM THE 4 90, 2 8 AT THE WATER, BUT THIS TIME IT COMES FROM THE CUT AND SLIP IN A WEIRD AND PUSHES IT EVEN FARTHER IN WE'RE LOSING, BUT STILL TAXED ON, YOU KNOW, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WAY IN TWO THIRDS OF LAND OF BUILDABLE AREA.AND SO WE, UH, LIKE IN PRIOR CASES ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND HAVE ASKED FOR A SIMILAR, UH, OR IF NOT EXACT REQUESTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT, THERE, THERE COULD BE A COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE, BUT THE TREES THAT WE KNOW ARE PROTECTED THAT WE DON'T WANT TO REMOVE, THEY'RE KIND OF BACK THERE TOWARDS THE, THE, THE INLET.
AND WE KNOW WE CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER THAN THOSE TREES ANYWAY, AND THEY'RE RIGHT AT ABOUT 25 OR 30 THEY'RE IN THAT RANGE.
AND SO WE WOULD, UM, WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO MOVE IT BACK, I GUESS YOU'D SAY AWAY FROM THE STREET AND HAVE MORE PRIVACY, AS OPPOSED TO ASKING FOR A FRONT SETBACK REDUCTION TO MOVE IT TO CLOSER TO THE STREET, BECAUSE THAT STREET IS JUST CHANGED.
IT'S EVOLVING LITERALLY LOT AFTER LOT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THAT'S THE HIGH LEVEL, HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, I MEAN, YOU CAN BUILD A NICE HOUSE WITHOUT THE SETBACK.
I WOULD SAY, GIVEN THE, GIVEN THE CONDITION OF THE MARKET, IT'S, IT'S BECOMING THE NORM TO BUILD A HOUSE OF A CERTAIN SIZE, THIS, THIS BOARD AND ITS PREDECESSORS RECOGNIZE THAT AT 1704 CHANNELING ACROSS THE STREET ON THE CORNER, WHEN HE'S BUILDING A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, ONE LOT OVER AND UP AND ACROSS, AND THEY GAVE HIM A SIDE YARD SETBACK OFF THE CHANNEL REDUCTION.
SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF HOPING WE GET SIMILAR OR THE SAME.
WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF.
IT'S NOT ANYTHING THE BOARD HADN'T HAD DONE BEFORE IS FOUR CASES.
THE BOARD HAS SAID, YEAH, WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT.
WE AGREE THAT THAT SHOULD, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, UNDUE BURDEN.
AND SO THAT'S ALL, WE'RE BRINGING THE CASE.
JUST REAL QUICK FOR THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY, UH, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVERY CASE THE HARDSHIP HAS TO BE UNIQUE TO THAT PROPERTY ONLY, UH, WHETHER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR OTHER PROPERTIES ADJOINING THAT LOT.
NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD VOTE YES OR NO ON THIS, JUST SIMPLY PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
SO I GUESS THAT IT REALLY COMES TO QUESTION.
SO YOU HAVE THE, THE ACCESS EASEMENT AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF LARGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, AND IT REALLY COMES INTO QUESTION WHETHER THE MANMADE CHANNEL, UM, AND I THINK WHERE IT COMES TO WHY A LOT OF TIMES WE GET THESE REQUESTS THAT GO FROM 75 TO 25 IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CODE DOES.
IF YOU'VE BEEN IN A CERTAIN CONFIGURATION OR YOU'RE A CERTAIN SIZE, IT GOES DRAMATICALLY FROM 75 TO 25 FEET, DEPENDING ON, ON THE DATE OF THE PLAT OR ALL OF THESE CONFIGURATION ITEMS. AND WHILE I, THERE ARE SEVERAL TREES THERE, I MEAN, SO I COULD SEE THE LOGIC OF WHY ASKING FOR THE REDUCTION FROM 75 TO 25 FEET.
THERE'S PROBABLY A NUMBER IN THERE THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALSO, BUT, UH, I DID HAVE A QUESTION, MR. KEN RC.
SO IS THIS PROPERTY ON WASTEWATER OR YOU ALSO HAVING TO DO A SEPTIC FIELD? NO, MA'AM, THERE'S NO SEWER PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT TAKES UP ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FOOT.
SO IT'S ALSO SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AS IS THAT YOU ALSO WANT THE SEPTIC FIELD TO NOT BE TOWARDS THAT CHANNEL.
SO AS YOU'RE, SO THAT ALSO TAKES UP SOME LAND AREA.
SO I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, UM, UM, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S ALL THESE FACTORS THAT GO INTO IT.
IT JUST IT'S BECAUSE YOU PILE THEM ALL ON.
AND IT IS, I MEAN, IF YOU GO OUT ON THE LAKE AND YOU LOOK AT THESE HOUSES,
[01:00:01]
THEY'RE NOT SMALL THERE THERE'S.UM, AND I, I SUPPOSE IF YOU WERE PAYING THEM MUCH MONEY FOR A LOT, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOUR LITTLE BUNGALOW OUT THERE.
UM, SO SOME OF IT TO ME HAS TO DO WITH CONFIGURATION THAT, WHETHER IT'S, TWO-STORY HOW, HOW IT FITS INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND I HAVEN'T PULLED THIS UP ON GOOGLE MAPS YET TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I MEAN, PRETTY, PRETTY BIG SWANK OUT THERE.
UH, SO I CAN SEE WHY HE WOULD GO FROM 75 TO 25, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A MANMADE CHANNEL.
UH, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER PROPERTIES OUT THERE THAT HAVE GOTTEN THAT TYPE OF REDUCTION ON A MANMADE CHANNEL, UM, WITH THE TREES HE'S PULLING BACK FROM THAT AREA.
SO IT MAY BE THAT IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO DO IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY, BUT THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS.
I THINK I WAS SECOND IN LINE BEHIND.
UH, SO FOR THE NEWER BOARD MEMBERS, UM, JUST, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A REFERENCE ON SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THIS BEYOND THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE IN 2015, UH, I WASN'T HERE.
I WAS ON A DIFFERENT BOARD THEN, BUT, UH, VICE CHAIRMAN HAWTHORNE AND COMMISSIONER VON OLIN WERE PART OF A BOARD THAT PUT TOGETHER A HANDBOOK THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO CITIZENS ABOUT SEEKING A VARIANCE.
AND ONE OF THE, I THOUGHT ONE OF MY FAVORITE PARTS OF THAT HANDBOOK SAID THAT, UM, THAT REASONABLE USE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS HIGHEST AND BEST USE THE WAY THAT IT'S DEFINED IN REAL ESTATE AND WENT THROUGH A, A D UH, DISCUSSION OF THAT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DEPRIVING A PROPERTY OF AMENITIES, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JUST PUT ONE THING ASIDE HERE, I'M SOLD ON YOUR HARDSHIP.
WHAT I'M NOT SOLD ON RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THE AMENITIES THAT YOU SEEK AND THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD, CONSTITUTE THE SORT OF LOW BAR FOR REASONABLE USE.
AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER BLOOM MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE USE BETWEEN THE SEPTIC FIELD AND THE HOUSE ITSELF COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
AND IN MOST PLACES IN AUSTIN, THEY WOULD BE PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT.
I MEAN, NOT TO HANG YOU WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, BUT YOU SAID TO YOURSELF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOOD ENOUGH IN TARRYTOWN MIGHT NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH ON THE SHORE OF LAKE AUSTIN.
AND MAYBE I'M GETTING YOU WRONG HERE, BUT THE POINT REMAINS THAT THAT'S DRIVEN TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
I THINK WE WOULD BOTH AGREE BY THE, BY THE FINANCIAL ATTRACT WITH THE COST OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO WHERE I'M LANDING ON THIS IS THAT I AGREE YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP.
WHAT LEVEL OF REASONABLE USE, UH, IS TOLERABLE.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT IN YOUR PACKET, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE OWNER BEING WILLING TO ACCEPT AN IMPERVIOUS COVER CAP OF 24%.
I THINK THAT IS, UH, YOU MIGHT GET THAT WRONG.
I BELIEVE IT WAS CLOSER TO 32 TO KEEP IT UNDER THE 35 MAXIMUM.
NOW I'M PLAYING AROUND WITH YOU.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU, IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU TAKE.
CAUSE, CAUSE TO ME THE PLACE WHERE I'D BE WILLING, I'M JUST ONE PERSON HERE, BUT THE PLACE WHERE I'D BE WILLING TO CUT THE BABY IN HALF IS A CAP ON IMPERVIOUS COVER.
I THINK THAT WOULD DELIVER ON THE PUBLIC TO ME, THAT WOULD DELIVER ON THE PUBLIC INDUSTRY, UH, ON THE PUBLIC, UM, INTEREST OBJECTIVE OF THE, AND THE INTENT OF THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE AND WOULD, AND WOULD DEAL WITH THE ISSUES HERE ADEQUATELY.
BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT CAP IS.
AND AGAIN, I'M ONLY ONE PERSON ON THIS BOARD.
IT'S A 32 THAT ARE, THAT I JUST PROPOSED.
AND I THINK SOMEBODY ON THE WEBEX WAS WAITING BEFORE ME.
ROM DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF CONVEYING SOME OF MY THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS, AND I'M ALSO AN AGREEMENT WITH ROM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MUCH MORE PALATABLE, NOT FOR, NOT JUST FOR US ON THE BIAS, BUT ALSO FOR EVERYBODY IN AUSTIN.
IN GENERAL, IF THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE IS ADDRESSED BECAUSE THE LESS RUNOFF WE HAVE GOING INTO THE LAKE, OR THEN IT'S EASIER TO JUSTIFY GIVING, GIVING HIM A LITTLE BIT CLOSER GIVING AND CLOSER TO THE CHANNEL.
AND SO I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT AND GIVE HIM TIME TO GO BACK AND DO THIS.
AND ALSO, DAVID, YOU'RE REALLY GOOD ON YOUR PRESENTATIONS, BUT BROTHER, I'M TELLING YOU, IF I GET ANOTHER BOOK WITH THREE CHAPTERS IN IT, MAN, YOU GIVING ME A HEADACHE, BRO, YOU NEED TO GET CUT, CONCISE, YOUR HARDSHIP DOWN, YOU HAVE LEGITIMATE HARDSHIPS.
[01:05:01]
AND UH, AND SO GET THEM DOWN AND CONCISE TO A CONCISE MANNER THAT WE CAN READ THEM.YOU'VE GOT TREES, YOU'VE GOT TOPOGRAPHY.
YOU'VE GOT NUMEROUS OF THEM IS AS ROM EVEN POINTED OUT.
