Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

FOR PATIENTS.

YOU READY? HI, I'M RICHARD .

OH, SURE.

THANKS.

IT IS 5 35

[CALL TO ORDER]

AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.

I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLE.

BROOKE BAILEY.

OH, SHE'S OUT MELISSA HAWTHORNE AND BARBARA MACARTHUR HERE.

RON MCDANIEL.

YEAH.

DARRYL PRUITT.

NOPE.

HERE IS RICHARD SMITH HERE.

MICHAEL VON OLIN HERE.

NICOLE WADE HERE.

KELLY BLOOM HERE.

CARRIE WALLER HERE.

THANK YOU, MISS AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ HERE, JESSICA COHEN HERE.

OKAY.

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.

HAVE A SEAT.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

MADAM CHAIR.

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 VERY MUCH.

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'LL GET YOUR TURN TO SPEAK.

OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM.

[A-1 Staff requests approval August 9, 2021 draft minutes]

THE AUGUST 9TH, 2021 DRAFT MINUTES.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? MOTION? PERFECT.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

SO WHO MADE THE MOTION? I DID.

OKAY.

AND WHO SECONDED? I DID.

I HAVE NO IDEA.

WHO JUST SAID THAT THAT'S RICHARD.

THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MELISSA HOT FORUM WITH A SECOND BY RICHARD SMITH.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HEARTBURN.

YES.

BARBARA MCARTHUR.

YES.

[00:05:01]

RON MCDANIEL.

YES.

DARRELL? YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

RICHARD SMITH.

YES.

MICHAEL VAN OWEN.

I'M GOING TO HAVE STAIN MADAM CHAIR.

I WATCHED THE VIDEO, BUT I WAS NOT PRESENT.

OKAY.

NICOLE LANE? YES.

CARRIE WALLER ALSO ABSTAINING WAS NOT PRESENT KELLY BLOOM.

YES.

LEAN, UH, IT'S SIMPLE MAJORITY TO APPROVE, CORRECT.

THANK YOU NOTES.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

ITEM B ONE.

[B-1 Staff and Applicant requests for postponement and withdraw of items posted on this Agenda]

STOP.

AN APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS ON WITHDRAWAL.

OKAY.

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.

EASY TO SEE.

15 20 21 0 0 5 5 1 2 0 6 WEST STREET.

ALSO WITHDRAWN DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

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.

COOL.

THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY.

SO I'M GOING TO

[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.

UH, SORRY.

NO OBJECTION.

WOULD ANYONE OBJECT? OKAY.

IS MS. BARR PRESENT? HI, COME ON UP.

WE'VE BEEN REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS.

GOOD EVENING.

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.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

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 DEFINES THE SHORELINE AS BEING THE 492.8 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR THAT GOES AROUND LAKE AUSTIN.

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.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

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.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

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 AND THEY HAVE A STRAIGHT, LIKE 40% BUILDING COVERAGE, 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER WHEN IT COMES TO LA, BECAUSE IT IS VERY SLOPED AND SCENIC AND BEAUTIFUL, THEY HAVE SUB CATEGORIES.

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.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THIS IS

[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, IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER.

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.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

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.

AND IT TALKS ABOUT THAT.

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 ET CETERA.

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.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

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 ARE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

THEY ARE EACH OVER ONE ACRE.

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.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SUSAN.

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.

UH, CORRECT.

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.

THANK YOU.

HELLO.

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.

UNDERSTOOD.

YES, I WILL, UM, FIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE AND I WILL GET WITH ELAINE ON IT.

THANK YOU.

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.

UH IT'S BARBARA.

SORRY.

YEAH.

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.

YEAH.

SO LET'S SEE.

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.

YOU NEED 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.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I THINK MELISSA HAS HER HAND UP.

NOPE.

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.

YEAH.

YEAH.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS, UM, WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.

THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING.

OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU.

YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB.

THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY HARD TOPIC AND YOU WERE VERY, VERY CLEAR AND DEMONSTRATED VERY WELL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, BARBARA.

