[00:00:03]
[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.
JESSICA COHEN, MELISSA HAWTHORNE HERE.
DARRYL PRET HERE, OBVIOUSLY GINA RODRIGUEZ HERE.
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.
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.
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.
WHY YOU CAN'T SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
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.
[00:05:05]
YES.[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.
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.
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.
STILL NOT WORKING THUMBS UP, BUT I CAN SEE YOU I'LL COME BACK.
I'M TRYING TO SWITCH MY AUDIO.
WE HEARD YOU JUST FIND THAT TIME.
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.
AND DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? MADAM CHAIR? THIS IS BOARD NIPPER WALLER.
I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS PRESENTATION, PLEASE.
[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.
CAN YOU GO, UM, JUST GO TO THE THIRD SLIDE TO BEGIN.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IF STAFF MADE THE MISTAKE, THEN THE BEST THE OWNER CAN EXPECT HIS PERMISSION TO REBUILD THE HOUSE TO ITS PREVIOUS DIMENSIONS.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION SHIRT.
UH, MELISSA'S MOTION WOULD SUPERSEDE MINE.
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.
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.
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.
THEY EMOTION TO POSTPONE TILL DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 IN AUSTIN CITY HALL MOTION WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER.
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.
[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 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.
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.
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.
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.
WHICH I THINK MIGHT BE SPEAK TO THE REASON WHY WE SHOULD TRY TO TALK TO HER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE COMING.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SO WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT, YOU WERE ASSUMING IT WAS ONLY 10 FEET UNDER A LOT? YES.
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.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
DID I MISS ONE? WE DIDN'T MISS.
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.MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL 12, 13, 20, 21 MADE BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
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.
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 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.
THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 13TH HAS BEEN GRANTED.
SO, UH, WE'LL SEE YOU GUYS BACK HERE NEXT MONTH.
[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.
YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES, I DO.
LET'S GET THAT ON THE SCREEN REAL QUICK.
AND WHEN YOU NEED THEM BEFORE I JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLICK.
UH, IS THE, IS ONE, ONE SEC, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.
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.
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.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A FIRE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GOOD QUESTION, DARRYL FROM, GO AHEAD.
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.
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.
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.
UH, SO DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? YOU SHOULD BE.
LET ME GET SOME, IT, THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S A GOOD, THAT'S A GOOD SIGN THOUGH.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? 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.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK TO DEL CLOSE THE HEARING? YES.
AND SO MAYBE, OR MEMBER HAWTHORNE CAN HELP OUT HERE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
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.
UH, THIS CASE IS, UH, UH, DAVID
WHO'S THE ARCHITECT AND NICHOLAS KEEL.
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 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.
[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 SITE IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA AND ITS SHAPE SIZE ERRORS BY OTHERS.
IT MATTERS BEYOND THE OWNER'S CONTROL.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN RIVER CREST NEIGHBORHOOD IS FULL OF NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
UH, BUT THE SITE IS VERY SPECIFIC.
THEN IT'S ESSENTIALLY A STEEP HILL OR THE FLAT TOP AREA IN MIDWAY USE FOR THE HOUSE.
AND THE OVERALL GOAL IS JUST TO RECTIFY PAST ERRORS, IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE CONTROL AND MAKE, MAKE IT BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS.
AND OF COURSE, THE ARCHITECT MR. GARWOOD, AND OUR ENGINEER, MR. KEOUGH ARE HERE FOR ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER PUT, I AM, MAYBE I'M JUST MISSING.
WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO WITH THIS? UH, SO THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO REMODEL IT.
AND, UM, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY OVER IMPERVIOUS COVER PER PRIOR PERMIT APPROVALS.
UM, THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE TRYING TO REMODEL IN PLACE AND COVER SOME EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT REDUCE IT WHEREVER THEY CAN AND KEEP A HOUSE IN PLACE.
SO THAT ON PAGE 35 OF THAT PRESENTATION, I GUESS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE LAST MONTHS, IS THAT THE ONE WITH ALL THE RED AND ALL THAT? IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO? OH, UM, LET ME SEE HER SIR.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TWO SITE SURVEYS FROM CARWOOD.
SO A NEW, A NEW THREE STORY STRUCTURE AS WELL.
SO THAT'S AN EXISTING AND PROPOSED SLOPE APP, WHICH YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE W WHICH WE HAVE SHOWN TO THE CITY.
UM, SO YEAH, SO WHAT YOU SEE ESSENTIALLY ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT, WHAT YOU GET IF APPROVED, THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO.
I MUTED BECAUSE TRUMAN IS HERE STREAMING.
SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE ME THROUGH THE PHOTOS OF THE 25 TO 35% SLOPE AND SHUT ME WHERE THE 18% IS SINCE IT IS AN INCREASE OF ALMOST 14%.
AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE ME THROUGH THE PHOTOS OF THE 35% SLOPE AND SHOW ME WHERE THE INCREASE IS AND WHY IT'S REQUIRED.
SO I WOULD LIKE THE PHOTO AND THEN THE DRAWING.
SO YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE IT IS SO THAT I CAN CONNECT THESE ITEMS. OKAY.
UM, YES, MA'AM UM, MIKE DEFER TO, UH, OUR ARCHITECT, CLINT.
[01:10:01]
I HAVE PICTURES OF THE REAR DECK THAT GOES UP BEHIND THE HOUSE THAT GOAT SCALES THE SLOPE.I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU NEED AN INCREASE ON THE AREA THAT I'M ACTUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT.
AS OPPOSED TO THE AREA THAT'S FLAT, WHERE YOU'RE DECREASING ED, I WANT TO KNOW WHY.
I'VE GOT THESE PICTURES AND PICTURES BEHIND THEIR PICTURES IN THE PRESENTATION.
WE COULD PULL UP ON THE SCREEN.
I MEAN, THERE'S PICTURES ON, THERE'S A DRAWING.
HE JUST NEEDS PROBABLY A MINUTE TO ORIENT.
I THOUGHT I HAD SAID THIS INTO THE MICROPHONE THAT I NEEDED THE DRAWING AND THE PICTURE TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THE STORY, BECAUSE I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF PICTURES AND I GET THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM, BUT I NEED TO SEE WHY TO JUSTIFY ON THE SLOPE.
THAT IS, WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING.
MY NAME'S CLINT GARWOOD ON THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT AND I SUPPORT THE VARIANTS.
UH, I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE, THE REASON FOR DEVELOPING IN THIS AREA OF THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE IS, UM, THE NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM IS GOING TO REQUIRE A 3000 SQUARE FEET OF GENERALLY GENTLE SLOPE FOR DRAINFIELD.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THAT, UM, IN NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THAT SEVERE SLOPE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE 0.8% TO 3% CHANGE IS GOING TO BE ON THAT FRONT HILLSIDE OR THERE THEY'RE CHANGING SOME OF THE SLOPE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS TO PUT ASEPTIC THERE.
SO IS THIS SEPTIC REQUIREMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING THE THREE-STORY ADDITION? UH, NO.
WE WORKED WITH A SEPTIC ENGINEER AND HE RELAYED THAT THE EXISTING SEPTIC IS SEVERELY UNDERSIZED AND IT'S NOT PERFORMING WELL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION REAL QUICK FOR ALL OUR VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS.
REMEMBER THE TAMARA REQUIRES YOUR FACE TO BE SHOWN WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING.
SO PLEASE ALLOW A SECOND FOR THE AB TECH TO TAKE THE PRESENTATION DOWN.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, I KNOW IT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, BUT THE LAW, COULD YOU TAKE THAT DOWN FOR ME? A PLACE? SO CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? NO.
I'LL SAVE MY QUESTIONS FOR THE END.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? NO, THAT WAS ONLY ONE SLOPE CATEGORY.
THERE WAS A SECOND SLOPE CATEGORY.
HOLD ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AFTER THIS THING END.
AND IF YOU COULD PULL THE PRESENTATION BACK UP, PLEASE, THEN IF Y'ALL COULD JUST TELL US WHICH SLIDE YOU WANT US ON? UM, CAN YOU TELL US AGAIN WHICH CATEGORY YOU WANT TO LOOK AT AT THIS TIME? TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE TO THIRTY-FIVE 25 TO 35.
I'M WRITING SAYING THAT HAS TO COME DOWN RIGHT.
WHILE SHE'S TALKING ALL VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS ARE TALKING, ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? OH, MS. LOPEZ.
IT'S IN THAT SAME PICTURE I HAVE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME MORE.
COULD HE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? AND THANK Y'ALL FOR Y'ALL'S PATIENTS.
WE'LL GET YOU TO THIS VIRTUAL THING EVENTUALLY, RIGHT? YEAH.
UM, TH TH THIS IS THE SAME VIEW OF THE LOT WHERE WE'RE STANDING DOWN ON RIVER CREST, LOOKING BACK UP AT IT.
UM, AND THIS, UM, 25 TO 35 SLOPE ZONE.
THERE'S JUST A REALLY SMALL BIT OF IT.
UM, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? UM, IT'S THAT DIRT? WELL IT'S YEAH, THERE IT IS.
THERE'S A SMALL BIT OF THIS, UM, OF THIS PORTION AND IT'S, IT'S, UM, COLORED ORANGE ON MY, UH, SLOPE MAP HERE.
UM, SO MAYBE ON THE LEFT SIDE PICTURE, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE, THERE'S A WINDOW IN THE WALL, IF MAYBE YOU COME DOWN TO THE MIDDLE OF THE HILL, IT'S APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT SLIVER, YOU KNOW, IS CUTTING THROUGH THAT.
YES, MA'AM CUTTING THROUGH THERE.
IT'S NOT EXACT, BUT IT'S THE BEST
[01:15:01]
WE CAN.UH, IF YOU COULD TAKE THE PRESENTATION DOWN FOR ME, PLEASE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE ICE CHAIR.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? I AM JUST TRYING TO, SO I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN KEY, BE VERY, VERY UNDERSTANDABLE.
UM, IT'S A REALLY, REALLY LARGE LOT.
AND WHILE IT IS NET SIDE AREA, AND IT'S TAKEN DOWN TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE AREA, UM, THOSE ARE PRETTY HIGH PERCENTAGES.
SO I TAKE IT THAT MOST OF IT IS RETAINING WALL.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THEIR APPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED IN THE NOT STEEP.
AND I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT, IS THAT CORRECT? MR. CANDIDACY? YES, MA'AM.
DON'T YOU MISS REMEMBER VON OWEN BOARD MEMBER OF WALLER.
IS YOUR HAND UP NO BOARD MEMBER PRUITT.
THAT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ME.
YOU SAID THAT THAT WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR SLOPE MAP, UH, THESE, THIS PARTICULAR PARTICULAR SLOPE CATEGORY IS ORANGE.
I'M LOOKING AT THAT SLOPE MAP, WHICH IS PAGE 28 IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND THERE IS A LITTLE BIT ALONG THAT LEFT-HAND SIDE, BUT THERE'S ALSO QUITE A BIT ALONG THAT RIGHT-HAND SIDE AS WELL.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NEXT TO THE POOL? UM, I AM TALKING ABOUT ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE LOT, UH, YES, UP TOP.
