Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

30

[CALL TO ORDER]

3:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 8TH, 2021, GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER ORDER.

WOULD YOU HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

TOMMY EIGHTS HERE.

BURKE BAILEY.

SHE'S ON.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN, MELISSA HAWTHORNE HERE.

BARBARA MACARTHUR UP THERE.

RON MCDANIEL HERE.

DARRYL PRET HERE, OBVIOUSLY GINA RODRIGUEZ HERE.

RICHARD SMITH HERE.

KELLY BLOOM HERE.

CARRIE WALLER HERE.

GREAT.

UH, JUST A REMINDER TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'VE SIGNED THE SIGN-IN SIGN-IN SHEET, WHICH ELAINE HAS AND A REMINDER TO THE AUDIENCE.

IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON ANYTHING TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO BE OPERATING A HYBRID MEETING WHERE SOME OF OUR MEMBERS WILL BE HERE PHYSICALLY AND SOME WILL BE VIRTUAL.

UH, I'LL DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS ANYBODY.

UH, PEOPLE ARE HERE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS AND I'LL CALL ON YOU WHEN IT'S YOUR TIME.

UH, AND THEN I'LL MOVE TO THE VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS

[CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

FOR THE AUDIENCE.

PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING WITH THE BOARD, SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, NOT TO EACH OTHER AND SNIDE THE KEYS THOUGHT.

MAYBE WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE A RIGHT SETS IF WE DO, THAT'LL BE ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK FOR 10 MINUTES.

SO ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND.

I'M GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN REAL QUICK.

OKAY.

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 SO MUCH.

SO DON'T THINK, ALL RIGHT, MOVING

[A-1 Staff requests approval October 11, 2021 draft minutes]

ON.

ITEM E ONE IS GOING TO BE APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11TH, 2021 DRAFT MINUTES.

NO, SHE DIDN'T DO IT PRETTY SECOND.

SECOND.

OKAY.

HANG ON ONE SEC.

AND WHO WAS THAT? SECOND.

OKAY.

SO, OKAY.

UM, LET'S SEE, WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 11 TO 2021 DRAFT MINUTES.

THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE SUCKING IN BY ROBIN, DANIELLE ROM MCDANIEL.

SORRY, TOMMY.

IT'S.

OH, YOU'RE CHOOSING THAT.

SORRY.

IT'S BROOKE BAILEY.

IS SHE ON YET? YES, BROOKE.

NO.

WHY YOU CAN'T SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

OKAY.

I SHARE WHAT'S GOING ON.

IT'S GOING IN AND OUT.

OKAY.

UH, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN MAYBE ASSIST HER WITH? YES.

UM, FOR ME, MY BAND IS THE ATEC.

UM, IT'S PROBABLY SIMILAR TO, UH, MS. HAWTHORNE'S ISSUE OR WITH YOUR VIDEO.

UM, IF YOU WANT TO TRY CALLING IN AND MEETING YOUR AUDIO WITH HEADPHONES, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THAT'S AN OPTION FOR YOU, OKAY.

LIVING ON JESSICA COHEN REQUEST, WHAT'S THE NUMBER? ELAINE.

COULD YOU SEND HER THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE DIAL-IN OR SURE.

WHERE TO FIND IT, PLEASE? IS YOUR EMAIL BACK TO APPROVING THE MINUTES, MELISSA? HOW FAR? YES.

ROBERT MACARTHUR?

[00:05:05]

YES.

RON MCDANIEL? YES.

GAL PRUITT? YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

RICHARD SMITH.

YES.

KELLY BLOOM? YES.

CARRIE WALLER ABSTAINING.

I WASN'T PRESENT.

NO PROBLEM.

OKAY.

DRAFT MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

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

MOVING ON TO ITEM BEING ONE.

UH, ELAINE, DID WE HAVE ANY POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS? SORRY, I'M TRYING TO SEND THIS TO BROOKE.

UM, YES.

LET ME SEE.

WE HAVE, UM, ONE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT.

UM, ITEM C ONE C 16 DASH 2 0 2 1 DASH 0 0 1 1 21 11 RIO GRANDE STREET.

THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TIL DECEMBER 13TH, 2021.

AND THEN WE HAVE A WITHDRAWAL E ITEM E SEVEN, C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 9, 8 5200 MCKINNEY FALLS PARKWAY.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE HAWTHORN HARRIS SECOND.

OKAY.

THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE PUP POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM C ONE C 16, 20 21 0 0 1 1 2, DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 AT AUSTIN CITY HALL AND A WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM EAST SEVEN C 15 20 21 0, 0 98.

TOMMY IT'S.

YES, BOOK BAILEY, BROOKE.

STILL NOT WORKING THUMBS UP, BUT I CAN SEE YOU I'LL COME BACK.

UH, JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORN.

YES.

BARBARA MACARTHUR.

YES.

RON MCDANIEL.

YES.

YES.

GAIL PRUITT? YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

RICHARD SMITH.

YES.

KELLY BLOOM.

YES.

CARRIE WALLER.

YES.

AND I'M A YES.

SORRY.

I'M TRYING TO SWITCH MY AUDIO.

OKAY.

WE HEARD YOU JUST FIND THAT TIME.

JUST FYI.

OKAY.

HOPEFULLY THAT WORKS PERFECTLY POSTPONED ACHIEVE.

[D-1 C15-2021-0100 Ian Ellis 1003 Kinney Avenue]

DO YOU MIND VARIANCES YOU PUBLIC HEARINGS? SO YOU RUN FOR THE FIRST CASE.

FIRST CASE ITEM D ONE C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 1 0 0 1003.

KENNY AVENUE.

WE HAVE AN ELLIS.

UM, AND THEN CHAIR.

AND DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? MADAM CHAIR? THIS IS BOARD NIPPER WALLER.

I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS PRESENTATION, PLEASE.

ABSTAIN FROM THIS.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

OKAY.

YOU'RE READY.

YOU HAVE

[00:10:01]

FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.

SO IT'S THIS REMOTE WORK TO ADVANCE? THE SLIDE SAID PREDICTABLE, HONESTLY, JUST THE NEXT SLIDE WHEN YOU'RE READY.

OKAY.

CAN YOU GO, UM, JUST GO TO THE THIRD SLIDE TO BEGIN.

HELLO.

UH, MY NAME IS IAN ELLIS.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT.

UM, I'M ALSO A LICENSED ARCHITECT, BUT I'M NOT DESIGNING THIS PROJECT OR LICENSED ARCHITECT IS MATT FICUS ARCHITECTURE.

AND TODAY REPRESENTING THEM IS THEIR SENIOR DESIGN ARCHITECT, INGRID GONZALEZ FATHER-SON.

UM, WE'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS, UH, PROJECT WE'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN EXISTING SF THREE LAW THAT IS SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE.

UM, TEEKAT ORIGINALLY SHOWED THIS BY BEING SUBSTANDARD BY 10 SQUARE FEET.

OUR MEASUREMENTS LATER FOUND IT TO BE, UH, A MEASUREMENT OF 5,464 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS LOCATED AT 1003 KINNEY AVENUE.

UH, ON THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SEE THAT WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING ONE VARIANCE, UH, THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE SETBACKS, THE HEIGHTS OR OTHER USES FOR THE SITE.

UM, ON THE DRAWING, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS A PROTECTED TREE IN A CITY OF AUSTIN UNIMPROVED ALLEY TO THE EAST.