BUT WHEN I, WHEN I GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHERE I A REALLY HARDSHIP, HARDSHIP, CONTINUED HARDSHIP, CONTINUED THE DATA, WORK WITH US HERE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT PAID TO SIT UP HERE AND, AND GO THROUGH THIS.
I DON'T MIND, BUT I HAD TO READ JURORS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR TIMES BEFORE I COULD GET IT DOWN.
AND, AND, AND I THINK I'M THE OLD DOG GUY ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
SO PLEASE WORK WITH US ON THAT.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE BONAFIDE HARDSHIPS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE SO THAT YOU CAN GO BACK AND BOARD MEMBER VIOLIN.
WOULD YOU TABLE YOUR MOTION FOR JUST A MINUTE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
WOULD YOU MIND, OF COURSE, BOARD MEMBER PER BOARD MEMBER POOING YOU'RE MUTED.
THE, THE INTEREST IS PROPERTIES OFF LAGUNA LANE.
IS THAT RIGHT ON THE BACK ON THE NORTHWEST NORTHEAST SIDE OR SOUTHEAST SIDE? IS THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? I'M SORRY.
I WAS ASKING MR. CANGIALOSI ABOUT WHERE YOU COME ONTO THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT FROM LAGUNA LANE, WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SURVEY PLAT THAT WE, NO, SIR, YOU, YOU COME OUT, YOU ENTER THE PROPERTY VIA THE E THE CHARITY'S BEEN OFF A CHANNEL ACROSS FROM THE DISH DOWN JUST ONE, A LOT OVER FROM THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY GOING TO COME OFF OF LAGUNA LANE AS WELL.
IT GETS KIND OF CONFUSING IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT IT, IT ONLY HAS ONE ACCESS POINT BACK THERE.
THERE'S ANOTHER LAGUNA LANE PAST US THAT GOES AND DEAD ENDS.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER LAGUNA LANE THAT PASSED THAT THE FRONTS ONTO, OR IS NEAR AUSTIN COUNTRY CLUB NEAR THE GOLF COURSE.
WELL, UM, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 15 OF YOUR PACKAGE AND IT HAS LAGUNA LANE AND THAT APPEARS TO BE A DRIVEWAY OFF OF LAGUNA LANE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPERTY THERE.
YOU'RE SAYING Y'ALL ARE NOT INTENDING TO TRY TO COME OFF OF LAGUNA LANE ONTO THE PROPERTY.
WELL, I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE A PAGE 15 SARAH WITH THAT GRAPHIC.
LET ME LOOK AT YOUR, UM, YOUR PRESENTATION THEN ON PAGE 20 OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
OH NO, IT, NO, ON YOUR PRESENTATION, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IN OUR BACKUP PAGE.
WELL, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 20 AND 21 OF YOUR BACK OF YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IN THE PACKAGE AT PAGE 15, THAT SHOWS, RIGHT.
SO THAT SECTION OF LAGUNA LANE, UH, TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE PAGE AND EVENTUALLY DEAD ENDS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAGOON, UH, IT WAS LIKE TWO OR THREE HOUSES BACK THERE.
IF HE COME BACK TOWARDS THE CURVE AND GO, I GUESS, WEST IT'LL MAKE ANOTHER KIND OF LOOP.
AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF, UH, SF TWO HOUSES BACK THERE THAT ARE NEAR THE AUSTIN COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE, BUT NOT ON LAKE FRONTAGE AT ALL.
I WILL SUPPORT A CONTINUANCE, UH, OR A POSTPONEMENT AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL THAT WHILE THERE MAY BE A HARDSHIP HERE, I FIND, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A HOUSE IN AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE LAKE AUSTIN ARGUMENT, BUT I THINK THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT ARGUMENT TO MAKE, AT LEAST FOR ME TO, TO SWALLOW AT THIS POINT.
SO I'LL SUPPORT, UH, I CAN, AND IT'S IN THE POSTPARTUM.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY A QUESTION.
WAS THAT A QUESTION BOARD MEMBER? I'M JUST NOT CLEAR WHAT, WHAT THE POSTPONEMENT IS FOR EXACTLY.
IT'S WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BOARD MEMBER.
DANIEL, DID YOU WANT TO CLAIRE? WELL, I THINK IN THE PACKET, I THINK IN THE PACKET THAT HE HAD OFFERED, I CHECKED THE FACT THAT YOU WERE RIGHT.
I WAS, I FLIPPED SOME NUMBERS AROUND, BUT, BUT YOU WOULD OFFER 32%, BUT 32% IS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING AS THE 25.
WELL, 32% IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
[01:10:01]
25 FOOT SETBACK WE'RE LOOKING FOR.I THINK IT'S YES OR NO OF COMMISSIONER VON OLIN IS THE MO IS THE MOTION MAKER THOUGH.
AND YOU PROBABLY SHOULD JUST WITH THE WAY THE MATH WORKS WITH THE NET SIDE AREA.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE TAKE THE 25% CUT SETBACK THAT YOU COULD, THE 25, I'M SORRY, THE 25 FOOT SETBACK THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT A IMPERVIOUS COVER CAP IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT.
YEAH, I THINK I, I, I, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER MODEL BOARD MEMBER VINYL, EXCUSE ME.
PART OF ALSO WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS TO, FOR HIM TO LACK OF A BETTER TERM BURLED ON HIS HARDSHIP TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCISE.
IF I WAS TO READ THE HARDSHIP, IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.
UH, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE ON THE BOARD AND MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE OF MY ALLERGIES WERE BOTHERING ME TODAY, BUT I MEAN, I'VE READ THESE THINGS FOREVER AND I HAD TO READ IT SEVERAL TIMES.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT, UH, BROUGHT DOWN TO A MORE CONCISE, UH, HARDSHIP, BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW TO READ IT RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE.
I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE CAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT I REALLY THINK, UH, WHETHER I CAN AFFORD TO BUILD THAT HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY OR A BIGGER HOUSE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT OF WHAT THIS, THE APPLICANT IS THAT IT'S ASKING.
AND SO THEREFORE I HAVE TO SET THAT ASIDE AND I LOOK AT WHAT IS THE REASONABLE USE OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND, AND I'VE SAID THIS ONCE I'VE SAID IT A MILLION TIMES ON THIS BOARD, OR I'D SPENT ON 15 YEARS NOW, I JUST SAW SOME STUFF IN HERE THAT I'VE BEEN THERE.
I'M A PRO PROPERTY RIGHTS KIND OF GUY, BUT IT HAS TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE, REASONABLE WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE LOCATION THE LOT.
AND THAT'S HOW I APPLY MYSELF TO MY, MY DECISIONS ON THIS BOARD.
SO I DON'T THINK BASED ON THE WAY THE HARDSHIPS ARE RIGHT NOW, AND I'M NOT GONNA SIT HERE AND TRY TO PERCOLATE THROUGH THEM AND BOIL THEM DOWN TO A MATTER WHERE I CAN GET EVERYBODY TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE HARDSHIPS ARE AND HOW THEY CAN APPLY THEM IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE SUPPORT.
AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THE SUPPORT IS THERE TO ACTUALLY PASS IT TODAY.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, DAVID? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
HAVE YOU SEEN IT HAPPEN? IF IT GETS TOO CONVOLUTED, I'VE GOT SIX HARDSHIPS I'VE GOTTEN.
AND IF I'M GOING TO COME BACK HERE NEXT MONTH FOR THE FEE THAT WE PAID FOR TO BE HERE AND JUST PUT THEM ON A BULLET POINT, JUST SO YOU CAN DIGEST THEM EASIER, NOT MUCH IS GOING TO CHANGE.
RIGHT? YOU WANT TO ROLL THE DICE? YOU COULD ROLL THE DICE.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT WHEN WE DO THAT TOO THOUGH GAVE IT, I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE AS MANY YEARS AS I'VE BEEN ON THAT, ON THAT, ON THIS BOARD.
AND IT CAN GO EITHER WAY AND WITH TWO DENIALS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BACK AT THE DRAWING BOARD.
SO I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU HERE.
UH, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, I'M ALL GOOD FOR IT.
SO WE, DO YOU HAVE THAT MOTION TO POSTPONE ON THE TABLE? UH, DID ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT PRIMARILY BECAUSE I PRIMARILY, BECAUSE I THINK YOU SHOULD GET TO THINK ABOUT IT AND I DON'T SEE THE, AND I DON'T SEE THE VOTES FOR APPROVAL RIGHT NOW.
OH, I THINK I'LL JUST GO WITH THE FLOW.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BY AN OLIN.
WHO WAS WRONG? DID YOU WANT ME TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND, MELISSA? SO YOU CAN GET IN THERE? NO, NO, I, I HAVE CONTEMPLATED, UH, TRYING TO MAKE MICHAEL'S DREAMS COME TRUE THERE JUST FOR A MOMENT.
AND THEN I, I TOTALLY JUST DECIDED HE WAS COMPLETELY RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS.
[01:15:02]
AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.RICHARD MARGOLIN, MICHAEL FUN.
OLIN, RICHARD, SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T TELL US, MICHAEL, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A BROTHER OR GRANDSON OR ANYBODY RICHARD, BUT I'LL, I'LL GO WITH IT.
AND WHAT I WANT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY TO THE APPLICANT THAT ALL THIS INFORMATION IS THERE, BUT HE HAS BONAFIDE HARDSHIP BEING THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE SHAPE, TREES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND TO JUST A LOT OF THIS OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE A TAXI FROM TRAVIS CONNIE AND STUFF IS NOT NEEDED.
JUST BOIL IT DOWN OR LET DOWN TO MORE CONCISE, UH, HARDSHIP THAT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL BY THE, THE GUY OUT IN THE STREET.
SO TO SPEAK, WHICH HAS ME HALF THE TIME, NICOLE WADE.
AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THIS IS REHEARD, IT WILL ESSENTIALLY BE THE SAME INFORMATION I WANTED TO VOICE MY SUPPORT WHEN THIS IS REHEARD, BUT YOU CAN ALSO CARRY WALLER.
AND I WOULD REMARK THAT THE CLINCHER FOR ME IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER CAP.
AND HAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT CAP TO THE REDUCED SETBACK WOULD HELP ME BE MORE COMFORTABLE VOTING YES.
I DO THINK YOU HAVE AN HARDSHIP, LIKE PARTICULARLY THE EASEMENT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VARIANTS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS NOT LARGER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.
SO THAT IT'S THE MINIMUM THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE SITE.
AND JESSICA COHEN, I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT.
I ACTUALLY THINK YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP HERE, BUT I AM GOING TO BE ASKING WHEN THIS COMES BACK OR SOME RAINWATER CAPTURE.