AND IF YOU LOOK, UH, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE PICTURES, UH, PAGE 31 AND YOU GET TO M TO F 2 31, THAT'S A GOOD ONE.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S A THIRD ONE MORE WHERE WE GO, WE WENT FROM 29 TO 35 FROM 29 TO 30.
SO THIS, THIS IS GOOD RIGHT HERE.
UM, THESE STAIRS ARE WITHIN THAT, UM, THAT 25 TO 35 SLOPE.
SO THIS IS THE STAIRS WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE IN THAT PICTURE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE, THAT RUN FROM THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE LOT.
AND IF IT'S, IF IT'S ANY, IF IT'S WORTH MENTIONING, WE WE'VE, UH, DISCUSSED THIS AHEAD OF TIME WITH THE CLIENT AND AMONGST OURSELVES.
AND, UM, IF, IF NEED BE, WE'D BE PREPARED TO LOSE THE STAIRS AND THE DECK TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER IN THAT END, THE WHATEVER CATEGORY, IT, IT VERSUS IT'S IT'S, AS YOU CAN SEE, VERY HIGH, VERY STEEP IT'S IT'S AT THE TOP, AND YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY THE VIEW SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
UM, SO IF THERE WAS A NEED TO REMOVE THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD.
AND AS THE VARIANCES PUBLISHED RIGHT NOW, IF WE CAME IN, IN THAT CATEGORY OR ANY OF THE CATEGORIES TO THE BUILDING CODE DEPARTMENT WITH LESS OF A NUMBER THAN WHAT'S APPROVED TONIGHT, THEN WE'RE, WE'RE STILL GOOD.
WE DON'T NEED TO DO A RE I WOULD DEFER TO YOU OF COURSE, TO THE BOARD AND THE LEGAL, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO A RE RE NOTIFICATION.
NO, BUT WE WE'D LOSE IT IF WE NEEDED TO.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND, UH, SORRY, ONE SEC.
[01:20:01]
DOWN, PLEASE? THANK YOU SO MUCH.VICE-CHAIR SO, UH, I THINK I'M KIND OF BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.
AS I SAID, I DO MISS BOARD MEMBER ON OLIN AT THESE TIMES.
UM, AND PART OF THAT MOTION WILL BE TO REMOVE THE EXISTING WOOD DECK AND STAIRS ON THE NORTH SIDE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, AS THAT IS IN THAT SLOPE CATEGORY.
SO I DID WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE THREE-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
UM, THAT WOULD BE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND THEN AN OPEN PORCH AREA AND THEN ONE BEDROOM UP TOP.
AND THEN, UM, WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE NEW RETAINING WALL, YOU HAVE A LOT OF, UH, MORE OF THAT NATURAL WOODLAND ON WHAT IS THE, THE FACE OF THAT RETAINING WALL? I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE WAY, WHAT IS THE FACE OF THAT RETAINING WALL THAT FACES OUT TO THE, TO THE RIGHT OF WAY? SURE.
AND THAT RETAINED WHILE WE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED IT TO BE, UM, CORY BLOCK.
SO IT'LL BE NATURAL AND BIG TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT LIMESTONE BLOCKS RATHER THAN CONCRETE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS HAVE BEEN NEVER GOING TO SAY.
SO WAS THAT A OFFICIALLY EMOTION? YEAH, I MENTIONED THAT WAY, OUR NINE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, BOARD MEMBERS.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THEY DECK AS NOTED AND EXISTING WOULD STARE AT, REMOVED IN THE, UM, DARRYL, CAN YOU HELP ME ON THE, THE SLIDE NUMBER? OKAY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, UH, YOU TO, UH, 31, 28, 20 20? IT WAS THE, JUST THE SLOPE.
THE STAIRS WERE 30, RIGHT? THE EXISTING WOOD DECK IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOT AND THE, THE EXISTING WOOD STEPS GO FROM THE HOUSE UP TOWARD THAT DECK.
IS THAT ENOUGH SUFFICIENT OF DESCRIPTION IN LANE, YOU PUT INTO THE ARE, Y'ALL GOING TO REFERENCE A SLIDE NUMBER FOR THAT.
I'D LIKE TO TRY TO TIE THAT TO A SLIDE.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, E 2 28 IN OUR BACKYARD ON THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THEIR EXHIBIT, THE STEPH'S GOING DOWN IN THAT ONE LITTLE DECK IN THE RIGHT THAT ARE OVER IN THE RED CATEGORY, RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BRING THE NUMBER DOWN.
OR IS THAT THE 25 TO 35% SPOKANE? THAT'S SORRY.
Y'ALL I JUST HAD ANY WINDOWS OPEN TRYING TO GET TO EACH PART OF THIS.
SO IT'S SLIDE E 2 28 IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EXHIBIT, RIGHT.
THERE'S LIKE A DECK ON THE UPPER SIDE OF THE PLAN.
AND JUST THE STAIRS IN LIKE THE RED PART OF THAT SLOPE, THE TWENTY-FIVE 35, OUR STAIRS ALL THE WAY UP THE STENT, THE STAIR THAT GOES FROM THE HOUSE AND DOWN TO THAT DECK, REMOVING BOTH OF THOSE.
I MEAN, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT AS HIGH AS YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE GYM FOR A MONTH.
LET ME ASK MR. CANDELA, IS HE A QUESTION YOU HAD, YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING, UH, MAYBE JUST A THOUGHT, UH, IN THE PAST, WHEN THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE CONFUSION, WE'VE OFFERED UP THE PROPOSED PLAN AND SOMEONE ON THE BOARD, THE CHAIR OF WHOMEVER IS CIRCLED AND WE'VE INITIALED IT IN REAL TIME.
AND THAT BECOMES PART OF THE, UH, CASE DISPOSITION PACKET.
SO WHEN WE GO FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT TO FINISH OUT AND FURTHERMORE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL AREA YOU WANT REMOVED.
[01:25:01]
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING THAT UP TO YOU IF YOU'D LIKE THAT.DO YOU HAVE A COPY BECAUSE WE'RE COVID AND NOT PRINTING, SORRY.
WE'RE NOT PRINTING THINGS BECAUSE OF COVID.
SO IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT, I'D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT IF Y'ALL ARE OKAY WITH THAT, WE HAVE THIS, THAT WOULD WORK FOR ME.
AND IF, UH, IF YOU COULD SHOW IT TO DARYL.
IF YOU COULD BRING THAT OVER TO BOARD MEMBER PRO, PLEASE, MR.
THAT CUTS OVER FROM THE DUCK BY THE HOUSE.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE STEPS AND THE DECK, RIGHT? OKAY.
LET ME MARK THAT IT AREN'T GOING DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY AT THE FRONT.
SO QUESTION IS IT SLIDE 82 35.
IS THAT THE SAME ONE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU DARYL? WELL, WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS A SHEET, A 0.2 NEW AND EXISTING SLOPE MAP PLANS, 2 28 BY GARWOOD, UH, ARCHITECTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE SLIDE E 2 35.
CAN Y'ALL JUST PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THAT'S ON THE PRESENTATION UP TO 35.
THE PRESENTATION IS E TWO SLASH 28.
UM, MR.
WANT TO GIVE THAT TO HER? YES.
YOU REMEMBER HE STARTED ON THE STAIRS ON THE SIDE WITHOUT WINDOW, MAYBE IT'S PART OF THE ADVANCED PACKET ON EACH
SHE CAN PUT THAT WITH EVERYTHING PRESENTATION.
SO I MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THAT CONDITION.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT IS WILLING TO SECOND THE MOTION? YEAH.
AND WAS THAT NOT READY? DO TWO OR THE PRESENTATION SLIDE 35 REASONABLE USE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE PROPER NEEDING THAT WE'LL USE THAT.
AND THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD SO SORRY.
UM, MICHAEL IS MUCH BETTER AT THIS THAN I AM.
GENOCIDE IS A VERY LARGE SITE BUILD ON TOP OF A HILL WITH A SUBDIVISION PLAT FROM THE SIXTIES.
AND HE'S ALREADY IN A STATE OF NON-COMPLIANCE AND BRINGING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER DOWN IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SOME FAIRLY MODERATE IMPROVEMENTS AND, UH, REPLACING OR REPAIRING SOME RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE IN NEED IN ORDER, IN ORDER FOR THE STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THERE ARE, THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER LOTS DIRECTLY AROUND THIS AREA THAT ARE ENCUMBERED WITH THIS SLOPE, THE ACCESS TO THESE MONTHS, UH, THAT, AND THE GENERAL SAFETY CONCERNS OF HAVING THE SLOPE AND THE VEHICULAR AND PEOPLE TRAFFIC ALONG THAT WAY.
THE APPLICATION LOOKS DIFFERENT FOR SOME REASON.
UH, ITEM B HARDSHIP SIDE WAS PLOTTED IN THE MID SIXTIES AND THERE WEREN'T ANY SLOPE CATEGORIES ON IT AT THE TIME.
[01:30:01]
IN, IN THE NEW LIKE AUSTIN OVERLAY, I DON'T KNOW THESE RESTRICTIONS CAME ABOUT, THE VARIOUS WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.THE AREA ADJACENT THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT APPEAR THE USE OF THE JASON CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS AND THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AS THERE, THERE IS A DECREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER THERE, SOME, UH, RETAINING THAT IS GOING TO MAKE WORRY SAFER, UH, AND A SAFER PLACE.
AND TO LESSEN THE SLOPE IN SOME DEGREES, IN SOME AREAS WHICH WILL HELP THE GRAINAGE, UH, WEIGHT, THE DECREASE IS APPROPRIATE.
AND I DO WANT TO ADD THAT THE DECREASE WILL BE AT LEAST, SORRY, I'M GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE POCKET.
WELL, HARD TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THEM IN THE PRESENTATION PACKET, AGE EIGHT TO SIX IN THE PRESENTATION PACKET, NOT EXCEED THE NUMBERS ON THAT PAGE AND THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONALLY REMOVING THE WOOD DECK AND STAIRS AS DESIGNATED BY THE CIRCLE ON THE DRAWING BY BOARD MEMBER, PUT ON A PRESENTATION SLIDE, IE, 2 35 A MADE BOB VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER, PUT TOMMY IT'S.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS POORLY CONSTRUCTED, POORLY PERMITTED, AND IT'S NOT REALLY THIS APPLICANT'S FAULT AND THEY'RE JUST TAKING A PRETTY BAD SITUATION AND TRYING TO IMPROVE IT.
SO WHILE I DON'T LOVE THESE KINDS OF CASES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET LOT.
UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THE INCREASE IN THE RETAINING WALLS AND, AND THE HOPE THAT THEY'RE DOING AGAIN, I'M HOPING THAT IT INFORMS, UM, UH, LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL.
YOUR VARIANTS HAS BEEN GRANTED.
UH, IF YOU JUST WANT TO STAY THERE FOR A SECOND, I'LL HAVE HER CALL THE NEXT ONE.
AND, UH, IS HE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THAT CASE AS WELL? NO.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I NEED TO STEP AWAY FOR JUST A MOMENT.
[E-3 C15-2021-0085 David Cancialosi for Estates at Lake Austin, LP 1717 Channel Road]
ITEM PLEASE.ITEM EIGHT, THREE C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 8 5 17 17 CHANNEL ROAD.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OF ANTS FROM THE 11TH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE HAVE DAVID COUNCIL OSI SPEAKING.