UM, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY.

THEY HAVE NO INTENTION TO IMPROVE IT OR ALLOW ANY SORT OF ACCESS TO THE SITE.

SO WHAT WE'VE LEARNED OVER TIME IS THAT THE SITE WAS ORIGINALLY DIVIDED.

IT HAS A VERY OLD PLAT FROM 1896.

UM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD TO, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN ONE AFTER THAT.

SO WITH IT'S BEING DIVIDED SO MANY TIMES AND WITH THE ALLEY THAT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND THEN NEVER IMPROVED, UH, WE DID CHECK WITH THE CITY IF THEY HAD AN INTENTION TO IMPROVE IT, THEY DO NOT.

SO IT SEEMS THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN CUT OVER TIME AS MANY INFILL SITES IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN, HALF THE ALLEY, HOWEVER DOES NOT HELP WHATSOEVER.

SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THERE WAS AN EXISTING, SINGLE STORY HOME.

UH, WE FOUND IT TO BE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR.

IT WAS NOT WORTH RENOVATING OR ADDING TO.

SO WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE THIS HOME TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A POOL, AND WE WERE PUSHING IT AS FAR AWAY FROM HOLLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE EXISTING ALLEY IS ACTUALLY QUITE LOVED BY THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE HERE.

IT'S GOT BEAUTIFUL OLD TREES.

THERE'S THE ONE PROTECTED TREE THERE.

AND, UM, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT WALKABLE NATURE FOR THE SITE.

SO WE'RE REALLY PUSHED LITERALLY INTO A CORNER ONTO WHERE THIS PROJECT IS.

UM, COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? AND AGAIN, SO THIS IS A DOCUMENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT FROM 1896.

THE SITE IS CALLED OUT THERE IN RED.

UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, WE CAN SKIP THROUGH THESE, THESE DRAWINGS ARE HERE JUST AS, UM, DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH, THE EXPEDITED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW.

WE HAVE NO COMMENTS TO CLEAR OTHER THAN THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL.

UM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE SKIP AHEAD TO, UH, PAGE 19.

OKAY.

DOES IT SAY 19 ON THE TOP RIGHT CORNER? UH, THAT'S GREAT.

THAT'S IT? SO THE SITE IS SHOWN IN THE TOP ROW CENTER PHOTOGRAPH IT'S BEEN CLEARED, UM, AFTER WE DEDUCED THAT THIS HOME WAS NOT WORTH RENOVATING OR ADDING ONTO, WE DONATED TO THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO PRACTICE ON.

UM, AFTERWARDS WE WERE ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE HOME TO THE RIGHT ON THAT IMAGE IS THE ALLEYWAY.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE BY HOW MANY TREES THERE ARE THAT THAT ENTIRE UNIMPROVED ALLEYWAY NOW HAS VERY LARGE LIVE OAK TREES AND ELM TREES THROUGHOUT, UM, THE NEIGHBORS REALLY LIKE TO USE IT.

UH, SO WE GOT SOME EXTRA PHOTOS OF CONTEXT AROUND THE SITE, BOTH UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND ACROSS THE STREET.

AND THERE'S A MIX OF VACANT, LOTS OLDER, ORIGINAL HOMES, NEW SPEC HOMES, NEW, SOME NEW MULTIFAMILY AND SOME HIGHER END SPEC HOMES.

BUT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD VARIES QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY FROM LOT TO LOT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

OKAY.

THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE VIEW OF UP, UP AND DOWN THE STREET.

THE BOTTOM ROW SHOWS THE HOMES ACROSS THE STREET ON KENNY AVENUE.

UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND JUST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT, SINCE WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGN THIS IN A WAY THAT'S NOT ONLY RESPECTFUL OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IMMEDIATELY ON THE SITE, WE'RE SHOWING ON THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT, THE OVERALL AREA THAT THE WHITE IS LAMAR UNION.

UH, THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS, THE SITE CALLED OUT IN YELLOW, AND YOU CAN SEE AN UNDEVELOPED AMOUNT OF SPACE WHERE THERE IS THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY THERE.

UM, SO WE'RE PROPOSING A DESIGN THAT PRESERVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S LOVE FOR THE TREE LINE TO ALLIE AND PUSHING THE HOME TO THE CORNER OF A SUBSTANDARD

[00:15:01]

LOT, WHERE, LIKE WE SAID EARLIER, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE EXPEDITED REVIEW.

SO WE'VE CLEARED EVERY COMMENT AND I'M WILLING TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE EXTRA SECONDS BECAUSE OF THE LITTLE SO, YEAH, SO MF ARCHITECTURE IS ARCHITECTURE.

IT HAS A WELL-DOCUMENTED AND LONG HISTORY OF MAKING CONTEXT, CONSIDERATE HOMES IN AUSTIN.

AND THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE OF THEM.

THIS SHOULD HAVE NO DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER, TO THE NEIGHBORS.

WE'VE ALSO SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME DOCUMENTATION OF SUPPORT FOR THIS AS WELL.

UM, SO WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES, LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO A BAD SPEC HOME.

WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING NICE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION, IF I COULD GET YOU GUYS TO JUST STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT SINCE WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE PODIUM? YEP.

HI, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? I'M LORRAINE ATHERTON WITH THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PRESENTED A QUALIFYING HARDSHIP AND BECAUSE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE AMOUNTS TO A PRIVILEGE THAT HAS BEEN DENIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OFFER TWO ALTERNATIVES, ONE ENCOURAGED THE OWNER TO PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE PERSUADE THE CITY TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE ALLEY OR TO LIMIT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO THE DIMENSIONS OF THE DEMOLISHED HOUSE REGARDING THE HARDSHIP DEMOLITION APPLICATION FORMS. NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING ON WHETHER NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT BEFORE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED.

THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBMITTING THE CORRECT LOT DIMENSIONS.

THE HARDSHIP QUESTION IN THIS CASE BOILS DOWN TO WHETHER THE APPLICANT CHECKED THAT PARTICULAR BOX IN ERROR OR THE CITY STAFF APPROVED THE DEMOLITION IN ERROR.

UNLESS THE OWNER AT THE OWNER CAN SHOW THAT STAFF APPROVED THE DEMOLITION AND ERROR.

THERE IS NO HARDSHIP.

IF STAFF MADE THE MISTAKE, THEN THE BEST THE OWNER CAN EXPECT HIS PERMISSION TO REBUILD THE HOUSE TO ITS PREVIOUS DIMENSIONS.

THIS SITUATION IS NOT UNIQUE.

THE APPLICANT SITES 9 0 4 ETHYL AS A COMPARABLE CASE, BUT THAT VARIANCE WAS SOUGHT BEFORE DEMOLITION, NOT AFTER THE BOA DECISION.

IN THAT CASE ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2016 WAS TO LIMIT CONSTRUCTION TO 1,600 SQUARE FEET.

OTHER CASES INCLUDE 15, 16 KENNY, WHERE THE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED PREMATURELY.

THAT VARIANCE WAS DENIED EARLY IN 2016.

THE OWNER EVENTUALLY BOUGHT MORE LAND TO RESTORE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THE Z AND A POSITION IN THAT CASE WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO DISCUSS A VARIANCE TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING HOUSE.