SO YOU'RE AWARE AND I HAVE A YES.
SO MOTION TO POSTPONE TO, SORRY, ONE SECOND.
UH, SO WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT OCTOBER.
DID YOU SAY OCTOBER 8TH? IT'S EIGHTH, RIGHT? IT'S 11, 11.
[E-3 C15-2021-0080 Micah King for Darius Fisher 74 San Saba Street, Unit 2]
ITEM WILL BE ITEM E THREE C 15 20 21 0 0 8 0 MICA KING FOR DERRIUS FISHER 74 SAN SABA STREET, UNIT TWO.GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, MICAH KING WITH HUSH BLACKWELL, ONLY HALF OF THE APPLICANT AREAS FISHER.
UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US BACK AGAIN TONIGHT AND GOOD TO SEE YOUR FACES OR AS MUCH AS I CAN SEE OF YOUR FACES.
UM, I WANTED TO COME BACK WITH AN UPDATE, UM, JUST TO BRIEFLY RECAP, UH, THIS CASE IS ABOUT A DECK THAT SERVES THE REAR OF A SMALL UNIT IN EAST AUSTIN.
IT'S A 560 A SQUARE FOOT UNIT.
IT'S, UH, ONLY ON THE UPSTAIRS OF THAT, THE B UNIT, UH, THE DECK WAS BUILT, UM, IN VIOLATION OF THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE'VE COME BACK AND ASKED FOR, FOR VARIANCES TO, UM, GET THE DECK LEGAL.
UH, WE'VE ALSO ASKED FOR A VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
UH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, ACTUALLY THE THIRD SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, THE OTHER VARIANTS ASIDE FROM THE SETBACKS WAS TO REDUCE THE, OR EXCEED THE 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER SET IN THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
WE'RE ACTUALLY AT 44% IN PERVIOUS COVER BEFORE THE DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO AS PART OF THIS REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER IS TO HAVE A NET REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER DOWN THE 41.38% BY REMOVING OTHER IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THAT'S CONCRETE AND PERVIOUS COVER THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE.
SINCE LAST TIME, UH, WE LOOKED INTO THE ISSUE OF THE FENCES, UH, MET WITH CITY STAFF, REVIEWED THE CODE, TAKE MEASUREMENTS OF THE FENCES.
[01:20:01]
UM, THAT'S ON THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.UM, AND, UM, DID A REALLY THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THAT.
EVERYBODY WE SPOKE TO EVERYTHING WE'D LOOKED AT SAID THAT THE, THE FENCES DO COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, UH, UNDER THE APPLICABLE ZONING.
UM, IN OTHER WORDS, IN CONFUSION, BASED ON THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND THE WAY THAT LOOKS, UM, THE OTHER UPDATE THAT I HAVE FOR YOU, UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION, UM, ABOUT, UH, WHETHER WE HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBOR TO THE REAR.
AND I SAID THAT, WELL, WE HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THAT NEIGHBOR.
UM, AND THE REASON WHY, UNFORTUNATELY IS THAT, UM, THAT NEIGHBOR PASSED AWAY.
UM, THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER, UM, MR. FISHER, WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH HER DAUGHTER, UH, SHE'S THE CURRENT RESIDENT OF THE HOUSE.
UM, SHE PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT, UM, AND SHE'S WORKING ON THE RECORDS TO REFLECT THAT SHE'S INHERITED THAT PROPERTY, UH, CAN QUICKLY GO THROUGH, UH, THE OTHER SLIDES REALLY QUICKLY, UM, ON PAGE SIX, UH, IF WE COULD GO TO THAT ONE, UH, SHOWS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE.
SO THIS WOULD RESULT IN A NET REDUCTION TO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY, UH, FESTIVAL BEACH, NEXT SLIDE REGARDING RE REASONABLE USE.
UM, W WE THINK THE DUCK IS REASONABLE.
IT'S THERE TO PROVIDE LIVING SPACE FOR A VERY SMALL UNIT.
UM, IT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT IT WHEN YOU'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, UH, THE TREES THAT EXIST BETWEEN THE A AND B UNITS THAT NEED TO PROVIDE SOME DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO RESTRUCTURES AND THE FACT THAT THAT REAR STRUCTURE WAS BUILT SO CLOSE TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1930, WHICH WAS BEFORE THE FIRST ZONING CODE IN AUSTIN.
UH, LET'S GO TO SLIDE NINE, PLEASE.
UH, HARDSHIP, UH, PLACEMENT OPTIONS CONSTRAINED BY THE STRUCTURE IS LIKE I MENTIONED, UH, THE REAR STRUCTURE ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED LAWFULLY.
UM, WE HAVE THE PALM TREES THAT, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE, UH, AND OF COURSE PROVIDE SOME SAFETY BETWEEN THOSE UNITS.
AND WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, TO SHOW THAT THE TREES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE, WE'D ALSO LIKE TO PRESERVE THE VIEW OF THE REAR HOUSE FROM THE STREET.
IT'S SOMEWHAT OBFUSCATED BY A FENCE, BUT IF, IF THERE WAS A DECK ON THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, ON THE SECOND LEVEL, IT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
UM, AND LIKE, UH, MADAM CHAIR MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, EACH CASE IS UNIQUE.
UH, THERE IS SOME PRECEDENT FROM A NEARBY CASE FROM A FEW YEARS AGO, TALKING ABOUT HOW, SORRY THIS KEEPS FALLING DOWN.
UM, HOW, UM, THE FACT THAT THIS, UH, REAR UNIT ON THIS OTHER CASE WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO CODE, UM, AND IT WAS A VIOLATION OF SIDE AND REAR PET SETBACKS AS WELL.
EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT, BUT THAT IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT I SAW THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP, UH, SLIDE 13, UM, REALLY COMMON FOR STRUCTURES IN THIS AREA TO BE IN THE SETBACKS.
UH, THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE REAR OF US HAS PROPERTIES AS A STRUCTURE IN THE SETBACK PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF VESTAS.
AND, UM, SLIDE 15 SHOWS THE, UH, VIEW OF THE DECK, UH, FROM THE JULIA STREET.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.
I WAS ACTUALLY MOSTLY OKAY WITH THIS LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS WHAT THE NEIGHBOR ON THE REAR SIDE HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE THIS LETTER, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS, UH, BOARD MEMBER RODRIGUEZ.
UM, WAS THIS, UH, IS THE DECK ALLOWING YOU ANOTHER EGRESS POINT FOR YOUR HOUSE? YEAH, LET'S START AT THE PODIUM FOR ME PLEASE.
SERGEANT, UH, STAY AT THE PODIUM FOR MY PLACE OF QUESTIONS.
IT DOES PROVIDE A SECONDARY POINT OF EGRESS.
UM, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE JUST ONE DOOR FOR THE UPSTAIRS UNIT TO GET OUT IN CASE OF FIRE.
THAT HELPS A LOT BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF VARIANCES LIKE THIS THAT ALLOW AN EXISTING OLDER STRUCTURE TO FUNCTION ON A PROPERTY.
AND LIKE THE DECK DOESN'T NEED TO BE REMOVED, BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS
[01:25:02]
IF THE PROPERTY WAS REDEVELOPED AND THE TWO FOOT REAR SETBACK WAS IN PLACE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS AN IMPACT.AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU MORE EXPERIENCED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, HOW YOU DEAL WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, LIKE I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT A VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT REDEVELOPMENT WITH A SETBACK GOING TO ONLY TWO FEET AT THE REAR.
THAT'S A CHANGE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT WILL BE MUCH BIGGER STRUCTURE.
UH, IF I MAY, UH, WE CAN ACTUALLY, DURING THE MOTION, UH, MAKE IT A CONDITION, UH, TIE IT TO THE CURRENT SITE PLAN.
IF THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, I'D BE GOOD WITH THAT AS WELL.
THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD SUPPORT OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, ONE NUMBER ONE, OLIN, THEREFORE A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE EVERYBODY'S DONE.
AND HAVING ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
YOU MAY WANT TO ASK ONE MORE TIME.
SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH SOMETHING.
SO I WOULD RATHER WAIT UNTIL EVERYBODY'S DONE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF WE, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, THE SURVEY PLAT ON PAGE 17, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS APPROVE THIS VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY, TO STAY IN THE CONDITION AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY PLAT.
I, IF, IF SO, UM, I'M COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
I THINK WITH THE CONDITION OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BEING REMOVED.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, TO MAKE SURE MICHAEL CAN GET HIS MOTION EXACTLY THE WAY IT NEEDS TO, WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AS AN, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR ALUM, I'M FINE WITH IT.
SO BOARD MEMBER VON NOLAN, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION PLEASE? WELL, THEY ACTUALLY, AS IT SAYS, THEY TRIED HERE TO, UH, ALLOW THE SECOND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO DECREASE MINIMUM REAL YARD SET BACK FROM 10 FEET TO 2.4, ONE FOOT IS REQUESTED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO DECREASE MINIMUM ENTIRE SIDE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET REQUIRED TO 3.9 IS REQUESTED.
AND FROM THE 25 TO 735 FESTIVAL BEACH SUB-DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SEE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS, UH, TO BE INCREASED FROM THE 40 MAXIMUM ALLOWED TO THE 41.38 REQUESTED, UH, CURRENTLY THE EXISTING, UH, 47.4 AND EIGHT.
AND THE REASON THAT THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THIS ALSO IS BECAUSE THE FORMER ALLEYWAY PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORS FROM BEHIND.
AND THEN WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE, SORRY TO HEAR THAT THE OWNER HAD PASSED, BUT, UH, THAT SOMEBODY ELSE HAS HIS, UH, DAUGHTER IS MOVING IN THERE AND HE'S OKAY WITH IT.
I'M SURE THEY WERE ALSO NOTIFIED.
AND, UH, WHEN I USED TO BE IN EAST AUSTIN, IF ANYTHING HAPPENED WITH IT TO BE ON THE FEED, I GOT NOTIFIED.
SO I'M SURE IF THERE WAS A CONCERN THEY COULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE CITY.
UH, ALSO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS DECREASING AND NOT ASKING FOR MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE AS WELL AS IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR CLOSE TO THE WATERFRONT OF FESTIVAL WILL BE BEACH.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FROM BOARD MEMBER PRO TO TIE IT TO E THREE 17 IN THE ADVANCED PACKET.
WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REDUCTION.
YEAH, THAT'S PERFECTLY CORRECT.
REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THERE'S OWNING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WOULD PRECLUDE FROM BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE AN EXISTING DECK FOR THE UPSTAIRS WE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, WHICH INCREASED AS FAR AS SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS, BY PROVIDING A SECONDARY POINT OF EGRESS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, THE DECK IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET FROM THE ORIGINAL PLOT LINE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR.
AND THE SIDE OF THE DECK IS IN LINE WITH THE SIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE CIRCA 1930, WHICH IS SERVED THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANCES REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT OPTIONS FOR WHERE TO PLACE THE DECK WERE CONSTRAINED
[01:30:01]
BY THE LOCATIONS OF THE OLD EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, THE SIZE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE NATURE PROVIDE A GAP BETWEEN THE EXISTING HOUSES AND THE PROPERTY LINE WAS UNCLEAR DUE TO THE VACATED REAR ALLEYWAY AND A MISPLACED FENCE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA IN THE AREA HAVE REAR DECKS WITH OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE AND COULD BE PROVIDED WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON ONTO OTHER REAR SETBACKS.
THE EXISTING REAR UNIT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, BUT HAS EXISTED THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 YEARS.
AND AGAIN, THE FORMER ALLEYWAY VACATED ALLEYWAY, IT GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL SPACE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND THEM AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE IT'S COMMON INFRASTRUCTURES TO, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE.
IT'S COMMON FOR STRUCTURE TO BE PLACED IN THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS IN THIS PART OF THE TIME WITHIN IT.
AND IN THIS AREA, THE DEX DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA OF CHARACTER AND I'LL JUST STOP RIGHT THERE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY MICHAEL VAN OLIN, SECONDED BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE, TIED TO THE SURVEY PLANT ON 83 17 WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER AS PROPOSED JESSICA COHEN.
DID WE ADDRESS AND SORRY IF I MISSED THIS, DID WE ADDRESS THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR BROUGHT UP? UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT ANYMORE BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY VOTING.
SO WE DID, WE DID TIE IT TO AN EXHIBIT THOUGH.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KING, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
[E-4 C15-2021-0081 Amanda Swor for Maryelaine Soto & Bill Schurtz 1308 West 9th ½ Street]
ITEM.THAT'S GOING TO BE ITEM E FOR C 15 20 21 0 0 8 1.
AMANDA SWERVE FOR MARY LANE SOTO AND BILL SHARP'S 1, 3 0 8 WEST NINTH AND A HALF STREET.
AND THEN MRS. WARD, WE'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES.
SOTOS AND I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1308 WEST NINE AND A HALF STREET.
ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND, BILL SHIRTS.
BOTH OF US HAVE BEEN LONG TIME DOWNTOWN AUSTIN RESIDENTS AND WORK OR HAVE WORKED IN THE URBAN CORE.
MY HUSBAND HAS A DATA ARCHITECT FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS.
AND I AS A PHYSICIAN AT DELL SETON.
AND PRIOR TO THAT, AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER AFTER GRADUATING FROM UT WITH ME, I HAVE MY ARCHITECT, RYAN FLEENER, AND AMANDA SWORE, AND THEN NAIL NICK FROM THE JENNER GROUP AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION, EXCUSE ME, YOU HEARD THIS CASE ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AND WE THANK YOU FOR POSTPONING THIS CASE TO GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME.
I WILL BRIEFLY GO BACK OVER THE FACTS AND THEN HIT ON THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I'M HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE TO THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO FROM 0.41 2.45 TO ONE.
THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FROM 0.41 TO 0.46.
HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING THE COMMENTS OF THE BOARD, WE WORKED HARD TO REDUCE THE REQUEST AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND ARE NOW ASKING FOR THE 0.45.
HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING MY HOME AND THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES NEARBY.
THIS IS WHAT THE HOME LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
AS WE MENTIONED LAST MONTH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ADD A BEDROOM SLASH PLAYROOM MULTI-USE FOR OUR SOON TO ARRIVE CHILD ON AN EXISTING FLAT ROOF, THIS REQUEST WILL ADD NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER OR BUILDING COVERAGE ON THE LOT.
THIS IS A PROJECTION FROM THE SAME VIEW OF WHAT THE 400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
THE THREE FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED, WHICH WE MEET ARE AS FOLLOWS.
ONE, A FOUR BEDROOM HOME HAS A REASONABLE SINGLE FAMILY USE TO THE HARDSHIP IS THREEFOLD.
[01:35:01]
IS ALREADY UTILIZED AS A MULTI-PURPOSE SPACE AS MY ON-CALL ROOM SLASH DECONTAMINATION ROOM SLASH GYM, WHICH HAS COUNTED TOWARD FLORIDA AREA RATIO, BUT CANNOT BE USED FOR A CHILD'S BEDROOM OR PLAYROOM B.THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED SUCH THAT SPLITTING A BEDROOM IS NOT PRACTICAL NOR IS ADDING ONE TO THE MAIN LEVEL AND C.
UM, AND THIS, UH, IS A POINT THAT, UM, DIDN'T MAKE IT TO OUR PACKET.
UM, BUT WE NOTICED IT AFTERWARDS TO MAKE THE, THIS ADU STRUCTURALLY VIABLE TO CONNECT TO THE EXISTING HOME.
WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND COULD NOT REDUCE THE REQUEST FURTHER.
FURTHERMORE, CONNECTING THE TWO STRUCTURES WOULD IMPACT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE ON THE LOT THREE, AS INDICATED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, THE ADDITION WOULD BE ON TOP OF AN EXISTING FLAT ROOF.
ALSO THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND THE ALLOWABLE TENT WILL NOT EXPAND.
SO THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE IN BUILDING COVERAGE OR IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE ADDITION WOULD NOT CHANGE THE STREET'S CHARACTER OR IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AS YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DIVERSE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES.
OUR STREET HAS BUNGALOWS WITH ADDITIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE MODERN AND MULTI-FAMILY CONDOS.
UH, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE MAJORITY OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, SOME QUESTIONS WERE BROUGHT UP AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THESE.
NOW, ONE QUESTION WAS IN REGARD TO THE CABANA, THIS IS NOT A POOL CABANA.
I UTILIZE THE SPACE WHEN I HAVE EITHER A LATE NIGHT OR EARLY MORNING HOSPITAL SHIFT.
SO I DO NOT WAKE THE HOUSEHOLD COMING OR GOING ADDITIONALLY SINCE THE PANDEMIC, IT HAS BEEN USED AS A DECONTAMINATION ROOM SO THAT I DO NOT BRING COVID INTO OUR HOME.
AND I ALSO USE IT AS A GYM SINCE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WORKING OUT AT LOCAL GYMS, GIVEN THIS PANDEMIC, MAINTAINING THIS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN KEY TO MAINTAINING MY SANITY AND SENSE OF COMPOSURE IN LIGHT OF THE DEMANDS OF MY JOB, WHICH HAVE BECOME EVEN MORE DIFFICULT GIVEN THE ONGOING NATURE OF THE PANDEMIC.
THE OTHER QUESTION CENTERED AROUND NOT BEING ABLE TO SPLIT AN EXISTING BEDROOM AND THE EXHIBITS SHOWN THE YELLOW BEDROOMS ARE THE EXISTING ROOMS BETWEEN THE BATHROOMS AND THE STAIRWELL.
THERE'S NO REASONABLE WAY TO SPLIT EITHER ROOM.
MY ARCHITECT HAS PLACED A FULL-SIZED BED TO GIVE A SENSE OF THE SIZE AND SPACE.
THE BLUE HATCHING IS A LITTLE BIT, ACTUALLY IT'S A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN THE PROS EDITION, BUT THAT IS WHERE IT WOULD SIT ON OUR EXISTING ROOF.
TWO OTHER QUESTIONS WERE PUT FORTH SOMEWHAT, UH, UM, CASUALLY, BUT I DO FEEL THE NEED TO ADDRESS THEM TONIGHT.
ONE WAS WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT, UH, WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME, WE WANTED TO ADD ON FROM THE BEGINNING.
MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED IT IN 2019, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC.
I NOTE THAT ONLY BECAUSE THE PANDEMIC HAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED THE WAY WE USE OUR HOME, ESPECIALLY BEING A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
THE OTHER QUESTION WAS HOW MANY KIDS DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE ONE DAUGHTER, BUT HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH ANOTHER ON THE WAY.
THANKS TO SCIENCE, NOT TO GET PERSONAL, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I DESIRED FOR YEARS, BUT DIDN'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE AS MY HUSBAND AND I ARE MUCH OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE PARENTS.
I WANT THESE CHILDREN TO GROW UP IN THIS HOUSE AND IN THIS DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LOVE.
IN CONCLUSION TO SUMMARIZE A FOUR BEDROOM HOME IS A REASONABLE SINGLE FAMILY USE.
THE EXISTING BEDROOMS CANNOT BE DIVIDED.
THE ON THE ON-CALL ROOM IS BEING INCLUDED IN THE FAR CALCULATION WAS LIMITS EXPANSION TO THE FAMILY LIVING SPACE.
WE HAVE REDUCED THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO SMALLEST POSSIBLE THAT WILL STRUCTURALLY ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ROOM TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING FLAT ROOF.
THERE'S NO IMPACT ON IMPERVIOUS COVER OR BUILDING COVER ON THE LOT.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET.
WE HAVE A LARGE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT CATTY CORNER FROM OUR HOME AND THE TWO HOMES BEHIND US HAVE TWO STORY 80 USE DIRECTLY ON THE LOT LINE THAT'S OKAY.
UM, I RE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS VARIANCE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO STAY IN OUR HOME.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER OF ON NOLAN, MADAM CHAIR.
UH, AND I JUST SAID EARLIER, I'M A PRO PROPERTY RIGHTS KIND OF GUY.
AND, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK HER FOR BEING ON THE FRONT LINES IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
UH, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE GOING WITH WITH, UH, THE ADDITIONAL BEDROOM.
UH, MY SON WAS BORN AND I HAD TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW HOUSE.
I DIDN'T THINK THE KID COULD CRAWL THAT FAR, BUT MY WIFE WANTED AN EXTRA BEDROOM AND UPSTAIRS FOR, FOR MY SON.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S ISSUES.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH IT IF YOU GO TO EAT FOR 16, IF THAT WAS, UH, WELL, LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
[01:40:01]
THE VARIANCE IN APRIL OF 2013, EIGHT YEARS AGO TO INCREASE THE FAR ON THE, THE OTHER HOUSE THAT THEY, THEY HAD BROUGHT UP.AND IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET AN APPROVAL TO INCREASE FAR BACK THEN, EVEN MORE SO NOW.