UH, DAVID CANCEL OSI, UH, PRESENTING, UH, 1717 CHANNEL.
THIS CASE WAS, UM, ORIGINALLY HEARD IN, UM, SEPTEMBER POSTPONED FOR WANT OF CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PACKET.
UH, THERE WAS A WARM, POSITIVE RECEPTION BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO SUPPORT THE CASE.
UM, I HAVE, UH, PROVIDED YOU A, A ONE PAGE BULLET POINT
[01:35:01]
AND RESPONSE TO MR. VAUGHN OLAND'S, UH, REQUEST, UH, THAT'S UH, NUMBER E DASH THREE SLASH FIVE IS HOW I HAVE IT NUMBERED IN THE PACKET FROM STAFF.AND, UM, THAT REALLY CONDENSES THE CASE.
AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE, WHAT, WHAT THIS IS, IS A 1.7 ACRE TRACT.
IT'S A LAND STATUS TRACT OF LAND.
IT TAKES ACCESS FROM A ROAD ACROSS FROM THE LAKE.
IT'S A ZONED L A IT HAS LAKE ACCESS OFF A REAR CUT IN SLIP AND A CHANNEL, WHICH IS HOW YOU ACCESS ABOUT A 20 ACRE LAGOON BACK THERE.
SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST, I GUESS, SOUTH OF AUSTIN COUNTRY CLUB AND, UM, IN A HIGHLY RAPIDLY CHANGING AREA OFF ROCK CLIFF ROAD AND, AND, OR DRIVE AND CHANNEL ROAD AND ALL THAT.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE BEING BUILT ACROSS THE STREET ON THE WATER THAT THE BOARD PROVIDED A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR, UH, AGAINST THE CHANNEL.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON AND, AND MORE TO COME THIS HOUSE, UM, HAS A, A SITING ISSUE.
W WE ARE SUBJECT TO A 75 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH EATS UP A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THE BUILDABLE AREA.
WE HAVE, UH, AN EASEMENT THAT CUTS THROUGH THE LOT THAT WE CAN'T GET MOVED.
IT SERVES TWO OTHER PROPERTIES BEHIND US AND THEY'RE PARTY TO THE EASEMENT.
SO WE CAN'T MAKE THEM MOVE IT.
UM, WE HAVE, UM, AN IRREGULAR SHAPE, LOT OFF A CHANNEL, WHICH TRADITIONALLY, AS I UNDERSTAND FROM FOLKS OLDER THAN MYSELF, THAT WERE AROUND WHEN THE LA ZONING ORDINANCE WAS BEING WRITTEN, THAT THE 75 FOOT OR THE SHORELINE SETBACK IN GENERAL WAS NEVER INTENDED TO TAKE WHERE WE'VE MEASURED FROM A MAN-MADE SLEW OR INLET.
UM, AND OVER THE YEARS I'VE SEEN THAT THAT BELL KIND OF SWING DIFFERENT WAYS WITH STAFF.
NOW, THEY'RE SAYING IT DOES, THERE ARE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CASES I COULD THINK OF ON THE MAIN BODY OF THE LAKE THAT HAVE INLETS AND COVES AND SO FORTH IN THE BOARD IN DIFFERENT, WITH DIFFERENT MAKEUP, DIFFERENT FOLKS HAVE, HAS APPROVED CONSISTENTLY REDUCTIONS.
THAT MAKE SENSE FROM AS MUCH AS LITTLE AS FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO 25 FOOT, BUT MAYBE 75 FOOT ON THE MAIN CHANNEL, RIGHT.
WE'RE JUST, WE JUST HAVE OF A SWAMPY BACK AREA, UH, UH, ACCESS POINT.
IT'S VERY KIND OF, IT'S NOT ANYTHING YOU'D WANT TO SWIM IN.
IT'S MAYBE A FEW FEET DEEP AND IT'S GOT A CONCRETE BUILT IN.
SO WE HAVE THIS 75 FOOT COMING WAY INTO THE LOT.
AND WE HAVE PRO WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE A PROBLEM SIDING, THE AMY KIND OF STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE SIDE AND THE FRONT AND THE SHORELINE SETBACKS.
AND WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT THE, YOU SORT OF, WHAT'S CONTEMPORARY IN TERMS OF HOW SIZES FOR THAT AREA AND THE PRICES AND WHAT'S SORT OF HAPPENING, UM, UH, RIGHT NOW IN AUSTIN IN THAT AREA.
UM, NO ONE'S GOING TO BUY THAT LOT AND BUILD A 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE TO BE FRANK.
IT JUST, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE ACCOMMODATING, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT MAKEUP, BUT I DO HAVE THE ARCHITECT HERE.
AND WE DO HAVE PLANS IN THE PACKET, THE, THE GOAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRESENTATION THIS TIME RIGHT NOW WAS TO ALERT YOU THAT THIS MEMO WAS PROVIDED DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO MR. VON OLAND'S REQUEST.
AND I HOPE IT CLARIFIES ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS, AND WE CAN WALK OUT WITH YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION, OKAY, LET ME GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING QUESTIONS.
BOARD MEMBER BAILEY ONE MINUTE.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE ASK, BUT YEAH, THAT THE SETBACK IS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT BY, CAN YOU BUILD WITHIN 25 FEET, YOU WITH THAT WITH THE EASEMENT, OR IS
[01:40:01]
IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE ROAD THAT CUTS THROUGH THERE AND YOU HAVE TO GO PAST THAT.SO WHAT DOES THAT DIMENSION WEBSTER? WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION COMMISSIONER? SO WHERE DO YOU HAVE THE EASEMENT THAT COMES AROUND THE BACK OF THAT INLET? YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE EASEMENT AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S MORE THAN 25 FEET.
WHAT IS THAT? I MENTIONED, MAYBE I'M WRONG.
CAUSE IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE HE CAN BUILD WITHIN 25 FEET OF THAT INLET.
YOU CAN BUILD 25 IF WE HAD A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE NUMBERS ON THESE EXEMPT EXHIBITS ARE A LITTLE OFF OR, BUT MINE IS E THREE 16 AND THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR SITE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WANTING.
UM, THE NEXT ONE THAT ACTUALLY THE 17 IS WHAT I TOOK IT FROM WHAT, UM, IT, CAUSE YOU'RE STILL SHOWING THAT YOU HAVE THIS ROAD INCIDENT AND YOU'RE SHOWING YOUR PECAN AND ANOTHER PECAN AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UM, WHERE YOUR, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL MORE THAN 25 FEET IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO WHAT IS THAT EASEMENT? I MEAN, WHAT DID THAT BUILDING SETBACK? THE ORANGE IS THE 25.
IS IT JUST THE ONE CORNER THAT ONE BUILDING THAT'S IN THE TWENTY-FIVE TO THAT? OR HAS IT GOT THE PECAN THAT YOU CAN'T PULL? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU JUST HAVE MAYBE A COUPLE OF CORNERS THAT TOUCHED 25 FEET, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE WHITE AREA IS THE BUILDABLE AREA THAT WE CAN BUILD ON.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S ONE IN THE BACK, THE BACK RIGHT CORNER THAT'S KIND OF BY ITSELF IS WHITE, UH, BLANK THAT THAT'S AN AREA WE WANTED TO PUT UP A SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AN OFFICE OR SOMETHING, BUT IN THE MIDDLE, KIND OF TO THE RIGHT OF THE MAIN DRIVEWAY AND EASEMENT, UH, ALL THE HOUSE WOULD BE BASICALLY ALL THOSE TREES THAT HAVE THE 20 INCH PECAN NINETIES PECAN 38 INCH PECAN, ALL THOSE, ALL THOSE WOULD KIND OF WRAP AROUND THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
THERE'S JUST NO WAY WE COULD, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REMOVING THOSE.
AND IF YOU GO TO
IS IT, THE GARAGE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S WITHIN THE TWENTY-FIVE FEET BECAUSE OF THOSE TREES AND THE EASEMENT.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE ACTUAL SETBACK TO THE BUILDINGS ARE, BECAUSE IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ONLY ONE THAT'S WITHIN THE 25, BUT I MEAN, I KNOW THEY'RE ALL WITHIN THE 75 FOOT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO, I DIDN'T SEE ANY DIMENSIONS.
I WOULD SAY THIS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S A GREAT OBSERVATION.
I WOULD SAY THIS, THE, THE FOOTPRINT THAT YOU SEE IN THE, ON
OF COURSE, BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF OUR REQUEST TONIGHT, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING, LIKE WE HAVEN'T GONE TO LIKE FULL STRUCTURALS OR FOUR PLANS.
CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A FAIRLY EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING THAT IS ANY FOOTPRINT THAT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE 25, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THAT.
I MEAN, WE JUST, IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED AND THE SAME FOR ANY CRITICAL ROUTES ZONE, UM, PROXIMITY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED AS WELL.
BUT, UM, I, I APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT BEING CLEAR, BUT I'M HAPPY TO CALL THE ARCHITECT UP IF HE CAN ANSWER YOU MORE CLEARLY, IF THAT HELPS WITH THE BUILDINGS BACK.
THINK YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT.
I KEEP, I KEEP MUTING, SO I WON'T HAVE INTERFERENCE CAUSE I, I UM, SO, UH, ELAINE, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES MA'AM.
SO WHEN, SO THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE WHEN YOU HAVE THE GROSS SIDE AREA AND NET SIDE AREA, IF YOU HAD A 75 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE MANMADE CHANNEL
[01:45:01]
THAT WILL INCREASE HIS NET SIDE AREA.SO HE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS THE TREES BACK THERE, HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD, BUT IT WOULD DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE AREA OF THAT, OF THE 1.7 ACRES.
IS THAT CORRECT? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEWER.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
IT'S ABOUT WHERE CAN WE BUILD, RIGHT.
AND SO WE'RE WILLING TO CAP OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER AT 32% AS A CONCESSION FOR APPROVAL, BUT THIS IS NOT SO MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH, HOW BIG CAN WE GET OR HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER CAN WE EAT OUT OF THE SITE? IT'S A BIG SITE, BUT A LOT OF IS GETTING LOST EVEN AT THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
AND SO THAT DECISION OR THAT, THAT, THAT, UM, THAT MEASUREMENT WAS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, UH, AT OUR LAST DISCUSSION AND, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT THE 25 IS IT'S JUST ROOTED IN CODE AND THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE PICKED THAT AND THERE ARE TREES THERE AND WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE TREES AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF REMOVING THEM OR SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REMOVE ANY OF THOSE TREES.
WE JUST WANT MORE SPACE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE SOME THINGS AROUND.
AND WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH A 75 FOOT.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT UNDERSTANDABLE FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT ME, DAVID UNDERSTOOD.
IT WAS A QUESTION TO HELP YOU.
I UNDERSTAND THAT MY WHOLE THING WAS, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IN THE 25, BUT, BUT I MEAN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FARTHER BACK.
I THINK YOU'RE SET BACK ONCE YOU START DESIGNING BECAUSE OF THE TREES AND BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT, WE'LL PROBABLY END UP BEING A LITTLE BORING, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TWENTY-FIVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTION I'VE TRIED ON THESE, ON THESE THINGS.