BUT WHEN THE OWNER WENT AHEAD AND DEMOLISHED THE HOUSE, HE REMOVED ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR A HARDSHIP AT 1107, KENNY PARTS OF A LARGER PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD TO ADJACENT PROJECTS, LEAVING A VERY SMALL PARCEL.

THE OWNER APPLIED FOR A SMALL LOT VARIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2009 WITH NO HARDSHIP.

AND WE WITHDREW THE REQUEST AFTER DISCUSSING IT WITH CNA.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIED A SECOND APPLICATION ON JUNE 13TH, 2011, 12, 12, 10 JULIET.

ON THE OTHER HAND IS TYPICAL OF MANY LOTS IN THIS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT QUALIFY AS SUBSTANDARD UNDER 25 TO 9 43.

AND SO DO NOT REQUIRE VARIANCES.

2003.

ARMIDALE IS OUR MOST RECENT SMALL LOCK CASE IN MAY, 2021.

THE HOUSE WAS NOT DEMOLISHED AND NO CONSTRUCT NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS PROPOSED.

WE SUPPORTED THAT REQUEST STRICTLY TO BRING THE EXISTING HOUSE UP TO CODE THE BOA DECISION LIMITED, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND PROHIBITED NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO THE ZONING COMMITTEE REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD DENY THIS VARIANCE AND SUPPORT THE PREFERRED REMEDY, WHICH IS THAT THE APPLICANT PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE PERSUADE THE CITY TO VACATE A SMALL PORTION OF THE ALLEY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE COMMENTS AND FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY CODE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

IF YOU COULD JUST REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

[00:20:01]

OR SORRY, I'M NOT GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING REBUTTAL TWO MINUTES.

SORRY.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE DONE THIS IN PERSON AND STILL GIVING YOU THAT'S OKAY.

UM, SO WHEN WE BEGAN THE PROJECT, WE ACTUALLY CHECKED WITH THE CITY FIRST TO SEE IF WE COULD ACQUIRE THE ALLEYWAY.

THEY FIRMLY SAID NO.

UM, WE CANNOT USE THE ALLEY TO BE PURCHASED BY THE CITY.

THEY ALSO HAVE NO PLAN TO VACATE THE ALLEY AND ABANDON IT EVEN AS A PORTION.

UM, FROM WHAT WE LEARNED, THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET HAD ALSO ATTEMPTED TO EXTEND AND BUILD A DEVELOPABLE ALLEY AND THE 20 FOOT RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S THERE, BUT IT CAN'T BE DONE.

THERE ARE TOO MANY PROTECTED TREES THAT ARE ALREADY IMPACTED BY THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY SIMPLY WON'T GIVE A PORTION OF THE ALLEY BECAUSE THEN THERE IS SOME SORT OF NEED TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF IT, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE OPPOSITE END ARE ALREADY UTILIZING IT, THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY ACCESS.

UM, SO JUST BECAUSE THE PLANT IS FROM 1896 AND IT WAS A MUCH LARGER SITE, IT WAS ALREADY SINGLE FAMILY.

IT WAS ALREADY RESIDENTIAL JUST BECAUSE IT GOT CUT UP INTO A SLIGHTLY SMALLER SITE THAT TEAK HAD THINGS THAT'S ONLY 10 SQUARE FEET, TOO SMALL, BUT WE FOUND IT TO BE A FEW HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, TOO SMALL.

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE HARDSHIP.

WE'RE ALSO DOING OUR BEST TO AVOID THREE TREES.

ONE OF WHICH IS THE PROTECTED TREE IN THE ALLEY.

THAT'S ALREADY HEAVILY IMPACTED BY A NEIGHBOR AND THEIR TEMPORARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.

UM, BUT WE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TRY AND BUY THE ALLEY, ABANDON THE ALLEY, USE THE ALLEY, GET AN EASEMENT FOR THE ALLEY.

AND THERE'S JUST NO WAY.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE TO HAVE THE EXISTING LOT SIZE WORK FOR A HOME THAT WE'VE ALREADY DESIGNED FOR THE SMALLER LOT SIZE USING ALL THE SAME DESIGN STANDARDS.

OKAY.

NOW I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL, UM, LESS OF A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE REBUTTAL, BUT MORE OF, UH, MORE TO THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS.

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY APPROVED REQUESTS LIKE THIS, WHERE, AND WE CONSIDERED THE CONFIGURATION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, A HARDSHIP INTRINSICALLY WHEN IT PREVENTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING THAT WAS OTHERWISE ENCOUNTERED.

SO I WILL BE MAKING A MOTION TO SUPPORT THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES.

BUT WITH THAT, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER FACTORS TO ME ARE SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT, UH, TO WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE THIS CASE.

GOOD QUESTION BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

UM, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEEN WHAT YEAR THE RE SUBDIVISION OCCURRED BECAUSE, UM, IF THIS LOT WAS RE SUBDIVIDED BY 46, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

I KNOW THE HOUSE THAT WAS TORN DOWN WITH BUILT-IN 1962.

AND, UM, I DON'T SEE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED.

DID, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? CAUSE HE'S NODDING AS HIGH? MY QUESTION IS WHEN DID THE REECE SUBDIVISION OCCUR THAT MADE THIS LOT SUBSTANDARD THAT'S ACTUALLY THAT'S INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE STILL, SORRY.

THAT IS INFORMATION THAT WE WERE STILL TRACKING DOWN.

SO WHEN THE PURCHASE OF THE LOT OCCURRED, WE ONLY WERE GIVEN THE PLATTE SURVEY, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL 18 96 1.

UM, AND THEN THE ONE THAT IS ON TEEKAT OR THE ONE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE CITY IS POST 1968.

EXACTLY.

SO WE COULD NOT FIND DOCUMENTATION THAT DIVIDED IT TO A SUBSTANDARD LOT.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR? YES.

THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE.

LET'S SHARE.

WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

THANK YOU.

UH, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND LOOK AT THE DEED HISTORY BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD HAVE ALTERED.

AND IF YOU KNEW WHAT YEAR IT HAD ALTERED, AND IF IT HAD UTILITY SERVICE, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPLY UNDER THE 97 RULE, UH, FOR ILLEGAL BOT STATUS.

UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

SO DID YOU ALL MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE HAVE NOT, WE'VE ONLY JUST MET INFORMALLY WITH A HANDFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NEARBY.

UM, DID, UH, DOES THAT PERSON SUGGEST THAT YOU MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? NO.

OUR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STAFF, UM, DIDN'T EVEN LET US KNOW THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANDARD LOT UNTIL WE WERE WEEKS INTO THE PROCESS WITH THEM.

UM, SO THAT IS THE DOCUMENTATION.

THAT'S ALSO BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET OF INFORMATION WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND WHAT IS ALLOWABLE AND NOT ALLOWABLE TO BUILD ON THIS LOT.

SO TYPICALLY WHEN, UH, ELAINE, OUR WONDERFUL STAFF PERSON WOULD TELL YOU THAT, THAT IT'S HIGHLY

[00:25:01]

ENCOURAGED TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

SO WHEN THE TIME COMES, I'LL BE MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

SO YOU CAN MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP, UM, ON THE, UH, ON THE COVER SHEET FOR THE PLANS, IT SHOWS AN LLC.

IS THAT AN LLC? YOU'RE A MEMBER OF, YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO THIS ISN'T SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO BE RESIDING AT.