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.

OKAY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

NO, NO MORE QUESTIONS.

OKAY.

THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

OKAY.

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.

GOOD EVENING.

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.

NEXT SLIDE.

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.

NEXT SLIDE.

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.

NEXT SLIDE.

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.

NEXT SLIDE.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

APPRECIATE IT.

SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER BY NONLINEAR, YOGI TABLING THE MOTION FOR A MINUTE WHILE WE ALLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

SURE.

KEY BOARD MEMBER SMITH.

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.

YEP.

THAT'S THAT MIGHT BE WHY I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT.

UM, IT'S IN THE LIGHT BACKUP.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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.

UM, GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

OKAY.

IT'S 1505 HOLLY .

[00:35:21]

SO IT'S, IT'S ON THE NEXT BLOCK EAST OF, OF THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK OF HOLLY AND TAYLOR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

OKAY.

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.

WHO'S BUILDING A PROPERTY.

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.

WE'LL HAVE A MOTION.

YES.

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.

GOTCHA.

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.

I DO PERSONALLY MYSELF.

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.

THAT'S IT.

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.

OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER, BON OLIN WITH A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.

HOT FORM.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

BARBARA MACARTHUR.

YES.

RON MCDANIEL.

YES.

DOW PRET YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

RICHARD SMITH.

YES.

MICHAEL VAN ALLEN.

YES.

NICOLE WADE.

YES.

CARRY A WALLET.

YES.

UM, KELLY BLOOM.

YES.

LET'S SEE.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

A PETITION HAS BEEN GRANTED.

THANK YOU.

GREAT PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT.

[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.

AN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. KINSLER IS THE, FEEL FREE TO TAKE YOUR FIVE AS SOON AS YOUR PRESENTATION'S UP.

OKAY.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO GO TO MY ORIGINAL PACKET TO SHOW A CERTAIN SHEET? OH, WELL, OKAY, COOL.

I'LL START.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

NICE TO SEE YOU.

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.

OKAY.

NEXT TYPOS.

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.

WE CAN'T MOVE 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.

THE ENTIRE LOT IS VERY FLAT.

SO IT'S ALL ZERO TO 15.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

SURE.

OKAY.

AND BOARD MEMBER BLOOM, WHICH, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? IT'S PAGE D TWO DASH SLASH 1515, THE LAST ONE.

GOOD EVENING.

UH, THE THREE STRUCTURES.

COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE FOR THE RECORD? I'M SORRY, MY NAME IS SAM BIRCH.

I'M THE ARCHITECT.

THANKS.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

UH, WE, WE DID LOOK AT THAT.

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.

IT'S NOT ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

OKAY.

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.

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

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.

AND SO THE, THE

[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.

YOU JUST WANT A LARGER HOUSE.

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.

I KNOW I'VE REPRESENTED.

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.

THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

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.

DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD VOTE YES OR NO ON THIS, JUST SIMPLY PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

UH, VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

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.

RIGHT.

WE PUT IN THE FRONT STEP.

YES, MA'AM RIGHT.

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'S IT'S NOT A CLEAR CUT.

YES OR NO.

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.

NO.

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.

OKAY.

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.

SO WE'LL SET THAT ASIDE.

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.

WHAT'D YOU TAKE 24.

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.

YES, SIR.

YEP.

IT'S A 32 THAT ARE, THAT I JUST PROPOSED.

OKAY.

THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU.

AND I THINK SOMEBODY ON THE WEBEX WAS WAITING BEFORE ME.

COOL.

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.

I'M SORRY.

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.

OKAY.

CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY GOING TO COME OFF OF LAGUNA LANE AS WELL.

RIGHT.

IT GETS KIND OF CONFUSING IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT IT, IT ONLY HAS ONE ACCESS POINT BACK THERE.

IT GETS KIND OF SQUIRRELY.

THERE'S A LOT OF THAT.

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.

OH, I'M SORRY.

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.

AND THEY'RE SMALLER.

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