I GENERALLY THINK THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR REDUCTION OF SETBACKS ON THESE TYPES OF THINGS, WHERE YOU HAVE THESE CHANNELS.
UM, BUT I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS YOU HAVE, UH, AND, OR YOU'RE SUGGESTING FOR THIS BECAUSE THE REASON FOR THE SETBACK IS TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, THE WATER DOESN'T GET POLLUTED AND, AND ALL OF THAT.
AND SO WHAT ARE THE, UM, ALTHOUGH I DO SEE THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS ALREADY WITHIN THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK ANYWAY, BUT ARE THERE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, UH, ALONG THAT, ALONG THAT CHANNEL? UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D BE OPPOSED TO IT.
UH, WE HAVEN'T, QUITE FRANKLY, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT COMMISSIONER PRUITT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE, THE 25 2 5 5 1 LA ZONING CODE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT PUT IN THE SHORELINE SETBACK IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE.
RIGHT? SO I CAN PUT A BULKHEAD OR A DOCK OR A WALKWAY, OR EVEN A DRIVEWAY TO SOME EXTENT, RIGHT.
BUT REALLY, I CAN'T EVEN PUT A SELF STANCE STANDING COMMANDER FROM LOWE'S WITHOUT GETTING A TICKET FOR 3, 1, 1.
SO THERE'S JUST NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO.
I WOULD SAY THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I'M NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT, OF COURSE, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO LEAVE THE SITE BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT RIGHT NOW.
EVERYTHING, WHEN IT RAINS, EVERYTHING IS RUNS RIGHT OFF, RIGHT OUT THIS VACANT LAND IN RIGHT INTO THE, THE CUT AND SLIP AREA IN THAT KIND OF AREA IS VERY STAGNANT.
I WOULDN'T GO IN IT PERSONALLY.
UM, BUT I THINK ONCE WE'RE ABLE TO GO IN AND, AND REDEVELOP OR CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE SITE AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN THE PLAT WAS APPROVED AND THE ASSOCIATED ZONING W EXCUSE ME, WAS APPLIED THROUGH A, AND THEN L A ZONING FOR THE, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, UH, APPLICATION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND ACCESSORY USES.
I WOULD SAY THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE CAN DO.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE AT THIS MOMENT TONIGHT, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WITH THE TEAM THAT'S ON BOARD WITH A SCALE, THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, THAT A LOT CAN BE DONE WELL.
YOU KNOW, YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE THIS HUGE RUNOFF RIGHT NOW, EVEN WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.
[01:50:01]
CAN'T SAY THAT FOR SURE.UM, I MEAN, I'VE JUST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, I HAVE, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT RUNOFF.
I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, HOW MANY STATISTICS, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK THE SLOPE AS, I MEAN, THE, THE, THE SITE AS A WHOLE IS, IS WELL UNDER 15%, IT'S VERY FLAT, RIGHT? SO WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THIS IS GOING TO TURN INTO SOME, SOME HILLSIDE, YOU KNOW, RAIN EVENT, IF WE BUILD SOMETHING LIKE A POOL OR WHATEVER, AND THE PACK, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT GO INTO THE, INTO THE LAKE.
WELL, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE THING THAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE OF BUILDABLE AREA FROM 20,000 TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET, 50% INCREASE IN THE BUILDABLE AREA, IN THE ZERO TO 15% SLOPE CATEGORY.
UM, THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE MORE RUNOFF, UM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A 75 OR A 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE WATER.
I MEAN, THE, THE, THE, THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWERED SETBACK IS THAT YOU GET TO BUILD MORE, BUT YOU GET TO BUILD MORE.
THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE RUNOFF.
WELL, I WOULD SAY IF I'M MADE AND WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE DONE THESE THINGS BEFORE WHERE WE HAVE, AND I THINK IT WAS A DEAL THAT YOU DID WHERE WE ASKED THAT THE OWNER COMPLY WITH VARIOUS, UM, EITHER RAINWATER CAPTURE, OTHER SORTS OF THINGS.
I WAS GOING TO GO, I MEAN, IF WE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, WE CAN THROW, RIGHT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM.
INSTALLING A 500 GALLON RAIN GARDEN.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS RAIN.
GUARDS IS AN ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, A FEW WEBSITE PAGES ON THE CITY WEBSITE DEDICATED TO HOW TO DO THIS.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM.
I THINK THERE'S LIKE A 10 X FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH THESE.
SO IF WE PUT IN ONE THAT'S 500 GALLONS, I THINK THE GENERAL MATH IS THAT WE CAN CAPTURE ABOUT 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OF RUNOFF FROM A HYPOTHETICAL ROOF.
AND WE COULD, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD PUT IT INTO SHORE SHORELINE SETBACK, BUT WE'LL, WE CAN FIND A PLACE THAT EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THAT THAT'D BE APPROPRIATE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT SOLUTION.
I JUST, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE RUNOFF.
I THINK WE CAN MITIGATE THAT AS, AS MUCH AS THE STAFF WILL LETTUCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS STOOD UP ON THE DAYAS.
ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO, OKAY.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL UPON INSTALLING A RAINWATER CAPTURE SYSTEM THAT WILL HOLD UP TO $500.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY USUALLY COME IN.
SO MADAM CHAIR, IT'S APPROVED WITH, UM, A CONDITION TO INSTALL A BRAIN GUARDIAN, RIGHT.
THERE'S ALSO A CONDITION TO LIMIT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER A 32%.
CAN YOU SOME MOTION TO APPROVE LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 32% RAINWATER CAPTURED SOME MOTION TO APPROVE BY ME, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER, PRUITT, TOMMY IT'S.
BROOKE BAILEY FINDING FINDINGS.
I DON'T GET TO MAKE MOTIONS VERY OFTEN.
MY BULLET POINT, BEN OWEN WOULD BE HAPPY.
DOES IT HAVE THE AREA OF CHARACTER IN IT? NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T DO BAD ON THE SLIDES, THE PRESENTATION PACKET.
WHAT? DOESN'T IT, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD ON THE SLIDES AND GOES THROUGH THE AREA, THE HARDSHIP AND THE HARDSHIP.
YOU GO TO THE PRESENT TATION POCKET THAT ART'S ON E THREE 12.
[01:55:04]
I GOT IT.AND FINDINGS REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS STUFF, GOT A PROP TO THE PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE ZONING REGULATIONS COMBINED WITH UNIQUE HARDSHIPS PREVENT A REASONABLE USE OF THE SITE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO STOP THERE A HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE NUMBER OF HARDSHIPS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY INCOME OR THE SURVIVE, THE SITES SEVERELY LIMIT THE NORMAL DEVELOPMENT TYPICALLY FOUND ON A LOT OF THIS SIZE AND LA ZONING HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THIS IS A MAN-MADE SLOT, WHICH CREATES SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE OF THE 75 FOOT SHORELINES SETBACK AREA OF CHARACTER.
UH, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WE'LL BE KEEPING THE VERY CONSTRUCTION STYLES FOUND ALONG LAKE AUSTIN.
THERE'LL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ALL DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES.
MR. CASTILLO, LUCY, YOUR PARENTS IS GRANTED.
THANK YOU FOR NOT MAKING ME COME BACK NEXT MONTH.
IS THIS GOING TO BE THE FIRST TIME WE HAVEN'T SEEN YOU IN LIKE SIX MONTHS IN DECEMBER? WHEN WAS THE LAST, WHEN WAS THE LAST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING? YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO THAT.
PANDEMIC LIKE PROBABLY PROBABLY 20, 20 ISH.
WELL, I HAVE A GREAT BIRTHDAY.
NO, YOU DID HAVE ONE THAT YOU POSTPONE BECAUSE YOU HAD SOMETHING SICK OR A FAMILY MEMBER SICK.
WAS IT? I WAS PROBABLY IN MAUI.
[E-4 C15-2021-0093 Janis J. Smith, P.E. for Jeff and Ally Davidson 8818 Big View Drive #4]
FOR OTHER COORDINATED WITH YOUR SHIRT AND YOUR MASK.WELL, I GAVE IT MY BEST SHOT ITEM BEFORE C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 9, 3 88, 18 BIG BW DRIVE BUILDING FOUR.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE HAVE JANICE SMITH SPEAKING.
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR ADA.
18 NUMBER FOUR BIG VIEW DRIVE.
THE OWNERS ARE ALLIE AND JEFF DAVIDSON.
AND JEFF IS HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.
WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK ON LAKE AUSTIN EXTENDING FURTHER THAN 30 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE BECAUSE OF VERY SHALLOW WATER.
NEXT SLIDE, 88, 18 NUMBER FOUR, BIG V DRIVE IS A LAKEFRONT 1.8 ACRE LOT.
AND THE PANTHER HOLLOW SUBDIVISION.
THE SUBDIVISION IS COMPOSED OF ONLY FOUR HOME SITES, 88, 18 NUMBER 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR.
IT'S ABOUT FIVE MILES WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 22, 22 AND CITY PARK ROAD.
AND WITHIN AUSTIN'S FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.
NEXT SLIDE, THE OWNERS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING A NEW HOME FOR THEIR FAMILY.
THE LOT HAS A FLAT BUILDING PAD WAS SLOPED AREAS AT BOTH THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
AND AT THE SHORELINE, THE SHORELINE PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO SLIP DOCK AS WELL AS A BULKHEAD TO STABILIZE THEIR ERODING SHORELINE.
NEXT SLIDE, THE LAKE IS VERY SHALLOW AT THIS SITE.
THE DEPTH IS TWO FEET AT A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE AND MINIMUM WATER DEPTH OF THREE AND A HALF FEET IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A BOAT DOCK THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE A SKI BOAT.
THERE ARE TWO REMEDIES TO ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY DEPTH DREDGING AND MAXIMUM OF 25 CUBIC YARDS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST THREE AND A HALF FEET OR EXTENDING THE BOAT DOCK FURTHER INTO THE LAKE AND DEEPER WATERS DREDGING MORE THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS REQUIRES A PLANNING COMMISSION VARIANCE,
[02:00:01]
NO RESIDENTIAL VARIANTS APPLICATIONS FOR DREDGE OVER 25 CUBIC YARDS HAVE BEEN APPROVED SINCE DREDGE CAME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT A DOCK EXTENDING 30 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRING NO BOA VARIANTS WILL ENTAIL A DREDGE AMOUNT OF ABOUT 60 CUBIC YARDS.
THUS A DREDGE VARIANCE, A 45 FOOT DOCK EXTENSION YIELDS ABOUT 33 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGE WOULD REQUIRE THIS BOA VARIANCE AND A DREDGE VARIANCE.
A DOCK EXTENSION OF 50 FEET IS THE MINIMUM DISTANCE THAT ALLOWS THE OWNER TO CONSTRUCT A NAVIGABLE DOCK WITHOUT A DREDGE VARIANCE.
NEXT SLIDE, THE DOCS IN THE VICINITY FACED THE SAME PROBLEM IN 20 17 88 18.
NUMBER ONE WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED WITH THE DOCK EXTENSION OF 45 FEET.