THAT'S NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION, BUT NO, THE GOAL IS TO BUILD A HOME FOR SALE, WHETHER IT GETS SOLD TO ONE OF US IN THE LLC, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT IS UNDETERMINED RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

OKAY.

AND, UM, OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION SHIRT.

UH, MELISSA'S MOTION WOULD SUPERSEDE MINE.

SO MAYBE I'LL WAIT.

SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR POST BOWMAN TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WITH IT BEING THE MONTH OF THANKSGIVING IS STILL THE NEXT MEETING ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO DO THAT.

AND I GUESS I PROBABLY SHOULD ASK, UM, THE OPPOSITION THAT QUESTION AND Y'ALL, I'LL JUST STEP OVER TO THE LEFT.

THANK YOU.

UH, LORRAINE ATHERTON, UH, WITH CNA.

WELL, WHAT WAS THE TIMEFRAME? WELL, THE NEXT MEETING IS TYPICALLY THE SECOND MONDAY, DECEMBER 13.

UM, I MEAN WITH THE HOLIDAY, I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE, UH, YEAH, WE CAN WORK.

WE COULD WORK SOMETHING OUT.

I'M SURE.

OKAY.

I JUST HAVE ONE, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE HOLIDAYS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN IMPOSITION TO, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK, SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL DECEMBER 13TH, A SECOND TIME.

YEAH.

THEY EMOTION TO POSTPONE TILL DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 IN AUSTIN CITY HALL MOTION WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER.

PRUITT.

TOMMY IS QUITE A POINT OF ORDER.

MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE DISCUSS THIS MOTION FOR ONE SECOND BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT? SO CAN SOMEONE UNPREPARED TO POSTPONE IT? THAT'S FINE.

BUT CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH FOR EITHER THE OPPOSITION OR THE APPLICANT AND POSTPONING THIS MO THIS MOTION? IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT'S OUTSTANDING OR COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE FOR ANYONE ON THIS DICE OR ANYONE VIRTUALLY BASED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF A POSTPONEMENT AND A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS APPLICANT? BECAUSE MY, MY, MY QUESTION NOT TO PUT TOO FINE, A POINT ON IT, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE, WHO I'M A BIG FAN OF AND AGREE WITH MOST OF THE TIME, IF WE'RE HOLDING THIS CASE AS OUR BITTERS OR MEDIATORS, RATHER THAN JUDGES IN A PROCEEDING, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S FAIR TO THE APPLICANT EITHER BECAUSE WE'RE OUTSOURCING OUR ROLE TO SOMEONE I CAN, I CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU MY, MY DECISION ON WHY I THINK IT SHOULD BE POSTPONED.

UM, I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE COMING BEFORE THE BOARD AND NOT HAVING TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR NOT, BUT WE'VE, WE HAVE ENCOURAGED THAT A LOT.

UM, I THINK THE WAY THIS WAS PRESENTED, UH, WITH MR. ELLIS CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER, BUT IT'S REALLY AN LLC AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT A RESIDENCE.

IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A DEVELOPMENT DEAL.

UM, GIVEN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK IT'S AN IMPERATIVE THAT THEY GO AND THEY GET NEIGHBORHOOD BUY IN.

I THINK THAT ONCE YOU, YOU START TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE SOME IDEAS, UH, AND THESE PLANS MAY CHANGE AND THEY GET BUY IN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THEY COME BACK NEXT MONTH AND THEY SAY, EVERYBODY'S AGREED ON IT.

MADAM CHAIRMAN, I RESPOND TO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A FAIR, I THINK THAT IS A VERY FAIR POINT.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU

[00:30:01]

AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

THEY SHOULD HAVE, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT OR WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

I I'M, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW IT'S RELEVANT TO, I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE EVENTUAL RESIDENT OR THE OWNER OF AN LLC, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE PUTTING.

SO AT ANY RATE OF THAT, IF I MAY, UH, THOSE TRAIL HAWTHORNE, WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING TO YOUR MOTION? IS THERE A SPECIFIC BIT OF INFORMATION YOU WERE LOOKING FOR OR SOME SORT OF NEGOTIATION YOU WOULD HOPE TO SEE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES? WELL, NORMALLY, UH, IT IS CUSTOMARY THAT YOU WOULD MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO THE CASE BEING HEARD.

I ALSO THINK THAT A BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR WANTING TO KNOW WHEN THE LOT SPLIT, IF THE, A LOT SPLIT, UH, AND THEY CAN USE THE NAGI SEVEN RULE AND GET A LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION, THEY CAN WITHDRAW THE CASE.

UM, SO I THINK IT'S TWOFOLD, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S POLITE AND CUSTOMARY THAT HAVE BEEN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION COMES IN IF THERE'S ONE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, AND I ALSO THINK THAT IN A CASE WHERE YOU HAVE, UH, A SMALL LOT, THAT THERE NEEDS TO ALSO BE THE LIMITATION TO THE FAR OF WHAT IS THE AVAILABLE LOT WHILE THAT MAY NOT MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE, IT, IT SOMETIMES DOES.

UM, SO I THINK THERE'S A FEW THINGS HERE AND, AND I JUST FEEL THAT WAY.

THANKS FOR NUMBER MACARTHUR.

I WOULD LIKE IT IF WHEN AN APPLICANT CAME, THEY HAD MORE EVIDENCE OF WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR A WHILE, AND I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE DETERMINED WHEN THIS WAS SUBDIVIDED.

AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING FROM THE CITY THAT SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T VACATE THE ALLEY RATHER THAN JUST A VERBAL COMMENT.

CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S MANY PLACES IN OTHER PARTS OF BOSTON WHERE THE CITY HAS VACATED THE ALLEYS ON OTHER PROJECTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE I WROTE IT FOR THE PROJECT, UH, JUST REAL QUICK.

AND YOUR BACKUP, THERE ARE SOME EMAILS BETWEEN CITY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THE REFUSAL TO VACATE THE ALLIANZ IN THERE.

UM, RIGHT.

IT'S LIKE, IT'S, IT IS IT'S IN THE THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WE ALSO ALREADY, THE SITE PLAN EXEMPTION AFTER THE CITY TOLD US THEY WOULD NOT VACATE THE ALLEY.

SO WE'VE TRIED FORMALLY TO GET THE ALLEY AND WE WERE TOLD IT CANNOT BE GOTTEN RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT'S LINKED INTO THE CASE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, BOARD MEMBER SMITH? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ELLIS.

UH, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN ABOUT THIS OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? UM, A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING LIVE.

OKAY.

WHICH I THINK MIGHT BE SPEAK TO THE REASON WHY WE SHOULD TRY TO TALK TO HER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE COMING.

MAYBE.

I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I DON'T FIND THIS ASK TO BE THAT LARGE.

I SUPPORT IT, BUT I'LL ALSO SUPPORT THE POSTPONEMENT.

JUST SO YOU GUYS HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK.

I JUST, ONE MORE COMMENT AND MAYBE A QUESTION, UM, IF WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE IS THAT THE ZONING, UH, THE ZONING THAT'S APPLICABLE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

UM, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR, I THINK THAT'S A HARD SELL FROM ME.

UH, IF YOU WANT TO, AS YOU'RE TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, TRY TO DEVELOP THAT PART OF YOUR CASE A LITTLE BIT MORE.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL WHEN WE, WHEN YOU WOULD COME BACK.

I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE.

I UNDERSTAND.

CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT OF SURE.