BUT BACK THEN IT WAS LIKE PULLING HEN'S TEETH.
UH, AND, UH, WE WERE VERY CAREFUL ON HOW WE APPROVED, UH, FAR REQUESTS BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE A RUSH ON EVERYBODY COMING TO US, HAVING REQUESTS FOR FAR, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WHAT WE DO WITH THIS, WITH THIS, UH, APPLICATION, AS WELL AS WE DO WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES, EACH ONE IS TAKEN BASED UPON ITS OWN MERITS.
SO THERE, THERE WAS A LETTER IN THERE THAT I DID KNOW, UH, UH, WHERE THE APPLICANTS, UH, WERE SAYING, WELL, YOU'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT.
WELL, THE APPLICANT THAT AGE VARIANCE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IS BASED ON ITS OWN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, MERIT.
AND SO THERE'S NO PRECEDENT SET.
AS FAR AS VARIANCES ARE CONCERNED.
WE SET PRECEDENTS IS WHEN WE DO INTERPRETATIONS, NOT WHEN WE DO VARIANCES.
NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, GOING BACK TO
UH, AND SO IF THAT WAS TO BE ABLE AND HAVING BEEN IN AN INDUSTRY IN MY FORMER LIFE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT LOOK ALL IS ONE.
AND, UH, AND ROM, I LISTENED TO RAHM'S, UH, COMMENTS, UH, LAST, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND BY THE WAY, YOUR TONE WAS JUST FINE.
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
JUST BEING VERY PROFESSIONAL, VERY CONCISE.
UM, THE IT'S, THE HARDSHIP IS WHERE WE'RE AT, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR A FAR INCREASE, OUR CHIP IS REALLY HARD TO GET TO, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS, I BELIEVE THIS HOME WAS BUILT IN 2017, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN AND THE BUILDER MAY HAVE MAXED OUT THE FAR AT THAT POINT, AND THEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND BUYS IT, THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING.
WE FIND THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS WITH OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER OR A LOT LIMITATIONS OUTSIDE LIMITATIONS.
SO I'M JUST, IT'S JUST TOO, TO GET THE HARDSHIP THERE.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE.
I DON'T BELIEVE, AND I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S ALLOWING THE NOTE CAMEL'S NOSE UNDER THE TENT OR SETTING A PRECEDENT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THERE WITH THE HARDSHIPS THAT ARE PROVIDED HERE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
AND I'M MELISSA AND I USED TO CRAFT SOME OF THESE BACK IN THE DAY, AND I GUESS I'M JUST GETTING RUSTY, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING OUT THERE AS MUCH, BUT, UM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I JUST DON'T, I CAN'T GET THERE WITH THE HARDSHIP.
UM, I'M STUCK, SO MY HANDS ARE SOMEWHAT TIED.
IF SOMEBODY CAN HELP ME, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, SOME OF THE NEW PEOPLE THAT HAD COME IN WITH NEW IDEAS AND NEW VIEWS, I WOULD BE MORE THAN OPEN TO ACCEPTING ANY HELP ON IT.
BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG ASK BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL.
WELL, I, I, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, UH, BOARD MEMBER BONNELL, AND I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY TONE IN THE LAST MEETING TO BOTH YOU AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.
I THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND REFLECTED, UM, LESS ABOUT YOUR CASE AND MORE MY ONGOING FRUSTRATION WITH A COUPLE OF ASPECTS TO THE CODE THAT I THINK PUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN A BAD SPOT.
UM, EARLIER IN THIS MEETING ARE REFERRED TO A HANDBOOK THAT WAS PROVIDED TO, UH, TO PEOPLE AND THEY TALK ABOUT FORCE FOCUSING ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE PEOPLE.
THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO APPLY THE RULES.
UM, AND, UM, AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE HERE, WHICH IS THAT THE HARDSHIP ITSELF IS NOT, IS MORE CONNECTED TO THE VERY REASONABLE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DO, AND THE VERY REASONABLE REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO DO THEM AND LESS ABOUT SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ON THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THE BUILDING SETS IT'S NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO.
AND THIS IS REALLY MY BIGGER PROBLEM.
YOUR PROBLEM SEEMS TO LIE WITH THE REGULATION ITSELF,
[01:45:01]
WITH THE CODE ITSELF.I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, I MEAN, YOU'VE PROBABLY GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO IN YOUR LIFE, THEN WATCH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
BUT I MEAN, I'VE GONE OFF ON THIS DYESS ABOUT THIS TOPIC MULTIPLE TIMES, AND THAT'S PART OF WHY I'M APOLOGIZING TO YOU GUYS FOR HOW I TREATED YOU IN LAST MEETING, WHICH I REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE, UH, BECAUSE IT REALLY HAD MORE TO DO WITH THAT.
BUT I THINK I'M IN THE SAME PLACE AT COMMISSIONER GRANOLA.
AND ISN'T JUST TRYING TO GET THERE WITH A HARDSHIP BECAUSE I FEEL THAT MY HANDS ARE TIED ON THIS.
AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I SYMPATHIZE, YOU KNOW, I SPENT THE LAST TWO YEARS WORKING FROM HOME.
MY WIFE WORKS WITH THE ELDERLY IN AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.
WE HAVE MANY AND WORKS OUT A LOT.
WE HAD MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF KIDS AT HOME.
I MEAN, I, I REALLY DO GET IT.
UM, AND, UM, I'M KIND OF IN THE SAME PLACE THAT COMMISSIONER RON OLIN IS, THE HARDSHIP IS TOUGH.
SO I WELCOME ANYBODY'S THOUGHT BECAUSE I DO WANT TO POINT OUT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY IS VERY REASONABLE AND DOES NOT DAMAGE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ANY WAY.
AND WHEN THIS PART OF THE CODE WAS WRITTEN, THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS WERE PREDICTED THEN, AND ARE THE PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS ASPECT OF THE CODE.
THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.
UM, FIRST I'M LOOKING AT THIS POINT THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT ON THE PEOPLE.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOUR ARGUMENTS REALLY FOCUS AROUND YOUR PERSONAL FAMILY SITUATION.
UM, AND TO THAT POINT, I NOTICED THAT, UH, YOU SAY IN YOUR, I GUESS THIS IS AT, UH, FOUR 10 OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
YOU SAY A FOUR BEDROOM HOME IS REASONABLE SINGLE FAMILY USE, BUT I THINK, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THE REASONABLENESS ISSUE IS TERMS OF WHETHER A THREE-BEDROOM HOME IS REASONABLE SINGLE FAMILY.
IS I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? THREE BEDROOM HOME.
SO I'M NOT SURE THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH DISPUTE THAT A THREE-BEDROOM HOME IS A REASONABLE SINGLE FAMILY USE.
CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? YES, PLEASE.
I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND THE USE OF THE HOME.
AND LIKE I SAID, GIVEN WHAT THE EVENTS OF THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF HAVE SHOWN US IS PEOPLE ARE USING THEIR HOUSES IN DIFFERENT WAYS THAN THEY MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY INTENDED IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME PEOPLE, HAVING TO UTILIZE SPACES IN WAYS THAT THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO USE THEM PREVIOUSLY FIRST YEAR HAWTHORNE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, ONE SECOND DOCTOR SORT OF MY MAIN CONCERN HERE IS THAT WHILE, WHILE I 100% LIKE RESPECT WHAT YOU DO, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD PUT MY FAMILY IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION OR TAKE THAT KIND OF RISK, BUT GOD WILLING THE PANDEMIC WILL END.
AND THE HARDSHIPS THAT YOU'RE ARGUING WON'T NECESSARILY BE THERE ONCE THINGS COOL OFF A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T THINK THE ASK IS THAT MUCH EITHER.
I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN.
MY, MY STRUGGLE IS WITH THE REALLY BAD CODE AND WE CAN'T USE THAT CODE AS A HARDSHIP AS MUCH AS I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO, BUT EVEN, SO I THINK I'M STILL INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS.
DO YOU CHANGE OUR MINDS? I I'D JUST LIKE TO JUMP IN AND TALK.
CAN MY, MY NUTS SPEAK TO MR. CLEANER.
RYAN STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
UM, SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE SURVEY AND THE AREA THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO, TO TRY TO EITHER AFFIRM THAT THAT MY VIEWPOINT IS CORRECT.
SO FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ADDITION.
AND THAT ADDITION IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, IDEALLY.
UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS TIME WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW STRUCTURALLY WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE HOUSE.
THERE'S A FEW HIDDEN SKELETONS, UH, WITH THE WAY THAT THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THAT THE LESS IS MORE KIND OF HELP.
SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO ASK A QUESTION AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU GOT IT.
SO WHEN I AM LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE, HOW FAR BACK IS THAT ADDITION? HOW MANY FEET BACK FROM SAY THE FRONT SETBACK IS THIS ADDITION, FRONT SETBACK.
IT, IT ALIGNS WITH THE FRONT OF THE HOME, UH, WITH THE WALLS THAT ARE BELOW.
[01:50:01]
I'M NOT SURE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK, FROM THE SURVEY.SO IS THAT 25 FEET? 40 FEET, 50 FEET.
I THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 30, 35, 35 FEET.
AND HOW WIDE IS IT FROM THE FRONT? I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING YOU QUESTIONS CAUSE I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THEM OUT LOUD.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
SO WHEN I LOOK UP, YOU'RE ADDING, IS IT EIGHT FEET OF WALL? IS IT 20 FEET OF WALL FROM THAT FRONT VIEW? AT 30 FEET? IT'S UH, IT'S ABOUT 18 FEET WIDE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. FLYNN.
AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN, TOGETHER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
I, ONE THING I THINK IS MOST OF THE INFILL HOUSES ARE BUILT TO THE MAX.
THEY'RE JUST BUILT TO THE MAX AND THEN THE ONUS IS ON WHOEVER MOVES IN, IF THEY WANT TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
THE SECOND THING I'M KIND OF THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN A LOT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FAR EXCEPTIONS IN THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE.
AND SO IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN MANIPULATE, UM, THE FAR A LOT AND ADD A LOT OF SQUARE FEET WITHOUT IT BEING COUNTED.
IF IT'S A, IN HALF STORIES AND THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS WHERE YOU CAN DO EXCEPTIONS.
SO, UM, WHILE I DON'T, I THINK LIKE IF THE ARCHITECT HAD GONE TO THE CITY WITH A NON-MODERN HOUSE PLAN, THERE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO BEEN A TRIP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
UM, OR I, ONE SECOND CAN LEAD TABLES FOR A QUESTION FROM BOARD MEMBER RODRIGUEZ, SURELY.