THE DOCKET 88 18 NUMBER TWO WAS PERMITTED IN 2009 AND EXTENDS 45 FEET INTO THE LAKE 88 18 NUMBER FOR THIS SITE, AS WELL AS THE TWO DOCS IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM WERE GRANTED BOA VARIANCES IN 2015 TO EXTEND 45 FEET INTO THE LAKE.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF DOCS IN THIS STRETCH OF THE LAKE ARE MORE THAN 30 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE AS WELL.
THE DOCS THAT I'M REFERRING TO ARE CIRCLED IN RED AND OUR COMBINATION OF GRANDFATHER DOCKS AND SOME NEW DOCS.
NEXT SLIDE, AFTER RECEIVING OF THE DOCK DESIGN AND PLACEMENT, ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE HAVE OFFERED THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION.
NOW BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, MY, MY OWNERS COULD COME UP AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND SAY, HELLO, IS THAT ARE Y'ALL AMENABLE TO THAT? OR YOU JUST, OKAY, SORRY.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
GOOD EVENING, JEFF DAVIDSON, UH, WIFE AND I ARE, UH, THRILLED TO BE ABLE TO SAVE MONEY FOR A LOT OF YEARS TO, UH, LIVE OUT OUR DREAM OF LIVING ON A LAKE AUSTIN.
ALLIE WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE, LIFELONG AUSTINITE AND, UH, YEAH, WE WANT TO BUILD OUR DREAM LAKE HOUSE.
BE GREAT STEWARDS OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND, UH, WE WERE SHOCKED TO LEARN HOW SHALLOW IT WAS AFTER WE PURCHASED IT AND STEPPED IT OFF PERSONALLY TO OUR KNEES, 50 FEET OUT.
AND WE'RE LIKE, OH, UM, THIS IS KIND OF, WE'RE GONNA NEED SOME HELP HERE.
SO, UH, IT WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR, UH, FOR ANY VARIANTS AND VERY GRATEFUL FOR JANUS FOR HELP.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE.
I LIKED YOUR PRESENTATION AND DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? NO BULKY.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
YOU DO HAVE A QUESTION, BUT REMEMBER BAILEY.
UM, SO WHEN WE DO VARIANCES LIKE THIS, WE WANT TO DO, WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE VARIANCE AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THEY NEED EIGHT TO BOAT DOCKS, BOAT SLIP INSTEAD OF A SINGLE SLIP OR EAT IT FOR THEIR BOAT.
AND IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE VARIANCE, UM, I'M TRYING, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND BOARD MEMBER.
I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS THOUGH, WHY DO YOU NEED A TUBE BOAT OR, WELL, HONESTLY, I DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT ONE SLIP BECAUSE THE LAST TWO VARIANTS THAT I RECEIVED FROM Y'ALL HAD BEEN FOR TWO SLIT BOAT DOCKS WITH DOCK EXTENSIONS FAR GREATER THAN THIS ONE.
SO I DIDN'T RUN THE CALCULATIONS ON A ONE SLIT BOAT DOCK, JUST REMINDER AT EVERY HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD IS UNIQUE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S THE REASON FOR WHY.
AND THERE ARE SHIFTS WHERE THE VERY SAME IT'S SHALLOW WATER.
THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T RUN THE NUMBERS ON A ONE SLIP BOAT DOCK.
IT'S NEVER BEEN REQUIRED BEFORE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
VICE CHAIR, A BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE? OH, I'M SORRY.
THREW ME OFF THERE FOR A MINUTE.
WHAT KIND OF MARGIN ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ON THE DOCK? THE LIGHTING IS A SPECIFIED BY CODE.
AND IS THERE YELLOW? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A CODE DEAL.
UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, UM, AS, UM, AND PART OF THAT
[02:05:01]
REASONING FOR THE TWO SLIPPED DOCK IS, IS THE FRONTAGE FOR LOT FOUR IS MUCH LARGER THAN LOTS, ONE, TWO OR THREE ALONG THE LAKE.AND, UH, LOOK AT THE PICTURES.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE EVERYONE HAS A TWO SLIP DOCK.
SO I THINK THAT IS A PRETTY STANDARD.
AND IT MAKE LOOKING DOWN AT THE AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE HOW SHALLOW IT IS RIGHT THERE AND WHOLE LEDGE.
AND I ALSO, UH, THINK MS. SMITH, THAT YOU DO A REALLY GOOD PACKET OF EVERYTHING IS HERE.
AND I CAN TELL IT, I DON'T HAVE TO PULL IT OUT OF YOU.
SO I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
AND IF I MAY REAL QUICK, HONESTLY, YOUR ONE PICTURE AND YOUR PRESENTATION, WHERE YOU HAVE THE OUTLINE OF ALL THE DOCS.
LIKE NORMALLY I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT HARDSHIP, YOU NEED TO A PROPERTY, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A SHORELINE LIKE THIS, THAT'S VERY CLEARLY SUCH A HARDSHIP FOR SO MANY PEOPLE.
I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM APPROVING THIS.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN WE LOOKED IN THE, IN THE, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU HAD POINTED OUT THOSE THAT WERE 45 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, AND THEY JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT YOU GUYS ARE ASKING FOR 50, IF WE ARE.
THAT'S WHY I'M, THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED THAT 45 FEET IN MY SLIDE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT REALLY WELL DONE.
PRESENTATION IS ALWAYS, MY ONE QUESTION IS, IS 50 FEET.
AND I'M ASKING YOU THIS OR ANYBODY ELSE, THE LARGEST, THE GREATEST DISTANCE WE'VE DONE SO FAR, WHERE HAVE WE GONE? I CAN REMEMBER TIMES WE'VE GONE UP TO 45.
I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER GOING OUT TO THE LAST TWO THAT I'VE DONE.
WESTLAKE WAS 60 FEET AND 36 OR TWO RIVER CREST WAS 67.
I HAVE ACTUALLY A FIGURE SHOWING I CONDUCTED THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM DOCK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FITS THAT IT'S NOT A NAVIGATOR.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE, OH, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT NAVIGABILITY.
I'M JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF I JUST WANT TO BE AWARE IF WE'RE RAISING THE BAR HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE OKAY.
TALKING ABOUT, I HAD JUST, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, THE WAY THAT I'LL SEE YOUR PLANS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY JUST SCREENED.
SO THE NEIGHBORS, WHEN THEY'RE ON THEIR DOCK, THEY CAN ACTUALLY SEE THROUGH THERE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BLOCKING THEIR VIEW OR ANYTHING.
DOT CODE, UM, IS VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY STRINGENT AND A DOCK HAS TO BE 66% OPEN EACH SIDE.
AND THEN THE QUESTION I HAD WAS WHETHER YOU HAD THOUGHT ABOUT PLACING IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT.
UH, CAUSE I KNOW NOTHING'S, NOTHING'S BUILT THERE YET.
UH THAT'S JUST WHERE THE ARCHITECT WANTED IT AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS WERE THRILLED WITH THAT.
IT'S NOT TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S DOCK, I GUESS IS WHAT I HAD IS HAVE THEY RAISED ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT? NOBODY'S FEST ABOUT THAT.
LOOKS NO REHAB E MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT I, I STARTED, YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
I WAS JUST GOING TO DO THE FINDING, OH, WAIT A SECOND.
I'M ALWAYS THERE FOR YOU EXCEPT FOR THAT OTHER TIME.
WELL, YOU'VE NEVER GOTTEN A NOTICE ON FRIDAY FOR A MONDAY HEARING HEAVY.
SO, UH, I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO DO FINDINGS, UH, REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS, APICAL PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR R OR A REASONABLE USE CAUSE AT THIS LOCATION, UH, WITH THE DOCK AND THE DRIVEWAY LIMITS, UH, THE DEPTH IS JUST NOT NAVIGABLE OR USABLE.
UM, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIOUS IS REQUESTED YOU, YOU NEED TO THE PROPERTY AS IT IS VERY SHALLOW ALONG THIS SHORELINE, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL.
THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS ALONG THIS CURVE, THE LAKE, UH, IT IS VERY SHALLOW ALONG THE SHORELINE, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF DOCK SITES ALONG THE LAKE CAN BE ACCESSED BY FOLLOWING, UH, THE CODE AREA CHARACTER.
THE BERRIES WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
THE PROPERTY WENT ON VERY, THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
UM, AS THE ADJACENT DOCS HAVE ANY SIMILAR SETBACK AND A SIMILAR ISSUE WITH THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE LAKE AND THEY, UH, THE ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET, UH, THAT HELPS ALLEVIATE THE DREDGE AMOUNT IS, IS SOMEWHAT DIMINIMOUS IN THIS APPLICATION BEING
[02:10:02]
OKAY.SO AGAIN, MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL, TOMMY NIGHTS.
CAN WE DO IT AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
CAN WE TAKE A BREAK BEFORE THE NEXT CASE I WAS GOING TO WAIT TILL AFTER YOU PROBABLY PUT, YOU KNOW, AT SHARP, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
WE'LL PICK UP THE NEXT TWO CASES.
WE'LL MEET BACK AT SEVEN FIFTY FOUR AND CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
[E-5 C15-2021-0096 David Hartman for Family Sport INC., a Texas Corp. 5700 Grover Avenue and 5612 Roosevelt Avenue]
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING APPEARANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE HAVE DAVID HARTMAN SPEAKING.
LET'S START MY COME ON UP AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR PRESENTATION IS UP.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER DAVID HARTMAN.
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT OHT PARTNERS, WE HAVE THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND DEVELOPER HERE AS WELL.
THIS, UH, PROJECT IS BASICALLY FOUR ACRES, THE FORMER DARK BOWLING ALLEY AND AN ADJACENT VACANT LOT, UM, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AND
WE HAVE FROZE RECREATIONAL TRAIL THAT RUNS BASICALLY THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THAT TRAIL ACTUALLY CONNECTS TO, I KNOW ONE OF THE BACKUP, THERE WAS A SUPPORTER COMMENTING ABOUT NEED FOR BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN AND CONNECTIVITY ACROSS GROVER, WHICH ACTUALLY WE WERE PROVIDING AND THEN VOLUNTARY 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, WE'RE REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES OF MAXIMUM EIGHT FOOT FENCE, HEIGHT VARIANCE, AND THEN TWO COMPATIBILITY HEIGHT STANDARDS, BUT ALSO OFFER THAT THIS REDEVELOPMENT IN OUR SITE PLAN REDUCES IMPERVIOUS COVER BY ABOUT A HALF ACRE AND BRINGS THERE'S CURRENTLY NO DETENTION OR WATER QUALITY WHEN YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP TO CURRENT CODE.
THIS IS PROJECT LOCATION, UH, MCCALLUM HIGH TO THE EAST.
UM, IT'S AGAIN,
THAT'S SF THREE AND THEN TRIGGERING PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AS WELL.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE SITE CONSTRAINTS, COMPATIBILITY EAST AND WEST CEO'S THAT I'VE DISCUSSED.
AND ALSO ONE OF OUR CEO'S WAS, UM, IMPOSED BY COUNCIL HAS AN ENHANCED 40 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE TRACKS BURDENED BY CRITICAL FLOODPLAIN EASEMENTS, AND THEN FIRE LAYING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST, SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINE.
AND THE PART TRAIL, UH, IS THE SOUTHWEST AND ACTUALLY THE NORTH AS WELL.
THERE'S A, THERE'S AN AIR THERE.