IN ORDER, IN ORDER TO, TO GRANT A VARIANCE, THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, ONE OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS BODY HAS TO MAKE IS THAT THE EXISTING ZONING RULES DO NOT ALLOW THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, UH, TO HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A FINDING ON.

WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT FINDING IN ORDER TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.

UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME OTHER POINTS THAT YOU'VE MADE TONIGHT, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

AND SO IT WOULD BE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

SO I, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY

[00:35:01]

BECAUSE I THINK MY AUNT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS THAT THE SFP ZONING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,750 IS THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THEIR LOT SIZES SMALLER, AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE IT FROM SF THREE TO SOMETHING ELSE AND TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THE EXISTING SIZE, BECAUSE IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE CUT DOWN TO BE AS SMALL AS IT IS AND MAINTAIN THE SAME ZONING CURRENTLY, DOESN'T LET US DESIGN A HOME ON IT BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

SO WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING, BUT JUST DIFFERENTLY.

WELL, I THINK THE, THE, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR POSITION IS THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING ON IT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND IT'S SF THREE, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAYING THAT'S THEN THAT THAT'S THE, WE, YEAH, WE WERE TOLD BY AN R EXPEDITED BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW THAT WE CANNOT BUILD A HOME ON THIS SITE BECAUSE IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LAZZARA.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIZE HOUSE WE MAKE.

WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

OKAY.

YEAH.

I THINK YOU HAVE MADE, YOU MAY HAVE DISCOVERED THE CRUX OF WHY THIS PARTICULAR CASE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT SHOULD BE POSTPONED, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE POSTPARTUM VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SO IN 25, 4 DASH TWO THEY'RE EXEMPT, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FROM PLANNING AND AS THERE WAS A HOUSE THERE THAT HAD UTILITY SERVICE, IF YOU GO TO, UH, TRAVIS COUNTY AND FOLLOWED THE DEED HISTORY, AND THAT OCCURRED BEFORE AUGUST 8TH, 1992, AND YOU CAN GET A LEGAL LOT STATUS FOR THE PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONFUSED ABOUT BECAUSE ALSO IN OUR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, WE WERE TOLD EXPLICITLY BY THE REVIEWER, DESPITE ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION THAT WE GAVE THEM AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE THROUGH ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY, THAT THIS IS THE ONLY WAY.

SO EITHER THE REVIEWER IS CONFUSED OR THE INFORMATION SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST, BUT WE COULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.

OKAY.

SO TYPICALLY WHEN A PROPERTY DIVIDES, THERE IS SOME HISTORY I PAPER THAT IS FILED AT THE COUNTY AND YOU HAVE THE, THE 92 AND YOU HAVE THE 87 RULE.

SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU RESEARCHED THAT AS WELL.

CAUSE YOU CAN JUST FOLLOW THE DEED CHAIN.

YOU HAVE YOUR DEED, YOU GO TO THE DEED BEFORE YOU GO TO THE, YOU FIND WHERE THE DESCRIPTION ALTERED, BUT IF YOU HAD UTILITY SERVICE AND IT DIDN'T CHANGE BEFORE EITHER OF THOSE TWO DATES, THEN YOU COULD APPLY FOR A LEGAL LOT STATUS, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO WITHDRAW THIS CASE.

YEAH.

I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT T CAT SHOWS IT AS 57 40.

UM, AND YOU DIDN'T DISCOVER THAT UNTIL YOU WERE SURVEYING THE PROPERTY FOR YOUR PROJECT.

HAVE YOU GONE TO T CAT TO TRY TO GET THAT VERIFIED OR CHANGED? UM, NO, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, AS AN ARCHITECT, WORKING IN AUSTIN, THE TICKET NUMBERS ARE VERY FREQUENTLY NOT ACCURATE WHEN A SURVEY IS PERFORMED.

UM, AND JUST BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT TAKES SURVEYS TO OCCUR, WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THE ACTUAL LOT DIMENSIONS UNTIL MUCH LATER.

OKAY.

SO WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT, YOU WERE ASSUMING IT WAS ONLY 10 FEET UNDER A LOT? YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, PORT NUMBER BLOOM.

SORRY.

SO TO CONFIRM, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED, YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP AT A 42.1% FLOOR AREA RATIO.

DO YOU HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DROP THAT TO A 0.4 TO 40%? WE WERE AT FAULT, WE WERE FOLLOWING THE SUBCHAPTER F THE 20, THAT IT COULD BE THE 0.4 OR 2300 IN WHICH WHETHER ONE IS ALLOWABLE.

SO THAT, THAT'S WHY IT'S SHOWN AS 42.1, BECAUSE THAT'S THE EXACT PERCENTAGE FOR US TO GET THAT 2300.

OKAY.

THANKS THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

OKAY.

SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

DID I MISS ONE? WE DIDN'T MISS.

YEAH.

I JUST HAVE ONE, ONE ITEM.

SO ON CASES LIKE THIS, WHERE YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT SIZE, UM, I TYPICALLY DO LOOK AT THE 0.4 TO ONE.

I DON'T GO WITH THE MAXIMUM ONE A LOT,

[00:40:01]

BUT SUBSTANDARD JUST DOESN'T AND A MENTAL NOTE.

OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT.

MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL 12, 13, 20, 21 MADE BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SECONDARY BY BOARD MEMBER.

PUT TOMMY.

YES.

BRETT BAILEY.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

BARBARA MCARTHUR.

YES.

YES.

RON MCDANIEL.

SURE.

DALE PROT.

YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ C RICHARD SMITH.

I WILL GIVE A YES, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I'M VERY TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAITED UNTIL TONIGHT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IN OUR PACKET.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO PREPARE FOR IT.

AND I'M JUST TROUBLED BY THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO YOU OR, UH, WHAT HAVE YOU, SO OR BOARD MEMBER SMITH? THIS IS THE LIAISON.

UM, THEY, THE APP, THE OPPOSITION LETTER WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE DEADLINE TO HAVE IT UPLOADED.

SO, UM, I ASKED HER TO COME AND SPEAK TO YOU GUYS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GET SUBMITTED TILL AFTER THE DEADLINE TO HAVE IT UPLOADED FOR YOU GUYS TO VIEW W ONE COMMENT TO ADD TO THAT IN THAT CASE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, HOW DID THEY COME TO THE PODIUM AND ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT TO STUDY IT? I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD NOT HAVE REACTED THIS WAY.

JUST, JUST AS AN FYI COMING SORT OF IN BROAD OPPOSITION PRIOR TO A MEETING, LIKE THIS SEEMS LIKE BAD FORM.

LET, LET ME FINISH COLIN, PLEASE.

UH, CARRIE WALLER, I'M ABSTAINING FROM THIS, PLEASE.

CAN YOU AND KELLY BLOOM YES.

A HUNDRED SIMPLE MAJORITY TO POSTPONE, RIGHT? CORRECT.

UM, I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, MADAM CHAIR, GO AHEAD.

AND SO THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS WHEN YOU FILE A CASE THAT NOTICE GOES OUT, WHEN DO NOTICES GET MAILED OUT 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING? SO CHANCES ARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PROBABLY GOT THAT NOTICE ON FRIDAY.

SO OUR MEETING IS ON MONDAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE.

IF THE APPLICANT DIDN'T CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ABOUT A CASE WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES, THAT YOU CAN LAY THAT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN, IN THAT WAY.