UM, I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, I APPROVE IT AS WELL, BUT, UM, I DO SEE A DESIGN SOLUTION HERE THAT COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE FAR.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY TO APPROACH THIS, THAT HASN'T BEEN REALLY LOOKED AT OR EXAMINED.
UM, BUT THAT'S JUST ME PLAYING THE BAD GUY.
UM, I AM IN SUPPORT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DISCUSSIONS.
BOARD MEMBER, BUT OLIN, IF YOU WOULD READ THE FINDINGS, PLEASE.
I, I THINK, UH, OH, BOARD MEMBER PRUITT.
WHEN WAS THAT? UH, ON-CALL ROOM IN THE BACK CONSTRUCTED? DID THEY CONSTRUCT THAT OR WAS THAT THERE WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE? WHEN WE, WHEN WE MOVED IN, IT WAS CON IT WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED.
THEY COMPLETED THAT BEFORE COMPLETING, UH, THE, I, I WAS WITH BOARD MEMBER BANO AND I COULDN'T GET IT THERE, BUT I THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU DID NOT CREATE THE SITUATION, UH, AND BECAUSE THE FAR IS, IS CALCULATED BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING THERE WHEN YOU BUILT IT.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A HARDSHIP AND I'M GOING TO BE IN PAPERBACK BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
JUST A COMMENT TO MY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
THE, THERE WERE TWO OBJECTION LETTERS THAT I FOUND TO BE VERY PERSUASIVE AND THOROUGH.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU ALL HAVE READ THOSE BEFORE YOU VOTE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO BOARD MEMBER, VENTOLIN FINDINGS, PLEASE.
I, I THINK I KIND OF LIKE TRIP THIS ONE AND I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION AND MICHAEL'S SECOND.
THIS ONE'S A LITTLE, A LITTLE TRICKY.
AND HONESTLY, BEFORE I START, I JUST WANT TO SAY, SO I OFFICE OVER THERE, UM, RIGHT ACROSS WEST
[01:55:01]
SIXTH STREET FOR, FOR LIKE 17 YEARS.AND SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND ON NINTH STREET, UM, THERE'S THAT ONE REALLY HORRIBLE HOUSE THAT JUST HAPPENED.
THAT IS LIKE THREE STORIES AND CRAZY THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT GOT BUILT.
UM, THERE'S A PERMANENT THERE'S, THIS IS A VERY DIVERSE AREA.
THIS IS NOT EVEN SO IT, IT HAS A LOT GOING ON.
AND WHILE THERE IS THIS, I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPIT OUT SOME FINDINGS THAT MAKE SENSE.
REASONABLE USE SENDING REGULATIONS, APPLICABLY PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS THE PROPOSED VARIANCE DOES NOT ACTUALLY PLACE ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE GROUND.
AND THE, THE ADDITIONAL VOLUME WILL BE IN ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING ROOF HEIGHT AND THEREFORE AS WELL AS FIT WITHIN THE MCMANSION TENT.
AND SO THEREFORE DOES NOT IS UNREASONABLE.
IT'S JUST PLAIN UNREASONABLE THAT IF YOU ARE NOT ADDING A THING ON THE GROUND, THAT YOUR VOLUME AND TENT ARE ALL COMPLIED TO, IT'S JUST NOT THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.
IT'S REALLY, HONESTLY, ALMOST THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE IN THAT IT HAS NO.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE YOUR PITCH ROOFS AND HAVE THE EXEMPT AREAS AND THEY EXEMPT ADDICTS AND SUCH THIS HOUSE IS NOT AFFORDED THOSE, UH, THOSE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE IN THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO CREATE, UH, ROOMS THAT, THAT DON'T COUNT TOWARDS THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO.
IT'S JUST BEEN STRUCTURED UTILIZED THE MAXIMUM FAR ALLOWED UNDER THE 25 TO HALF TO ONE, HOWEVER, FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION LIMITED, THE DEVELOPMENT ARE LESS THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE NEARBY M M F AND M FOUR ZONE PROPERTIES.
SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY PURCHASED THIS HOME ALREADY WITH IT BE PRETTY WELL MAXED OUT.
IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T A SELF CREATED HARDSHIP AND THAT'S JUST THROWING IT AT THE WALL TO SEE IF THEY'LL STICK THAT A OR B THAT WAS ON A IT'S THE FIRST SET VERSA FIRST, UM, SENTENCE OF A, OKAY.
AND THEN I WOULD EVEN GO AS FAR AS TO STATE THAT THE EXISTING LOT SIZE, BECAUSE WE HAVE USED LOT SIZE IN THE PAST AS OUR HARDSHIP.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE JUST HAVE GRANTED A VARIANCE WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS 74 FEET OFF OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE AND BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE AND WE GRANTED THE VARIANCE.
SO WE'VE, WE HAVE IN THE PAST HISTORICALLY, UH, BRANDED A VARIANCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT, UH, THE LOT SIZE WAS LIMITING, UH, IT SAYS STATES THE SQUARE FOOT LIMITS THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SITE TO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN OTHER PROPERTIES, WHICH TO ME IS A HARDSHIP, RIGHT? THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL AREA, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THERE A, A PLETHORA OF, UM, ZONINGS FROM SF THREE TO MF FOUR WITHIN THIS ACTUAL AREA.
AND THIS, UH, ADDITION IS, IS ACTUALLY VERY SMALL.
UM, THE GRANTS WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
JASON, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE ROADWAY REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS IT WILL BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING ROOF LINE.
AND, UH, NOT ACTUALLY INCREASE THAT HOUSES FOOTPRINT ON THE GROUND AND BE IN THE STYLE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, MICHAEL, FEEL FREE? NO, I TH I THINK THAT PRETTY WELL, IS IT THAT, AND THE PROPERTY WILL CONTINUE TO BE UTILIZED AND OCCUPIED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS A SINGLE FAMILY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE WITH A SECOND BY MICHAEL NOLAN.
[02:00:01]
BARBARA MCARTHUR.I WISH I COULD GET THERE, BUT I CAN'T.
I JUST, I CAN'T GET THERE WITH A HARDSHIP EITHER.
YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION TO APPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN A CERTAIN LIMIT.
AND WHILE WE'RE HERE, UM, COMMISSIONER, YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD A DESIGN SOLUTION.
THEY MAY NOT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT, I'M CURIOUS WHAT IT WAS.
UM, I THINK THAT IF THEY, UM, ROTATE THE BATHROOM AND SITUATED KIND OF WHERE THE ENTRY IS FROM THE HALLWAY AND BASICALLY REMOVED THAT SECTION OF THE FLOOR PLAN AND JUST MOVE EVERYTHING UP.
UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AT AT THAT POINT, BUT I MEAN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE DEFINITELY A REDUCTION BECAUSE IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DIMINIMOUS VARIANCE, THEN I PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE PERSUADABLE.
THAT'S ALL JUST THINKING OUT LOUD.
[F-1 Discussion of the August 9, 2021 Board activity report]
MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, ITEM ONE, THE DISCUSSION OF THE AUGUST 9TH, 2021 BOARD ACTIVITY, REPORT REPORTS, ANY DISCUSSION COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR US.
THANK YOU DIANA FOR THAT AS WELL.
AND YOU MAKE SURE I TELL HER THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE HER AS WELL.
I'D UM, UH, TWO, WE DID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING ITEM
[F-3 Discussion regarding future BOA hybrid meetings.]
F THREE DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE BLA HYBRID MEETINGS.UH, I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA SO THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS COULD ASK QUESTIONS, MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT, HOW THE NIGHT RAN.
IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES, MAYBE SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS FOR NEXT TIME.
I ALSO WANT TO TRY AND SEE IF MAYBE WE COULD GET SOME COMMITMENT OUT OF SIX OR FIVE OR SIX FOLKS FOR NEXT MONTH.
IF YOU CAN PLAN THAT FAR IN ADVANCE, LIKE MY LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER, I CAN COMMIT TO COMING IN PERSON FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR.
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WITH HIGHER DENSITY? I'M SORRY, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? JUST, I MEAN, I SEE YOU GUYS SPACED OUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE'S SPACED OUT LIKE SIX PEOPLE.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S, I MEAN, ARE WE ALL, IT'S LITERALLY, LIKE, I COULD TOUCH HER SHOULDER.
LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE, OR COULD YOU FOCUS ON ME FOR A SECOND, ADAM? OH, IT'S YEAH.
LIKE I COULD REACH OUT AND TOUCH YOUR SHOULDER.
IT'S NOT FAR, IT'S NOT THAT FAR.
LIKE IF WE LEANED, WE COULD EASILY HAVE FIVE.
SO ARE WE ALLOWED TO KNOW? UM, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT ARE WE ALLOWED TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, VACCINATION STATUS OR CAN PEOPLE VOLUNTEER THAT INFORMATION? OF COURSE SOMEONE COULD VOLUNTEER, BUT WE'RE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO ASK.
I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT RIGHT? MR. SIMMONS.
ARE THERE ANY ISSUES, ANYONE I'LL GO AHEAD AND REPRESENT THAT I'M VACCINATED, RICHARD? LIKEWISE, THAT MAKES ME HAPPY.
AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT JUST FROM MY, FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE ALL FACING OUTWARD.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE SITTING AROUND A TABLE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER.
SO EVEN, UM, WELL I KNOW I KEEP THEM HERE FOR Y'ALL I THINK,
[02:05:01]
YEAH.UM, I THINK, YEAH, I THINK WE JUST LIKE, YEAH, WE'RE TOGETHER.
WELL, I REALLY APPRECIATED THE BEING ABLE TO BE REMOTE.
UM, I HAVE, UM, HAD A FEW PEOPLE ADOPT BACK IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF COVID, UH, IN MY WIFE AND, UH, MY FAMILY IS MORE HYBRIS, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING ABLE TO BE HOME.
UH, AND I WAS REALLY SURPRISED BECAUSE I ACTUALLY LIVED PRETTY CLOSE TO CITY HALL THAN I WAS PREPARED.
I WAS, I WAS, UH, TALKING TO MYSELF, UH, TO GO AND THEY ALREADY HAD SIX PEOPLE.
SO I WAS, I WAS VERY GRATEFUL.
UH, I THOUGHT THIS WORKED VERY WELL.
I THOUGHT YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF FACILITATING THIS AT WORK WE'RE BY OURSELVES.
CAN YOU HEAR US? CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? OKAY.
AND YOU GUYS WERE JUST GONE THERE FOR A MINUTE.
I KNOW IT LOOKS OH, THERE WE GO.