SO IT'S A LONG BOUNDED ABOUT ON THREE SIDES.
UM, THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY AGAIN IS TO THE EAST.
THAT'S WHERE TENNIS COURTS ARE BASEBALL FIELDS RUNNING TRACK.
THERE'S A STRUCTURE IS NOT AS IT WAS ABOUT 500 FEET AWAY.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THIS IS THE COMPATIBILITY CONSTRAINTS YOU SEE ALONG THE EAST SIDE.
UM, BASICALLY THAT YELLOW IS WHERE THE 50 TO A HUNDRED FOOT MAXIMUM 40 AND THREE STORY.
AND THEN THE A HUNDRED FOOT, A ONE FOOT UP ONE FOOT FOR EVERY 10 FEET BASICALLY BASICALLY IS AFFECTED AS WELL.
AGAIN, ROUGHLY ONE THIRD OF THE SIDE IS STRAIGHT AS BURDENED BY, UM, CRITICAL FLOODPLAIN EASEMENTS ALONG THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTH.
AND THIS SHOWS OUR PROPOSED PART TRAIL ON THE THREE SIDES NORTHWEST AND SOUTH.
AND YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM, THERE IS BASICALLY WHERE THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY ACROSS GROVER IS PROPOSED AS WELL.
THESE ARE AREAS, TREAT STREET VIEWS TO MCCALLUM TO THE SPORT COURTS, UM, BASICALLY TO THE EAST.
AND THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF A MAIN INGRESS EGRESS AND INGRESS EGRESS POINT ON GROVER AND THEN FIRE LANE EMERGENCY ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINE.
UM, THE VARIANCES ARE SUPPORTED BY THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AGAIN, INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM THE THREE STORY AND 40 FEET
[02:15:01]
TO FOUR STORIES IN 45 FEET.AND THE NEXT VARIANCE IS BASICALLY THE, FROM 100 AND FOOT AND BEYOND, UH, THE 100, UH, UP UP ONE FOOT FOR EVERY 10 FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF 45 FEET.
AND THEN ON THE WESTERN PART, AND THOSE ARE ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, ONLY THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO THE AVERAGE, UM, BASICALLY EIGHT FEET AVERAGE HEIGHT.
THIS SHOWS ILLUSTRATES THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE VARIANTS.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE MCCALLUM, UM, GROVER'S GROVER SIDE, THIS ORIENTATION'S FLIPPED, BUT YOU CAN SEE ON THE GROVER ON THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER.
AND THEN THE 40 AND THREE STORIES IS DISTINGUISHED AS WELL AS UP ONE FOOT FOR EVERY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH BASICALLY ELIMINATES THAT FOURTH FLOOR THERE.
AND THEN WITH THE VARIANTS, UM, BASICALLY THE FOURTH STORY IS RESTORED AND THEN THIS SHOWS THE WESTERN SIDE WHERE THE FENCING OF SETBACK IS FENCING, UH, IS AGAIN KIND OF TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THIS PARAGRAPH.
THE REASONABLE USE IS THAT ALL THESE, UM, 10 MCCALE HIGH TENNIS COURTS RUNNING STRIKES SUPPORT FIELD ZONE, SSS SIX TO THESE TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY, SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITING REDEVELOPMENT, THE PROPERTY, THE HARDSHIPS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SITE.
OUR HARDSHIPS, AGAIN, KIND OF, UH, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE EASEMENTS FLOODPLAIN ENHANCED, ENHANCED 40 FOOT BILLS BUILDING SET, BUT BACK ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, FIRE LOCATION CONSTRAINTS, UNIQUELY ENCUMBERED THE PROPERTY AND REDUCE THE GEOMETRIC FOOTPRINT ON THIS.
JUST KIND OF SHOWS, EXCUSE ME, BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT, AND THEN KIND OF A SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FROM ME.
UH, I KNOW THIS, UH, WHEN I ORIGINALLY SAW THIS, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DO YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE NUMBER ON HOW MANY UNITS ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE? IT'S A RECORDED RESTRICTED CONANT WITH A HOME HOMEBASE OR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, AND IT'S 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS.
SECOND BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO SECOND THAT SOMEONE ELSE.
UM, I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
WHAT DOES THE MFI ON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND THE OTHER IS, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT WON'T FIT FOR RELEVANT, IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR PARKING LOT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO SHADE.
IS THERE GOING TO BE ANYONE'S GAPING IN THAT PARKING LOT? THE, UH, THE AFFORDABLE COMPONENT, AGAIN, THIS IS AN NMF SIX ZONING CASE.
SO ANY AFFORDABLE COMPONENT WAS STRICTLY VOLUNTARILY, UM, UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY VOLUNTARY AND WE'RE ENTHUSIASTIC AND SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
AND THE VOLUNTARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS 10% AT 80% MFI.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WAS WELL AWARE OF WHEN THEY APPROVED THE ZONING CASE.
AND THEN AS TO SHADING, I MIGHT DEFER TO OUR CIVIL ENGINEER.
GOOD EVENING, SCOTT FOSTER, 360 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE? I COULD BARELY HEAR IT.
SHE WAS ASKING ABOUT SHADING OVER THE PARKING LOT, SHADING OF THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING OR ANYTHING.
IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S A BIG FLAT HOT SURFACE.
UH, IT'S A CONCRETE PARKING STRUCTURE ABOVE FOR THE PARKING AREA.
SO STRUCTURED PARKING FOR THE ENTIRE THING.
SO JUST THAT UPPER FLOOR WOULD NOT, I MEAN, NOT YOUR TYPICAL PARKING GARAGE UP ABOVE IT.
AND ALL THE LIGHTS ARE DOWN SHIELDED AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH COMPATIBILITY UP THERE AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAD A QUESTION, BUT REMEMBER THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING.
UM, BUT ARE YOU ASKING THIS BOARD TO GRANT YOU A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS THAT CITY COUNCIL, UH, IMPOSED AS PART OF THE, UH, AS PART OF THE, UH, UM, AMENDMENT THAT THEY DID? UH I'M I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THAT WEST SIDE OF THE, THE, THE, THE ANSWER.
IT'S JUST ONE OF MANY FACTORS.
SO YOU'VE GOT AN, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THERE'S A 25
[02:20:01]
FOOT, NO BUILD, AND WE AGREED TO, OR BASICALLY WHAT WAS IMPOSED AS A 40 FOOT, NO BUILD ON THE WESTERN SIDE.SO THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY FACTORS THAT TIES THE GEOMETRIC FOOTPRINT TO THE BUILDING, WHERE IT'S, WHERE IT'S AT.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEBODY COULD SAY, WELL, YOU DON'T NEED THE VARIANTS ON THE EAST SIDE BECAUSE, BECAUSE YOU CAN SHOVE THE BUILDING WEST AND SAYS WE CAN'T SHOVE THE BUILDING WEST.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE MY BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL WITH EAST SECOND BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE.
IF I COULD GET THE FINDINGS, PLEASE.
BEFORE I START TO FINDINGS, WOULD THE APPLICANT CONSIDER A CONDITION WHERE THEY MAKE THE DARK BOWL ENCHILADAS AVAILABLE AT HIGHLAND LANES? MAYBE WE WON'T READ THAT IN INFO.
WITH THE FINDINGS END UP GETTING AROUND THE, THE, BUT SERIOUSLY MAKE, COME ON, MAN.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS BOUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY USES TO THE WEST AND SOUTHWEST PARTS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE MCCALLUM HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURTS, A RUNNING TRACK TRACK AND FIELD SPORT AREA IS ZONED SF THREE, WHICH TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY LIMITATIONS OF LIMITING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY.
THE HARDSHIP FOR THE VARIANCES THAT IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE EASEMENTS FLOOD, PLAIN ENHANCED 40 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND FIRE LANE, LOCATION CONSTRAINTS, UNIQUELY ENCUMBER THE PROPERTY AND REDUCE THE GEOMETRIC FOOTPRINT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
MULTIPLE EASEMENTS EXIST ON THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY SIDE.
AND THESE NUMEROUS CONSTRAINTS ARE NOT COMMON TO OTHER PROPERTIES AND LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATION.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS UNIQUE USE IN ITS CURRENT STATE AND EXISTING TRACKS IN THE VICINITY ARE ALREADY ZONED MULTI-FAMILY AND HAVE MORE ROOM TO CON UH, TO CONSTRUCT IT.
THEY'RE NOT LIMITED BY THE UNIQUE, UH, CONSTRAINTS ON THIS SITE AND ARE NOT AFFECTED BY MCCALLUM, UH, ZONING OF SF THREE ON THEIR SPORT TRACK.
UM, THE AREA WILL NOT ALTER THE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NAME OF THE AREA, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT FORMING PRO CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
UH, BECAUSE PARDON ME, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER PEER PROPOSED APARTMENTS IN THAT TH THAT ARE ALREADY LOCATED ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY, UH, DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR IN ONE BLOCK OVER REQUEST, THE VARIANCES TO COMPATIBILITY HIGH RESTRICTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, ADJACENT TO MCCALLUM HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURTS THAT ARE ZONED SF THREE TO NOT REQUESTED ALONG THE ADJACENT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATES BUFFERING PER AGREEMENT WITH THE BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AN ENHANCED 40 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND SCREENING FOR THE LDC AND A THERE'S NO PARKING STUFF.
IF I COULD HAVE A OFFER, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT VIRALLY ON THE SIDE THAT FACES THE ACTUAL HOMES, UH, COULD THERE BE A SHIELDING ON THE LIGHTS ON THE TOP OF GARAGE? UH, I'M AMENABLE TO IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE NODDING YOUR HEAD.
LET'S INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITIONAL AND YOU GET THAT, UH, SHIELDING ON THE LIGHTS ON THE WESTERN SIDE, THE PARKING GARAGE, THE PARKING GARAGE.
I'M GOING TO GIVE TOMMY A BREAK THIS TIME.
THIS IS THE MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MCDANIELS, SECONDARY TO BUYBOARD VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
THIS IS APPROVAL OF A SHIELDING ON LIGHTS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PARKING GARAGE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH, UH, BARBARA MACARTHUR.
AND, UH, AND NOW I'M LIKE INTERNET KEEPS GOING IN AND OUT THOUGH.
I'M PRAYING TO GOD TO YOU YET.
YOUR VARIANCES HAS BEEN GRANTED
[02:25:06]
ITEM[E-6 C15-2021-0097 Nathan Hobbs for Gary J. Hobbs 4315 Avenue A]
E SIX C 15 DASH 2021 DASH 0 0 9 7 43 15 AVENUE.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OF ANTS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE HAVE NATHAN HOBBS HERE.
UM, I'M GOING TO BE THE TENANT OF THE BUILDING THAT I, OR THE HOUSE THAT I'M GOING TO BUILD.
UM, SO I, UM, I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE BECAUSE IN THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, IT SAYS, UM, THAT THE VALUE OF THE REMODEL IS MORE THAN 20%.
YOU CAN NOT, UM, DO IT AT ALL.
AND THEN MY PROPERTY IS ONLY 5,700 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE REQUIREMENT TO DO ANY BUILDING IS 5,750 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S NOT REALLY A PRESENTATION.