I MEAN, THEY MAY NOT HAVE DONE ABOUT THE CASE UNTIL THEY GOT THE NOTICE.

AND AS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO BEEN ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD, YOU KNOW, YOU GET A NOTICE AND YOU'RE DROPPING THINGS THAT ARE IN YOUR LIFE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE SOMEONE ELSE.

SO I, I JUST THINK, UM, THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN A LITTLE HEAVY.

THANK YOU, VICE TRIP.

OKAY.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 13TH HAS BEEN GRANTED.

SO, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU GUYS BACK HERE NEXT MONTH.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM.

OKAY.

NEXT ITEM

[E-1 C15-2021-0056 Chase & Andrea Hamilton 3006 Glenview Avenue]

ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM E ONE C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 5 6, 3006 GLENVIEW AVENUE.

WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, ANDREA HAMILTON.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A BEARANCE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

HI, GOOD EVENING.

HI, YOU GOT FIVE MINUTES.

GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES, I DO.

ONE SEC.

LET'S GET THAT ON THE SCREEN REAL QUICK.

OKAY.

AND WHEN YOU NEED THEM BEFORE I JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

UM, JUST A BRIEF INTRODUCTION.

MY NAME IS ANDREA HAMILTON, AS SHE SAID, I'VE LIVED IN THIS HOME SINCE 2011 WITH MY HUSBAND AND OUR TWO KIDS.

WE HAVE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTPONED AND BEEN THROUGH THE MEETING PROCESS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND WHAT I'M PRESENTING TODAY IS THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE COME TO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NO OPPOSITION FROM THEM.

SO THIS HAS BEEN IN YOUR PACKET, BUT JUST TO CLICK THROUGH, UM, WE CAN GO ON AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THAT'S UM, SO WE BUILT A NEW HOUSE IN 2015, AND WHAT'S UNUSUAL ABOUT GLEN VIEW AVENUE IN BREAKER WOODS IS THAT IT IS A STREET THAT HAS NO CURB CUTS AT ALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET,

[00:45:01]

THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET, EVERY HOUSE HAS A CURB CUT AND A DRIVEWAY, BUT EVERYONE WITH A HOME ON THE WEST SIDE ACCESSES THEIR PARKING FROM JEFFERSON AVENUE.

SO IT'S GREAT FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT TO LIVE THERE, BUT, UM, PARKING IS A CHALLENGE.

SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS TO BUILD A GARAGE ON THE REAR OF OUR PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A THROUGH LOT, THERE IS A RESTRICTION IT'S A 25 FOOT BUILDING LIMIT ON BOTH SIDES OF OUR HOUSE.

SO BASICALLY OUR FRONT AND BACKYARD ARE BOTH TREATED LIKE A FRONT YARD FROM A SETBACK STANDPOINT.

SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS JUST AN OLD, UM, SURVEY TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS AND WHERE THE PARKING WAS AND THEN WHERE IT IS TODAY.

UM, THE ORIENTATION IS ODD BECAUSE WHEN I WAS PLACING IT, I COULDN'T LINE THEM UP WITHOUT MAKING ALL THE WORDS UPSIDE DOWN.

BUT THE NEW PARKING STRUCTURE IS IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE OLD PARKING STRUCTURE, BUT WE HAD TO MAKE IT LARGER TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S TO OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO IT'S A PARKING PAD WHICH COULD BE BUILT IN THE SETBACK.

NEXT SLIDE.

UM, AFTER THE JULY MEETING, WE WERE POSTPONED AND ASKED TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ASKING FOR MORE SPACE BEHIND OUR CARS IN ORDER THAT IF ANYONE EVER HAD TO PARK BEHIND OUR GARAGE, THEY WOULDN'T BLOCK THE SIDEWALK.

SO WHAT I'M SHOWING HERE IS THAT ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU SEE THE PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WE PROPOSED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, UM, ON THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, YOU SEE A RED OUTLINE WHERE THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE GARAGE WAS.

AND THEN THE YELLOW IS THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION, WHICH GIVES FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET OF SPACING BETWEEN OUR BUILDING AND JEFFERSON AVENUE.

UM, WHAT YOU'LL ALSO SEE IS THAT PUSHES US TO ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A SECOND VARIANCE NOW, WHICH ALLOWS US THE FAR EXEMPTION OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET AWAY.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN FFR EXEMPTION TO BUILD THE GARAGE THAT WOULD TAKE TWO CARS, BUT WITH THE BUILDING, HAVING TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE HOME, WE NOW NEED AN EXEMPTION FROM TWO ORDINANCES.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS YOU THE PROXIMITY OF THE NEW SLAB TO OUR HOME AND SHOWS YOU WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN RELATION TO WHAT'S CURRENT, WHICH IS THE GRAY.

THE PROPOSED IS THE WHITE, THE HOUSE IS THE YELLOW.

UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY AND, AND JEFFERSON AVENUE IS BEYOND THAT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM THE BREAKER WAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SAYING THEY AGREE WITH OUR REVISED VARIANCE REQUESTS AND THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT'S REQUIRED FOR US TO GET THE TWO CAR PARKING SPOTS.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, THIS WAS JUST A MAP THAT I PULLED AND I ACTUALLY WALKED AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A TAPE MEASURE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THESE GARAGES ARE, THAT ARE EXISTING FROM JEFFERSON TO THE GARAGE, TO THE LIKE FACE OF THE GARAGE STRUCTURES THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW, THEY RANGE FROM 19 FEET TO 23 FEET OFF JEFFERSON AVENUE.

AND WITH OUR POT PLAN REVISIONS, WE'RE NOW PLACING OUR PROPOSED GARAGE AT 21 FEET, EIGHT INCHES FROM THE ASPHALT ON JEFFERSON.

SO LOOKING DOWN THE CORRIDOR, THIS STRUCTURE WILL BE IN LINE WITH THE OTHERS THAT RUN ALONG THAT WAY.

NEXT SLIDE.

THESE, WE CAN CLICK THROUGH KIND OF QUICKLY, BUT JUST TO SHOW YOU, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALONG JEFFERSON AVENUE RIGHT NOW.

UM, MANY OF THEM ARE NONCOMPLIANT BECAUSE THIS IS A RESTRICTIVE, UH, ELEMENT.

PEOPLE ARE NOT FIXING THEM UP, BUT, UM, IF YOU KEEP GOING, YOU'LL SEE, SOME OF THEM HAVE STARTED TO BE IMPROVED ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

NEXT SLIDE.

OH YEAH.

YUP.

OH, AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE IS THE PROPOSED OF OUR RE THE RELEVANT RUINING OF OURS.

OH, THIS VARIANCE WAS GRANTED IN 2014.

AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE IS THE PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLICK.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

EXCUSE ME.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, IS THE, IS ONE, ONE SEC, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.

OKAY, THANKS.

UM, SO IS THE, IS THE 10 FEET TO FIVE FEET? IS, HAVE Y'ALL GOTTEN ANY KIND OF CLEARANCE FOR AS FAR AS THE FIRE HAZARD THERE?

[00:50:01]

OR, OR IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL, UH, WE'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT? I'M SORRY.

CLEARANCE FOR WHAT? A FIRE HAZARD.

OH YEAH.

UM, I DON'T, WE HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, THAT HAS NOT COME UP IN THE PAST.