SO BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR, I'M SORRY, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL.
WELL, WHY WOULD YOU SAY, AND I THINK YOU DID A NICE JOB OF, OF CHAIRING THIS MEETING, BUT I THOUGHT THIS RAN VERY WELL AND I, I, I BETTER THAN I WAS EXPECTING IT TO.
AND THE ONE THING THAT, THAT I WAS HOPING WE COULD GET MAYBE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING IS, IS A CLARITY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF A PHYSICAL CORM ON THE DICE WITH THE, WITH THE FULL QUORUM OF THE, OF THE BODY.
MEANING THAT OCCASIONALLY FROM TIME TO TIME DURING MEETINGS, WHEN WE HAVE A FULL PHYSICAL QUORUM, SOMEBODY WILL LEAVE THE DIOCESE AND IT DOESN'T BREAK QUORUM.
AND SO BE GOOD TO, IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW FOR SURE.
I THINK I COULD TELL YOU BOARD MEMBER, UH, THAT, UH, AS LONG AS WE HAVE A CORE I'M AVAILABLE FOR A VOTE, AN ACTUAL VOTE, I THINK IT'S OKAY FOR SOMEBODY TO LEAVE DURING A CONSIDERATION OF AN ITEM, BUT, BUT AS LONG AS WE HAVE AT LEAST SIX FOLKS ON THE DIOCESE FOR THE ACTUAL VOTE ITSELF.
HEY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR, UH, MAYBE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE ONE MORE PERSON TO BE PRESENT.
THEN I, I, I, I DIDN'T WANT TO, I, I CAN'T, UM, SORT OF MOVE WHY CAN'T BADGER OR FORCE ANYONE TO COME.
SO I DID ASK, BUT IF ANYONE IS AT HOME RIGHT NOW IS WILLING TO COME IN, JUST IN CASE WE'RE MISSING ONE PERSON, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A VERY NARROW MARGIN.
SO IF ONE PERSON DOESN'T SHOW UP A FENDER BENDER OR WHATEVER, WHERE WE HAVE TO CANCEL THE MEETING.
SO, UH, ELAINE WILL BE SENDING EMAIL OUT FOR THAT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WHO IS AT LEAST HERE.
NOW WE'LL BE HERE NEXT MONTH AND SEE IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO JOIN US.
I JUST NEED TO, UM, CONSULT WITH MY FAMILY BEFORE MAKING THAT DECISION.
AND, UH, ELAINE, DO WE HAVE THE OPTION OF BOARD MEMBERS SITTING AT THE FRONT TABLE HERE? I KNOW THEY'RE DOING THAT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, LISA SIMMONS AGAIN, UM, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.
I BELIEVE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT REQUIRES THAT BOARD MEMBERS BE VISUALLY, UM, GOTCHA.
SET THAT THE CAMERA CAN PICK THEM UP ON THE DIOCESE AND THE DIOCESE IS THE EASIEST PLACE.
WE STILL HAVE THE ONE SEAT THERE ON THE FAR.
SO I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, UH, FAR AWAY.
JUST ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
I'M WONDERING IF ANYONE THAT'S PHYSICALLY PRESENT, UH, WANTS TO BE ALLEVIATED FROM, FROM THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NEXT OR THE NEXT SESSION.
IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE COMFORTABLE SPINNING HERE IN THIS PART.
AND AGAIN, YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO COME, UH, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OFFER, BY THE WAY.
I WISH I COULD TAKE IT, BUT, UM, I WOULD JUST GOING TO ADD, I THINK THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE IT'S AN EVOLVING SITUATION, SO I MIGHT BE COMFORTABLE NOW.
MAYBE WON'T BE COMFORTABLE IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER.
SO, UM, WE'LL JUST KEEP LOOKING OUT FOR COMMUNICATION, I THINK.
I JUST, I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY THAT, UM, I AM, UH,
[02:10:02]
IF I'M GOING TO BE A PERIOD AT ALL, I PREFER TO BE IN PERSON, BUT I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE FOR MY VIEW THAT I THINK WE NEED TO TOTALLY RESPECT THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT AND WANT TO BE HYBRID.AND IF WE HAVE TO CANCEL, BECAUSE THERE'S NO QUORUM, WE HAVE TO CANCEL BECAUSE THERE'S NO QUORUM.
I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY PRESSURE.
THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
I WANT PEOPLE TO BE SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FOR ME.
IT'S AS SIMPLE AS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY MY ATTENDANCE IS SO GOOD FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF IS BECAUSE COVET KEPT ME OFF THE ROAD.
THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT AS THINGS IMPROVE I'LL BE, BUT UNTIL THAT TIME I'M ABLE TO, BUT UNTIL THAT TIME, I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY TO COME IN PERSON, MADAM CHAIR.
I DO LIKE THE HYBRID SITUATION BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS I HAVEN'T BEEN AT THE MEETINGS IS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ATTENDING MORE THAN ONE FUNERAL THAT I CARED TO DUE TO THE COVID.
AND I DO HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE IMMUNOCOMPROMISED.
SO I KNOW THAT THIS WORKED REALLY WELL TONIGHT.
UH, AS, AS MATTER OF FACT, I PERSONALLY FELT IT PROBABLY WENT A LITTLE BIT SMOOTHER THAN WE WERE ALL ONLINE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK A LANE FOR THAT.
WE'VE BEEN STRESSING ABOUT THIS FOR LIKE THE ENTIRE PAST WEEK.
LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT'S GOING ON? I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT IN ANY ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON IT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS PROCESS SEEMED TO WORK VERY WELL.
AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB MODERATING AND KEEPING US ALL IN LINE.
AND, UH, I THINK WE STEP ON EACH OTHER MORE WHEN WE'RE ALL ON ZOOM, UM, IN THIS FORMAT.
SO, I MEAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU ELAINE, FOR EVERYTHING YOU DID.
CAUSE SHE DID GET BACK TO ME ON IT AND ALLEVIATED A LOT OF MY CONCERNS.
YOU KNOW, MY, MY CHILDREN ALWAYS TOLD ME I HAVE TO BE DRUG OUT OF THE CAVE TO LEARN TECHNOLOGY.
SO, UH, IT'S UH, IT WAS, IT WAS A VERY GOOD MEETING TONIGHT.
IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK THE MACARTHUR.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ON MY SON TO NOTE TO ELAINE, BECAUSE EVEN LAST WEEK STATE ACCEPTED TESTIMONY BY ZOOM ON THE VOTING ISSUES.
AND I'M CURIOUS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC HAVING TO BE THERE IN PERSON.
AND TO BE HONEST, THAT'S A CONCERN I, SEVERAL OF US SHARE.
UM, WE, I WENT TO ELAINE AND I ALSO TALKED TO MR. SIMMONS AND THAT THE CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT REQUIRES FOR EVEN JUST THIS HYBRID PART THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY.
IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY WRITTEN INTO THE STATE LAW, SO STATE'S NOT DOING IT.
UH, I KNOW THAT THE IT'S NOT THE FIRST HYPOCRITICAL THING THAT THE STATE AND I'LL THROW THAT OUT THERE.
THE STATE LEGISLATURE GETS TO MAKE THEIR OWN RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
UH, IT, YEAH, IT'S GOING UP MY MOUTH.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE PUBLIC COULD TESTIFY, LIKE IN A SEPARATE AREA WITH THAT? IS THAT ENOUGH ON SITE? I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE, UH, AT LEAST AUDIO RECORDED AND PROBABLY TELEVISED AS WELL.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. SUMMONS? YES.
SO THEY HA THEY HAVE TO BE ON CAMERA.
THE, THE, UH, THE EMERGENCY, UH, WAIVERS TO TOMA, UH, DURING THE PANDEMIC, BY THE GOVERNOR, WHAT ALLOWED US TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY VIA PHONE WHILE WE WERE ALL MEETING VIA ZOOM, BUT WHILE WE'RE ACTUALLY MEETING IN PERSON, THIS IS HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO, MAYBE IT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE CONCERN TO HAVE THE PUBLIC PRESENT ONLY AT THE TIME OF THEIR TESTIMONY INSTEAD OF WAITING TO TESTIFY.
SO UNFORTUNATELY LOOKED INTO THAT AS WELL.
WE CAN'T ACTUALLY CLOSE IT TO THE PUBLIC.
SO LIKE ANYBODY CAN WALK IN HERE.
I MEAN, UH, THERE MIGHT EVEN BE SOME ARGUMENT IF THERE WERE TOO MANY SPACES BETWEEN SEATS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING ANYONE ELSE.
WE'LL PROBABLY FOLLOW THE SAME FORMAT NEXT MONTH.
I'VE GOT A FEW NOTES FOR MYSELF AS WELL THAT HOPEFULLY WILL MAKE THINGS RUN A LITTLE BIT SMOOTHER, MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER.
[F-4 Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP).]
UH, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, UH, F FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN UPDATE ON THE RESOLUTION SENT TO COUNCIL FOR THE BOA AFRICAN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.[02:15:01]
SO I CALLED EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD TODAY TRYING TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THIS.AND WHAT I FOUND WAS IS THAT THROUGH A MYSTIQUE, THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT ACTUALLY SENT TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING I WILL BE FOLLOWING UP ON TOMORROW.
I WILL SEND THE RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL AND, UH, ELAINE, IF WE COULD LEAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH, I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THEM.
AND THREE OR FOUR WEEKS TO SEE WHERE THEY, I KNOW THEY'RE ALL AWARE OF IT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THEM DISCUSSING IT ON THEIR CHOP WARD.
SO HOPEFULLY ONCE IT GETS PUT IN FRONT OF THEM AND IT'LL GET SOME RELATIVELY QUICK ACTION FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, THE APPLICATION OR SORRY, APPLICANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WAS E A RESOLUTION WE SENT TO COUNCIL TO HELP LOWER INCOME FAMILIES AND RESIDENTS, UH, BYPASS OR GET A WAIVER, UH, THROUGH A SPECIALIZED FUND FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEES.
SO RESIDENTIAL FEES ARE JUST UNDER A THOUSAND DOLLARS WITH, UH, 809,000,005, RIGHT? IT'S A PRETTY EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF IF YOU'RE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE IN THAT LOWER, UH, 80% MFI OR 80% OF OUR FIRE LOWER, UH, WOULD FALL A SIMILAR, UH, DESIGNED TO CAP, WHICH IS AUSTIN ENERGY'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, UH, SAME KIND OF GUIDELINES.