IT'S JUST PDF PICTURES OF THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT I HAVE TO REMODEL JUST TO SHOW LIKE, UM, THE 20% VALUE WOULD BE VERY TOUGH, UH, TO ACCOMPLISH.
SO I JUST KIND OF SHOW THE PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS JUST SHOWING HOW THE PROPERTY NEEDS LOTS OF WORK, AND IT WOULD REALLY TAKE MORE THAN 20% TO REHAB THE EXISTING PROPERTY.
THE PEOPLE BEFORE ME LEFT A LOT OF STUFF IN THE HOUSE, AND THEN I SHOW THIS IS A SETBACK LINE.
UM, THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME, THIS WILL SHOW THE SECOND STORY.
UM, WE DID A 20, UH, ONLY A 15 FOOT SETBACK AND 7 25 FOOT SETBACK.
HERE'S A SURVEY OF THE EXISTING LOT.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND REMODEL.
SO THERE'LL BE A PARTIAL DEMOLITION.
AND THEN THIS IS THE NEW STRUCTURE.
UM, I HAD A JOG THE NEW STRUCTURE AROUND THE TREE BECAUSE THE EXISTING PECAN TREE.
UM, AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE.
I'M KIND OF GLAD I'M THE LAST PERSON.
I'M NOT REALLY TOO FIRST IN DOING THIS.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME JUST A LOCAL TO THIS AREA, LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE AND JUST WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE FOR MY TWO KIDS.
UM, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE.
AND I'M GOING TO GUESS NO OPPOSITION SINCE THE ROOM IS EMPTY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONS.
SO QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
SO, UM, I CAN SEE WHERE LET HER BE.
HE MIGHT NEED, BECAUSE CLEARLY IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN 20% OF THE VALUE TO REHAB THAT HOUSE, BUT THAT HOUSE IS CLEARLY VERY, VERY OLD.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE HAS TO HAVE A CAUSE IT'S NOT.
UH, ARE YOU ASKING WHY HE NEEDS A VARIANCE AT ALL FOR WHY HE NEEDS A VARIANCE FOR PART A, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT YEAR WAS 1946.
IT'S DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT, UM, PARTS OF THIS CITY, DEPENDING ON WHEN, UH, IT WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT INTO THE CITY AND HYDE PARK IS ONE OF THE OLDER AREAS, BUT HE STILL MAY QUALIFY FOR THE LEGAL LOT STATUS, UH, UNDER THE 87 RULE OR THE 92 RULE BY HAVING EXISTING UTILITIES, IF IT'S BEEN IN THAT CONFIGURATION HIT THOSE DATES.
AND SO I'M, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE DISCONNECT IN THE LEGAL LOT STATUS ISSUE IS.
I WAS JUST INFORMED BY THE EXPEDITER REVIEWER THAT I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE LOT BECAUSE OF THAT RULE.
DID YOU, UH, DID YOU GO DOWN AND TALK TO ANYBODY IN THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE CENTER ABOUT THE ILLEGAL LOT STATUS? NO.
UM, DUE TO COVID I, AND I WASN'T, UH, AWARE OF THAT, TO BE HONEST.
AND DID YOU TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? I TALKED TO, UM, I HAD TO GO THROUGH A, UH, HISTORICAL REVIEW BEFORE
[02:30:01]
THIS, UM, AND THEY APPROVED THE REMODEL, UH, AND THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE.THERE'S NO, UH, PER SE LIKE A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, I HAVE HAD, UH, EVERYBODY ON THE STREET REACH OUT TO ME AND THEY'RE REALLY EXCITED FOR ME TO DEVELOP THIS AREA BECAUSE IT JUST LOOKED VERY BAD FOR AWHILE.
THEY SAID, AND THEY'RE REALLY HAPPY THAT I'M BUILDING THE STRUCTURE.
SO, YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I COULD TRY TO REVIEW THAT, BUT, UM, I JUST KEPT GETTING TOLD THAT WHAT THAT LOT SIZE I HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.
UM, SO I THINK I'M IN THE SAME POSITION HERE THAT I WAS ON THE OTHER ONE.
I'M WONDERING, I'M WONDERING IF I CAN LEAVE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TEAR THIS HOUSE DOWN.
WOULD THIS BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR IN THE NCCD? YEAH, I JUST, WHAT I'M WONDERING, I, UP THREE NCCD MP FOR THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
SO THEY HAVE A CONTACT TEAM, UH, SORRY.
UH, BOARD MCDANIEL HAD A QUESTION.
WELL, IT'S, UH, 50 FEET SHORT, CORRECT.
SO THAT'S A SQUARE ROUGHLY THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HOLD THAT UP, PUT YOU BETWEEN MYSELF AND TOMMY EXCEPT IT'S SQUARE.
IT SEEMS A LOT TO, TO, TO CHANNEL, UH, BRIAN KING FOR THE SECOND TIME TONIGHT.
UM, AND, UH, SO, UH, I I'LL HOLD OFF ON IT, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM THE TIME COMES BOARD MEMBER EIGHTS.
UM, UH, BASICALLY, UH, I'LL DISREGARD MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
SO YOUR FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 0.41.
UM, I DIDN'T, I COULDN'T FIND IT LIKE EXPLICITLY CALCULATED SITE ESTIMATED I'M NOT AS SURE OF THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT I BELIEVE SO.
BUT REMEMBER HOTLINE, I'M GOING TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION THAT I WAS, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHTS AND WHY IT'S DIMINIMOUS, BUT I ALSO THINK HE'S PROBABLY COULD'VE GOTTEN A LEGAL LOT STATUS AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT HE IS TOLD OR THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE TOLD.
UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT I SHOULD BE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO AS THEY BOTH WERE VERY SMALL, BUT I ALSO FIND IT REALLY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS HOUSE ISN'T COMING DOWN AND IT'S IN THE SETBACK AND YOU CAN REMODEL SOMETHING.
BUT I DON'T THINK WITH THE, WITH THE ROLES ON EXTERIOR WALLS, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANYTHING LEFT OF THAT HOUSE WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE.
SO IT IS, UH, IT IS ALSO A CONCERN OF BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
MY CONCERN, MY CONCERN IS SIMILAR.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT HIS PROPOSED PLANS.
YOU SEE NOTHING OF THAT ORIGINAL HOUSE OTHER THAN PART OF THE FOOTPRINT WHERE THE OTHER HOUSE IS BUILT AROUND IT.
AND SO I REALLY THINK THAT IT BEHOOVES HIM TO REMODEL BECAUSE THAT ORIGINAL HOUSE IS IN THE SETBACK.
AND IF HE DID A WHOLE NEW CONSTRUCTION, HE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE SEVERAL FEET BACK TO GET OUT OF THE SETBACK.
SO THIS IS A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, STAY IN HIS SETBACK AND NOT REALLY KEEP ANYTHING IN THEIR ORIGINAL HOUSE.
THERE'S NO HISTORIC CHARACTER LEFT.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT, THAT SPEAKS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO I HAVE CONCERNS ON THAT AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IT'S NOT A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE VERY ACTIVE.
AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD, UM, SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT AND TO COMMENT ON THAT, I JUST THOUGHT THAT, UM, MEETING WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND IT WAS QUITE AN INTENSE ENDEAVOR.
AND I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE A PART OF THAT AS WELL.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO MEET WITH A SEPARATE GROUP.
AND THEN, UM, IF YOU NOTICE THOUGH, ON THE FIRST SLIDE WITH THE, UH, WHERE THE PLAN START, THE REASON I'M REMODELING AND I AM GOING TO SAVE MOST OF THAT HOUSE IS BECAUSE OF THAT 35 INCH PECAN TREE THAT, UH, TAKES UP MOST OF THE LOT.
[02:35:01]
BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING ON THE LOT BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.UM, I WOULD SUPPORT HEARING THIS LATER BECAUSE THE HISTORIC COMMISSION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED STAFF WONDERS, WHY THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO KEEP THIS BUILDING AS HIS PROPOSED ADDITION IS GOING TO DWARF IT.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO COME CLEAN DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE, THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS SO LARGE THAT IT WILL HARDLY OVERWHELM THE EXISTING HOUSE.
STEPH RECOMMENDS THAT IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SOUND THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER RELOCATING IT.
SO ANOTHER FAMILY CAN HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN INTECH HOUSE AND HE SHOULD FEEL HIS ADDITION AS A NEW STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT.
AND I COMMENT ON THE DOOR THING.
I SAID THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE LEFT OF IT.
THAT IS ACTUALLY DOFFING THE EXISTING HOUSE.
AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF IT, THERE'S A VERY LARGE TWO-STORY ADDITION HOUSE THAT IS DOFFING IT AS WELL.
AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, THERE'S ANOTHER MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
THAT'S, DORKING THE HOUSE ALSO.
THAT'S WHY THEY GRANTED ME THE, THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION.
SO TWO OF THEM, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PUT EMOTION OUT THERE BECAUSE I'M WORRIED THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MIGHT FEEL OBLIGATED TO VOTE AGAINST IT AND COST THIS PERSON AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GET THE VARIANTS THAT I THINK THEY DESERVE.
SO I'M IN A, I'M IN A BIT OF A QUANDARY HERE.
I CAN TELL YOU I'M ALSO, IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THAT THE MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, THE LOAN ON EACH SIDE.
WELL, LOOK, I MEAN, I MEAN, UH, MAYBE I DON'T WANT TO VENTURE INTO THE REALM OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF HYDE PARK IS NOT JUST THE THINGS THAT WERE BUILT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
THE REASON WHY HYDE PARK HAS SO MUCH MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS THAT THERE WAS THIS WHOLE INTERREGNUM AND CO IN, IN HISTORY WHERE A VARIETY OF HOUSING PRODUCTS WERE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED.
AND SO I THINK YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY ON BOTH SIDES OF YOU.
I ALSO THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO OBSERVE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY ANY OF THAT MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE BUILT TODAY.
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT IN ANY REASONABLE WAY, WE'RE AT A VACANT LOT WOULD BE SOMETHING SEVERAL TIMES LARGER THAN WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING, BECAUSE IT SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE VIABLE TO BUILD WHAT YOU HAVE.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING TO OBSERVE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU AT RISK BY, BY MAKING A MOTION TO AFFIRM AND I'M SORT OF THE, TO, TO, UH, TO APPROVE.
AND, UM, I THINK I'D BE DOING YOUR DISSERVICE.
CAUSE I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO COUNT HEADS BECAUSE IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOOD, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
YOU TELL ME BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE HEARING, DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND TAKE YOUR CHANCES OR, I MEAN, IT'S UP TO YOU, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.
I MEAN, I JUST SOMEBODY, I MEAN, SOMEBODY ON THIS COMMISSION SUGGESTED YOU TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY AREN'T HERE AND KNOWING THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT SOMETHING IS BEING REQUESTED HERE TODAY.
AND THEY HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME W MO I MEAN, NOT THE ASSOCIATION PER SE, BUT MULTIPLE PEOPLE ON THE STREET HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME TO CONFIRM WHAT I'M BUILDING.
AND THEY'RE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT BECAUSE OF LIKE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE MULTIFAMILY ALL ALONG IN SPREAD OUT THROUGH HELP ART.