WE DID HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD CLEARANCE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY BECAUSE THERE'S A UTILITY EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

AND WE HAD TO SEND AUSTIN ENERGY, A BUNCH OF MEASUREMENTS FOR THEM TO VERIFY THAT WERE OUT OF RANGE THE, OF THE WIRES OVERHEAD.

OKAY.

UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A FIRE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GOOD QUESTION, DARRYL FROM, GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD, UM, THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS A REDUCTION FROM 25 TO 10, RATHER THAN 25 TO FIVE, AS YOU HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

OKAY.

NICE JOB HAWTHORNE.

UH, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

UH, ONE OF THE BIG CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL IS THAT THE WALL BETWEEN YOUR GARAGE AND YOUR HOUSE? I HAVE A ONE HOUR WRITING ON THE GARAGE SIDE.

OKAY.

UM, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN FOR ME, VICE CHAIR, THAT THEY WALL FACING THE HOUSE ON THE GARAGE ON THE GARAGE PORTION, HAVE A, HAVE A ONE HOUR RATING.

I ARE WRITING, WRITING IN ORDER TO DECREASE THE SEPARATION, BUT I THINK THIS WAS A, AS IT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE OTHER GIRL WHO'S ON THE STREET.

I THINK THIS WAS A VERY GOOD OUTCOME.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DO THAT.

SURE.

UH, SO DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? YOU SHOULD BE.

I'LL SECOND.

IT ALL RIGHT.

HOLD ON.

LET ME GET SOME, IT, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S A GOOD, THAT'S A GOOD SIGN THOUGH.

OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I DID.

I DID.

UM, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE NINE OF THE BACKUP THAT SHOWS, I THINK IT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION ALSO THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING GARAGE WAS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THE, UH, AND THE HOUSE.

UM, AND IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE KIND OF A WRAPAROUND STAIRS.

IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY.

MADAM CHAIR, CAN I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK TO DEL CLOSE THE HEARING? YES.

OKAY.

SORRY.

AND SO MAYBE, OR MEMBER HAWTHORNE CAN HELP OUT HERE.

ALSO.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU ONLY HAVE A FIRE RATING ON THE BACK OF THE GARAGE NEAR THE HOUSE, AND THAT STAIRCASE CATCHES ON FIRE, UH, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE HOUSE AND CAN RUN UP THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE.

AND SO I, I DUNNO IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, IF THAT, IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE ON THE CONDITIONS THAT BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE WANTS TO MAKE ON HER MOTION TO APPROVE.

THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I SAW THAT I THOUGHT WE MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS.

IT'S VALID.

UM, I NOT, I MEAN, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE STAIRS ARE MADE OUT OF WOOD.

THAT IS, I MEAN, HOW CLOSE ARE THOSE STAIRS TO THE HOUSE? DO YOU KNOW TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE? YES, MA'AM PRETTY CLOSE.

OKAY.

SO THE INTENT OF THE, AT THE 10 FEET IS SO THAT FIRE DOESN'T JUMP FROM ONE STRUCTURE TO THE OTHER, WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO HAVE THE ONE-HOUR RATING ON THAT EXTERIOR WALL, ON THE NEWER STRUCTURE.

UM, WELL, THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE IS THAT, IS THAT IT DOES SAY NEW WOODS STAIRS.

THERE ARE, THERE ARE GOING TO BE WOOD, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE, TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

IT'S A VERY VALID CONCERN.

DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT YOU'D LIKE TO PROPOSE? WELL, UM, HOW ABOUT IF I MAKE THE FINDINGS AND THEN WHILE I MAKE THE FINDINGS, IF THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU COULD CRAFT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

LET ME, LET ME ASK A QUESTION BEFORE I DO THAT.

IS THERE SOME, IS THERE SOME WAY TO MOVE THE STAIRS TO THE OTHER SIDE? AND I KNOW THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO MAYBE FLIP YOUR PLANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IS THERE SOME WAY TO DO THAT TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT LITERALLY RIGHT UP AGAINST THE MAIN STRUCTURE IT'S QUICK, MAYBE EASIER.

JUST NOT WOULD.

[00:55:01]

YEAH, I MEAN IT, TRUE TRUTH BE TOLD BY HUSBANDS GOT A STRONG PREFERENCE FOR STEEL.

ANYWAY, FOR THE STAIRCASE, WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT AND PUT IN THAT THEY WOULD BE WOOD FOR COST REASON.

UM, THE REASON TO PUT THE STAIRS IN THIS SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER SIDE IS THE REMAINING YARD.

THE BACKYARD IS REALLY SMALL.

THE FRONT YARD IS QUITE LARGE ACTUALLY, BUT THE BACKYARD IS VERY SMALL.

UM, AND WE STILL HAVE YOUNG KIDS.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE SECURE YARD AS POSSIBLE.

IT'S A SELFISH REASON, BUT THAT'S WHY, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO SUGGEST A DIFFERENT MATERIAL BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S JUST GOING TO ADD A BUNCH OF COSTS, BUT I TH THAT SEEMS TO BE SORT OF THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

YEAH.

I MEAN, I, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH MORE FIRE RATING AROUND THE CORNER OR STEEL STAIRS.

IT'S JUST IN THE SECTION THAT IS IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES, BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE A LANDING AND THEN GO, BUT AT LEAST LIKE IN BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES, IF THEY WERE STEEL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A COMMON, I, I THINK THAT'S THE FRIENDLY MOMENT THAT I WOULD OFFER.

CAN I GET YOU TO STEP TO THE LEFT, MR. LOPEZ, CAN YOU SPEAK TO LEGALLY OF US BEING ABLE TO PUT THAT AS A CONDITION IT'S VALID.

IF I COULD GET YOU JUST STEP TO YOUR RIGHT FOR WE'RE MAKING THAT EMOTION.

HI, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.

IF THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTANCE IS TO PREVENT A FIRE JUMPING OVER AND THIS DEAL, UM, WOULD ACCOMPLISH, ACCOMPLISH THAT SAME PURPOSE, SUPER, UH, WOULD THAT SET UP SATISFY Y'ALL'S REQUIREMENTS? VICE-CHAIR BOARD MEMBER PRUITT, UH, I'M ACCEPTED.

I CAN ACCEPT THAT.

UM, LET ME SEE HOW I CAN CRAFT, LET ME, LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, WHAT I'M PROPOSING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION TO REQUIRE AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THE VARIANTS THAT THE STAIRS AND THE LANDING, UH, THAT ARE DEPICTED, UH, THE STAIRS ON THE HOUSE SIDE AND THE LANDING BE MADE OUT OF STEEL OR SOME OTHER METAL, AND THEN THE STAIRS AND THE LANDING GOING UP ALONG THE, UH, ALONG THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE CAN BE MADE OF WOOD.

SO THERE'S THE FIVE FEET ME, LET ME TOY WITH HOW TO PHRASE THAT.

OKAY.

SO REASONABLE YOU STONING REGULATIONS, APICAL GOOD PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS THIS IS AN OLDER ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE, UH, THE REAR, AND AS IT IS A THROUGH LOT AND MOST CONSISTENTLY ON THIS STREET, THE, THE SECONDARY STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK.

SO THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH PLACEMENT AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE STREET AND WHERE THE LOCATION, WHERE THE GARAGE WAS PREVIOUSLY SITUATED ARCTIC FOR WHICH THE BRAIDS IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THEY HAD A NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE AND IT WAS REMOVED.

AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A CURRENT CODE, THEY NEED TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE.

AND OF COURSE, WITH THE LIMITATION OF THROUGH LOT, UH, ONCE INSTRUCTORS ARE GONE, THERE CAN BE NO GRANDFATHERING ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, SETBACK.

THE HARDSHIP IN WHICH IS NOT GENERAL AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS MOST LOTS, DON'T HAVE FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS.

UM, WOW, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR SECTION DOES, UH, MODES, MOTIVE, ACCOMMODATED ATTEMPT AT SETBACK, UM, AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE HOUSE.

UM, AND ITS INTENT IS BEING MET WITH A, UH, A REQUIREMENT THAT THE WALL ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE, UH, FACING THE HOUSE.

IT HAPPENED ONE HOUR RATING AND THAT THE STAIR WITHIN THAT 10 FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK BE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION AREA, CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OR THEIR AREA.

I, JASON, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CALIFORNIA PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

AS THE STRUCTURE WILL BE IN ALIGNMENT

[01:00:01]

WITH OTHER STRUCTURES CONSISTENT ALONG THE STREET, AND BE IN A DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE STRUCTURE ON THE LOT AGAIN, OKAY.

THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THE FINDINGS IS LISTED WITH A ONE HOUR RATING ON THE WALL NEAR THE HOUSE MADE BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE, SECONDARY MADE BY RON MCDANIEL WITH AN AMENDMENT BY JOEL PRUITT TO HAVE STAIRS OF A NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION.

TOMMY GATES.

YES.

YES.

BROOKE BAILEY.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORN.

YES.

BARBARA MACARTHUR.

YES.

RON MCDANIEL.

YES.

DARRYL PUT YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

RICHARD SMITH.

YES.

CARRIE WALLER.

YES.

KELLY OF LIM.

YES.

OKAY.

AND YOUR EMOTIONS ARE SORRY.

YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO GO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

[E-2 C15-2021-0062 David Cancialosi for Christen Steen 3401 Rivercrest Drive]

YOU MOVING ON TO EAT TO ITEM, EASY TO SEE.

15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 6 TO 34 0 1 RIVER CREST DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPEARANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE HAVE DAVID CANCEL OSI SPEAKING.

ALL RIGHT, SARAH, YOU KNOW, THE DRILL FIVE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

UH, THIS CASE IS, UH, UH, DAVID REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER, UH, BEHIND ME.

I HAVE CLINT GARWOOD.

WHO'S THE ARCHITECT AND NICHOLAS KEEL.

WHO'S OUR ENGINEER.

UM, THIS CASE CAME BEFORE YOU IN, UH, AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, IT WAS POSTPONED, UH, FOR THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUES AND HOW WE MIGHT BE HANDLING THESE, UM, IN YOUR PACKET IN PARTICULARLY ON, ON PAGE, UH, NUMBER OF E TWO SLASH ONE, I HAVE A BULLET POINTED, UH, MEMO, I THINK THAT'S IT, THAT'S UP, UM, THAT, THAT CULMINATES ALL THE REST OF THE MATERIAL THAT'S IN THE PACKET.

AND WE I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE PICTURES AND SO FORTH.

AND THE SITE PLANS OF THE NUMBERS, UH, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS CASE.

UM, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

UM, WE ORIGINALLY WERE SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN OCTOBER.

UH, OF COURSE THERE WAS THE CANCELLATION.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS SUFFICES FOR YOUR, YOUR INFORMATION FOR AN APPROVAL, UH, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY TWO LOTS, UH, LOTS, FOUR AND FIVE OF RIVER CROSS SECTION TWO, UH, WHICH REPLANTED, UH, IN 1960S, MID 1960S, EACH LOT ON ITS OWN IS SUBSTANDARD TO THE LA ZONING'S, UH, SIZE REQUIREMENTS.

AT THAT TIME, IT WAS ZONED A AS WAS THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE CITY.

IT WAS ON A, UNDER A DIFFERENT ZONING CHAPTER, THE 1984 APPLICATION OF, OF LA WHEN THE CITY ASSERTED SHERIFF'S DICTION RIGHTS BY ZONING, IT L A FROM A, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SIZE OF BUILDING AREA YOU COULD PUT ON A LOT.

AND, UM, THIS PARTICULAR LOT HAS THE EXTREME DEGREE OF TOPOGRAPHY.

IT'S AN IRREGULAR SHAPE LOT.

IT'S TWO LOTS THAT ARE BASICALLY SPLIT BY AN EASEMENT.

THAT'S USED BY MANY NEIGHBORS DOWN, UH, RIVER CREST RE UH, DRIVE THAT THEY USE TO ACCESS THE REAR OF HER OWN PROPERTY.

AND SO THAT EASEMENT IS PER PLATT AND GOES UP THE MIDDLE OF LOTS, FOUR AND FIVE, WHICH, UH, ESSENTIALLY ARE A HILL.

UM, THIS LAW IS NOT ON THE LAKE, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT, AND THERE'S A PLATEAU MIDWAY UP.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE PLATEAU THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE ZERO TO 15% GREAT IS.

AND THIS HOUSE CURRENTLY SITS.

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH REVIEW WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UH, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH EXPEDITED REVIEW.

UM, WE HAVE NOMINAL COMMENTS TO CLEAR NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE.

WE HAVE A APPROVED SEPTIC PERMIT.

AND, UM, THE, THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE SEEKING ARE REALLY TRYING TO REDUCE AND MAINTAIN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THAT'S ALREADY OVER, UM, AS A RESULT OF A PRIOR PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED SOME YEARS AGO BY THE CITY, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE IT THE BEST WE CAN.

AND, UM, THOSE NUMBERS ARE SIMPLE AND I'LL READ THROUGH, I'LL READ THROUGH THEM REALLY QUICK.

UM,

[01:05:02]

REDUCING 53% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE ZERO TO 15% SLOPE TO 48% REDUCING FROM 44 54 0.2, 5% IMPERVIOUS, AND THE 15 TO 25% SLOPE, THE 49% AMENDING FROM 4.4, 1% IMPERVIOUS IN THE 25 TO 35% SLOPE TO 18%, WHICH IS MOSTLY DRIVEN BY THE NEED FOR RETAINING WALLS TO SHORE UP THE HILL, WHICH SUPPORTS THE PLATEAU ON WHICH THE HOUSE SITS.

AND THEN WE'RE AMENDING FROM 0.8, 3% IMPERVIOUS IN THE 35% PLUS SLOPE TO 3% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO REALLY THEY REFLECT A CHANGE FROM 21 AND CHANGE 21% IMPERVIOUS COVER DOWN TO 20.89.

SO THESE ARE VERY SMALL CHANGES, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WHICHEVER WAY WE CAN.

UM, AND SO WITH THAT, THERE'S THE HARDSHIP ARE THE IRREGULAR LOT, EXTREMELY SLOPE LOT, WHICH IS ACCOUNTS, THE SLOPE, THE NON-BILLABLE SLOPE AREA OVER 35% ACCOUNTS FOR, FOR, WELL OVER 60% OF THE ENTIRE COMBINED LOT AREA, WHICH TOGETHER THOSE TWO LOTS ARE ABOUT 37,000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY DON'T EVEN MEET THE REQUIRED 43, 5 60 SQUARE FOOT, ONE ACRE SIZE FOR LA ZONING, EVEN WHEN COMBINED, UM, THE