AND, UH, THAT BACKUP THAT'S IN THE BACKUP ONLINE FROM THE JANUARY MEETING, RIGHT, JANUARY, 2021, WE COULD PROBABLY, WOULD YOU MIND EMAILING THAT OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS JUST SO THEY COULD LOOK OVER IT FOR THE NEW FOLKS CAN BE FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT THAT'S THE UPDATE FOR THAT.
SO I WILL TELL YOU ALL MORE ABOUT IT NEXT MONTH AND, UM,
[F-5 Discussion and possible action to form a BOA Workgroup to review and propose changes to BOA Appeals (including, but not limited to, process and fees)]
F FIVE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO FORM A BOA WORK GROUP TO REVIEW AND PROPOSE CHANGES TO BLA APPEALS.UH, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY TAKE OFF WAITING FOR NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE BLA NOW FOR THE NEXT AGENDA.
SO WHO WAS SPONSORING THIS LAST TIME BOARD MEMBER VENTOLIN, WEREN'T YOU THE ONE CHAMPIONING THIS, OR WAS THIS A FORMER CHAIR? LEIGHTON BURWELL'S BOROUGH.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE STATUS WAS ON IT EITHER.
SO I GUESS WE SHOULD ASK IF WE WANT TO CREATE A WORK GROUP TO REVIEW, UH, THE PROCESS AND FEES FOR APPEALS, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, MAYBE EXPLORE HOW THEY MIGHT AFFECT, UH, RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTS.
I MEAN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COST OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD OF AN APPEAL, THE APPEAL PROCESSES? YES, IT IS 29, 56 AND 72 CENTS.
AND IS THE APPEAL PROCESS IN THE BI HANDBOOK? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
BUT CAN WE ALSO SEND OUT THE DIGITAL VERSION TO EVERYBODY SO THEY CAN REVIEW IT AND THEN MAYBE NEXT MEETING, WE CAN REVISIT THIS AND DECIDE IF THERE ARE POTENTIAL FLAWS IN THE PROCESS OR POSSIBLY SOME RECOMMENDED FEE STRUCTURE CHANGES THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEND TO COUNCIL.
WOULD EVERYONE BE OKAY WITH THAT? A BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR, DOES THIS INCLUDE INTERPRETATIONS TO, OR JUST APPEALS? APPEALS? OKAY.
I ACTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD INCLUDE INTERPRETATIONS AS WELL.
SO WE'LL LIKE THAT INTERPRETATIONS AND APPEALS.
IF WE CAN ADD THAT LITTLE AMENDMENT TO THE ITEM FOR NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA, PLEASE.
I THINK THAT, UM, I DO FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, IF ARE AT SUCH A LEVEL OF DISSATISFACTION, IT'S A PRETTY LARGE SPEED, PARTICULARLY FOR A HOMEOWNER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, BUT THEN I DO UNDERSTAND THE COST OF SERVICE.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT IT, IT DOES KEEP IT FROM BEING A FRIVOLOUS REQUEST, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT, IT IS IT'S PRETTY HIGH.
I MEAN, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHAT YOUR DUES ARE LIKE 10 BUCKS, PRETTY HIGH FEE, UH, ON PAR WITH A
[02:20:01]
COMMERCIAL VARIANCE FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, WHICH IS ALSO ABOUT $3,000.SO, UH, WELL, VICE CHAIR KIND OF SOUND LIKE YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN BEING ON THAT WORK GROUP.
HUH? I MEAN, I, I, AM I JUST EVER COMMITTED? I HAVE DONE, I HAVE DONE MY FAIR SHARE AND YEAH, I GUESS YOU HAVE.
OKAY, WELL, LET'S PICK IT UP NEXT MONTH.
AND, UH, IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED IN CREATING AND JOINING THE WORK GROUP, WELL, WE'LL GO WITH IT FROM THERE.
[F-6 Discussion and possible action regarding postponed BOA Trainings (including new topic “Area Character”); Staff & PC Coordination Workgroup (Rodriguez, Hawthorne, Von Ohlen & Bailey); and, coordination with COA Planning Staff (including reporting, presentations and general accountability) and Planning Commission (including LDC overlap (e.g. Sign Regulations, etc). (Jan. 2021:]
MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX DISCUSSABLE OR SORRY, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSTPONED BLA TRAININGS, UH, STAFF AND PC COORDINATION WORK GROUP COORDINATION WITH SEAL PLANNING STAFF.SO I THINK, UH, THAT, UH, WORK GROUP CAN PROBABLY BE DONE AWAY WITH, WE WERE STARTING TO GET THINGS ARE STARTING TO COME INTO PLAY NOW WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE TRAINING THAT WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE GETTING STAFF SHOWING UP.
UH, AND I GIVE ALL THE CREDIT TO ELAINE AND DIANE, UH, AS WELL, UH, FOR PUSHING US AS MUCH AS I CAN.
SO I THINK, UH, I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE HOW, UM, HOW MUCH OF WHAT WE CAN DO, UH, AS FAR AS MAKING IT BETTER THAN THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING IN NOW.
I WOULD SUGGEST ALSO FOR THE NEW MEMBERS AGAIN, UH, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING SPECIFIC OR IF YOU'D LIKE BETTER OR MORE ADVANCED TRAINING, UH, ON ONE OF THESE SUBJECTS OR SUBJECTS, THAT'S NOT ON THIS AGENDA, PLEASE EMAIL ELAINE OR ME AND WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.
UM, IT'S KIND OF A TOUGH SPOT.
THERE ARE THINGS YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN.
UM, BY HEARING CASES, YOU KNOW, STUDYING ONLINE A LITTLE BIT YOURSELF, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO READ IT, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE DRIVE, BUT IT'LL TAKE YOU A MONTH OR TWO, IF YOU STICK TO IT SIX HOURS A DAY.
UH, BUT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP JUST LET US KNOW.
AND, UH, IS EVERYONE OKAY IF WE TAKE THAT OFF THE DISCUSSION FOR NEXT MONTH AND YOU WANT TO POSE IT? I SHOULD ASK.
STRIKE OF SIX OFF THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH.
[F-7 Announcements]
ANNOUNCEMENTS, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY.THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING DOWN AND DOING THE IN-PERSON PART.
OH, ONE THING I DID ECHO THAT AS WELL.
ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, UH, THAT BOARD MEMBER SMITH BROUGHT UP EARLIER ABOUT THE TWO OPPOSITIONS THAT HE MENTIONED, UH, JUST A GENTLE REMINDER.
I'M SURE EVERYONE'S THE, BUT JUST IN CASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU READ YOUR BACKUP BEFORE YOU COME TO THE MEETING BECAUSE IT'LL MAKE YOUR LIFE SO MUCH EASIER THAN HAVING TO DEAL WITH COMPUTERS, BUT LIKE INTERMITTENTLY WON'T DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILES, LIKE HAPPENED TO ME TONIGHT.
SO IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, YOU CAN GO OFF MEMORY A LITTLE BIT AND THEN F
[F-8 Discussion of future agenda new business items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests]
EIGHT DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDA, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS, STAFF REQUESTS, AND POTENTIAL SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AND OUR WORKSHOP OR CLASS, ANY NEW BUSINESS ITEMS, FUTURE AGENDA, NEW BUSINESS ITEM, ANYONE THERE WAS A HANDBOOK MENTIONED, UM, HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN DISTRIBUTED? AND I FORGOT ABOUT IT OR, UM, IT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.SO, SO ON HER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE WHERE IT, THE AGENDAS AND MEMBERSHIPS, IF YOU LOOK OVER IT'S AT THE BOTTOM, LIKE BY THE BYLAWS.
ELAINE, COULD YOU ALSO JUST RESEND THAT TO EVERYBODY? I KNOW I'M GIVING YOU LIKE 10,000 THINGS.
IT JUST, I SEND IT TO EVERY BOARD MEMBER AS, UM, NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M SURE IT, AND UM, NOW I WILL KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR.
AND JUST REMEMBER, Y'ALL COME UP INTO YOUR WEBMAIL OFFICE OR SORRY, OUTLOOK.OFFICE 360 FIVE.COM.
I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING, REDO THE APPLICATION THINGS.
AND SO IT FINALLY JUST ENDED UP BEING THAT PIECE GOT PUT TOGETHER.
UM, THERE ARE REASONS TO UPDATE THE APPLICATION.
THERE'S REASONS NOT TO UPDATE THE APPLICATION.
[02:25:01]
YOU HAVE A SIMPLE CASE AND YOU MAKE SOMEONE GO THROUGH A LOT OF INFORMATION.AND THEN I DUNNO, I WAS LEARNING ABOUT BLOOM.
ASK IF WE DID NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP, WOULD IT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE FORM OF A HYBRID EVENT LIKE THIS? OR COULD IT BE ONLINE QUESTION FOR MR. SIMMONS IS WHAT I HEARD.
UM, I BELIEVE IF YOU WERE CONTEMPLATING ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN DURING THE WORKSHOP THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO THE HYBRID FORMAT LIKE THIS, UH, THAT SAID IF IT'S STRICTLY A WORKSHOP WITH TRAINING AND NO ACTION CONTEMPLATED BY THE BOARD, UH, I'D HAVE TO TALK WITH OUR OPEN RECORDS ATTORNEYS AND FIND OUT FOR YOU.
IF, IF THAT COULD BE ALL VIRTUAL, UH, I'M INCLINED TO THINK.
YES, BUT I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO DOUBLE-CHECK THAT, UM, JUST FROM MEMORY, I'VE BEEN PART OF A WORKSHOP WHERE WE DID HAVE SEVERAL LIKE PHONE CONFERENCE DISCUSSIONS, UH, NOT NECESSARILY A VIDEO CONFERENCING SOLUTION.
I WOULD IMAGINE VIDEO CONFERENCING WOULD BE BETTER.
SO WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, I'M HAPPY TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT FOR YOU.
SO CAN WE ADD THAT TO NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA PLEASE? YES.
CAUSE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN RECANT TAKE ACTION.
THAT TRAINING AND WORKSHOPS ANYHOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN EVEN IF, EVEN IF WE'RE THERE AND THERE'S A QUORUM, IT'S IT VIOLATE THEM OPEN RECORDS.
UH, BUT, UH, AND WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS POTENTIAL CASES COMING IN FRONT OF US.
WE CAN USE PREVIOUS ONES AS EXAMPLES TO TRY TO GET OUR THOUGHTS ACROSS, BUT NOTHING THAT'S COMING UP.
SO I, UM, I DON'T THINK, UM, IT WOULD BE MUCH OF A PROBLEM TO HAVE A HYBRID, UH, TYPE OF TRAINING SESSION AS WELL.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T PLAY A LAWYER ON TV THERE.
IT IS GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY'S FACE.