THEY'RE HAPPY THAT SOME LOCAL AUSTINITE IS GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE FOR THEIR FAMILY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT DOES RESEMBLE SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING HOME.
I'M PUSHING THE PORT, USING THE EXISTING PORTS, PUSHING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BACK TO MATCH THE BUNGALOW EFFECT OF ALL THE REST OF THE UNITS IN HYDE PARK.
SO LET ME, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ONE SEC.
AND ANOTHER WRINKLE TO THIS GUYS, A QUESTION, SORRY.
SO THE, THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW YOU TO SPEND MORE THAN 20% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE TO DO THIS REMODEL.
UM, I THINK IF IT'S TIED TO THE PLANS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED, I THINK THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY.
[02:40:01]
THE PLANS CHANGING SIGNIFICANTLY? NO, SIR.AND I'VE DID THESE PLANS TO KIND OF HURRY UP AND BUILD THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I NEED A BEST PLACE TO LIVE.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP THIS.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP THAT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT REALLY BEFORE IS BEFORE, AS TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW YOU, UH, TO SPEND A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DO THIS, UH, UH, REMODEL.
AND I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
BUT NUMBER EIGHT, UH, WHAT IS YOUR TIMEFRAME IN TERMS OF, I NEED TO DO IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
I'M CURRENTLY GOING FROM AIRBNB, AIRBNB, BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW THIS PROCESS WOULD TAKE THIS LONG, AND THIS WAS THE ONLY AFFORDABLE OPTION I HAD TO LIVE IN THE CITY AND CLOSE TO MY WORK.
UM, I'M RECENTLY DIVORCED AND I HAVE TWO KIDS AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A HOME FOR THEM.
WE COULD PUT SOME, PUT SOME, AND I COULD LOOK IT UP AND SEEK OUT.
I JUST WOULD LIKE YOU TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD IF POSSIBLE.
UH, THE YOU'RE LIMITED TO, UH, 20% OF THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE.
WHAT DID, ACCORDING TO T CAT, WHAT IS THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENT VALUE ON THE PROPERTY? IT WOULD BE 20% OF WHAT I PAID FOR THE PRODUCT.
IT WOULD BE 20% OF THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE.
SO IF YOU LOOK IN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY IN T CAD, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK IT UP, BUT THAT'S THE VALUE OF THE BUILT STRUCTURE, NOT THE VALUE OF THE LAND.
I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS THE VALUE OF WHAT I PAID FOR THE LOT AND THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT.
CAN SOMEBODY SPEAK TO THIS? BECAUSE IN THE, IN THE PACKET, IT SAYS TO INCREASE THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE FROM 20% TO 60, THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO 20% OF THE IMPROVEMENT.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, GOOD CATCH.
SO THERE'S ALSO TWO VARIANTS IN THE TABLE TOO ONE FOR LOT SIZE.
WELL, THAT'S THE THING IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET BOTH PARTS, BUT 60% MAY NOT BE ENOUGH, DEPENDING ON HOW THE, UH, DEPENDING ON THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF THE CORRECT.
I WAS ASKED HER, I WAS JUST ASKED TO GIVE A BALLPARK PERCENTAGE OF WHAT I, UM, THOUGHT IT COULD BE FOR THIS MEETING.
BUT IF THE, IF THE BUILT STRUCTURE IS ONLY WHERE MAYBE IF, IF, IF THE, WELL, LET'S, LET'S MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRST BEFORE WE SPECULATE.
I THINK REGARDLESS, WHICH HE HAD TO GO OVER THE 60 YEAH.
IN MY BUDGET FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF WAS ONLY GOING TO BE THAT MUCH AS WELL.
I THINK MELISSA, I THINK MELISSA HAWTHORNE HAD A MOTION TO POSTPONE ON THE TABLE AND THAT A BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IN 20, UH, 20 STRETCHER WAS VALUED AT $27,000.
AND AT 2021, IT WAS VALUED AT $97,000 TO PRETTY SMALL AMOUNTS.
SO IT WOULD BE HARD TO, UH, LIKE SAYING THE WHOLE REMODEL PER CENT OF THAT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY PROBLEMATIC TO DO MUCH OF ANYTHING IN THIS BUILDING ENVIRONMENT WITH THE COST OF EVERYTHING.
I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT I PAID FOR.
WE, YOU WANT TO BE SURE ABOUT THIS ONE, CORRECT, SIR.
UM, CAUSE THAT WOULD LIMIT YOU TO $58,000 AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ENOUGH TO THAT'S ENOUGH FOR A HOME DEPOT KITCHEN REMODELED.
SO MY POSTPONEMENTS LOOKING PRETTY GOOD.
AND I THINK EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE A HOUSE FOR A LONG TIME.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND? SO WHO CAN I GET WITH, UM, SORRY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER DOING THIS AND I PROBABLY WON'T DO IT AGAIN.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BUILD UP A LEGACY HOME FOR MY FAMILY, BUT WHO CAN I GET WITH TO GET LIKE, UM, YOU CAN CONTACT TOMORROW.
NO, BUT I WORKED WITH THESE GUYS BEFORE AND THEY DIDN'T TELL ME ANY OF THIS.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET THE EXACT INFORMATION THAT I NEED TO APPLY FOR KIND OF THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT THAT'S INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE.
AND THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO SPEAK WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEW.
AND THEY, THEY NEVER RESPONDED TO MY EMAIL BEFORE THIS, BEFORE THIS WAS UP.
SO, AND SO NOW I HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH.
SO THEY, FOR THE LEGAL LOT, FOR THE LOT SIZE, YOU CAN
[02:45:01]
GO TO THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE CENTER AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT A LEGAL LOT STATUS.SORRY, I'M GOING TO TAKE NOTES REAL QUICK.
I REMEMBER THIS WILL BE ONLINE TOMORROW TO THE VIDEOS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND WATCH IT THEM.
SO IF YOU GO AND FIND OUT ABOUT ILLEGAL LOT STATUS, THAT WOULD HELP YOU CAUSE YOU MAY ACTUALLY NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT SIZE.
YOU WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR DEED WHERE YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE AND YOU WANT TO GO TO THE DEED BEFORE AND MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED THE SAME WAY THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE A REALLY LONG TIME.
AND YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THAT BACK IN 1992? UH, I THINK IT WAS AUGUST, 1992.
AND IF IT'S IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET ILLEGAL LOT STATUS.
SO THAT WOULD GET RID OF, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULE THEN OR THE, THE 57 50, BUT YOU WOULD STILL BE LOOKING AT THE 20%, 20%.
YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO HELP HIM WITH THAT OR TELL HIM.
AND WHERE WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THE VALUES OF THE, I GUESS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND NOT THE LAND ITSELF THOUGH.
THEY'RE BOTH ON THERE BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, I THOUGHT IT SAID, OKAY, SO THEY CAN JUST DO THE STRUCTURE.
THEN TH THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT INFORMATION IS ALL ONLINE.
YOU CAN EVEN GO TO TRAVIS CAD.ORG AND YOU CAN FIND THEM.
IT WAS ONLY THE PERCENTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
WELL, YOU DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
UH, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR LEGAL AND ELAINE CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
BUT THE, THE REASON WHY I WAS REACTING TO IT IS BECAUSE IT SAID THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS TYPICALLY, WHICH IS TYPICALLY THE, THE SHORTHAND VERSION.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE, IN THE THING, IT SAYS THAT THE IMPROVEMENT NON-HOME SITE VALUE IS 97, 2 55 FOR 2021.
SO WHEN THEY SAY THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO 20% OF THE IMPROVEMENT, THE WAY I READ THAT IS YOU'RE LIMITED TO 20 FOR THE MODEL THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO 20% OF 97, NOT 20% OF 4 29.
UH, MS. LOPEZ OR ELAINE, EITHER OF Y'ALL ARE, CAN EITHER OF, Y'ALL SPEAK TO THAT, LIKE TO CONFIRM HOW THAT'S MEASURED FOR THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET THIS WRONG, NOT AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I CAN RESEARCH AND GET BACK TO YOU.
SO I REALLY, I KEEP PUSHING YOU OFF ANOTHER MONTH, ESPECIALLY WITH AIRBNB, BUT I'M TELLING YOU, YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO WAIT ON THIS ONE.
NO, THIS IS A LEARNING LESSON.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S FEEDBACK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE CHAIR.
I CAN READ YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE CODE SAYS, WHAT'D YOU? OKAY.
SO B TWO STATES, A PERSON MAY IMPROVE AND LARGE OR STRUCTURALLY ALTER A STRUCTURE.
IF THE COST DOES NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE BEFORE THE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO I, BUT THAT'S ME, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE READING IT.
BUT EVEN THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $58,000.
SO IT WOULD BE JUST THE STRUCTURE THEN.
SO ALSO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALTER THE EXTERIOR WALL, I'VE BEEN NONCOMPLIANT STRUCTURE.
THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW MUCH OF OUR PERCENTAGE OF THE WALL.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP WITH YOUR REFINISHING, THE FACADE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT THAT CODE SECTION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF ALTERATION, BECAUSE WHEN YOU OPEN THAT WALL, YOU MAY RUN INTO SOME ISSUES.
I THINK IT'S, UH, ELAINE, CAN YOU GIVE HIM THE CODE SECTION BECAUSE HE'S GOT THAT NON YES.
I'M LOOKING THAT UP RIGHT NOW.
WE WRITE, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW? THIS, THIS WAS PUT IN FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXTERIOR WALL, RIGHT? BECAUSE HE'S GOT THAT
[02:50:01]
NON-COMPLIANT WALL IN THE SETBACK OR, OKAY.SO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO MODIFY, MAINTAIN, OR ALTER A NON-COMPLIANT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
THIS IS B ONE, A DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF WALLS MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
NO MORE THAN 50% OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE MAY BE DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED, INCLUDING LOAD BEARING MASONRY WALLS AND IN WOOD STRUCTURE, CONSTRUCTION, SORRY.
AND IN WOOD CONSTRUCTION, STUDS, SOLE PLATE AND TOP PLATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE SUB-SECTION EXTERIOR WALLS AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE MEASURED IN LINEAR FEET AND DO NOT INCLUDE THE ROOF OF THE STRUCTURE OR INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR FINISHES.
SO DOES THAT ALLOW ME TO THEN LIKE RE SUPPORT THE EXISTING WALL? BECAUSE THAT WAS MY PLAN IS TO JUST RE SUPPORT THE EXISTING ONE.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH OF EACH PART, THAT'S WHY I'VE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
SO MAYBE SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO BETWEEN NOW AND THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING.
THAT READS JUST AS POORLY TO US AS IT DID TO YOU.
YEAH, I THOUGHT I WAS GETTING A AFFORDABLE DEAL HERE TO BUILD A HOUSE AND IT'S, THERE'S A LOT.
AND YOUR OWN PLANS, YOU DID A PRETTY, YOU DID A REALLY GOOD, GOOD JOB.
YEAH, IT WAS A ONCE FOR DRAFTING, SO I DRAFTED THOSE UP AND THEN I, UH, ONE OF MY BUDDIES DOES A LOT OF, UM, NOTES AND STUFF FOR THE CITY.
SO, YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO DO AS A LESS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE.
I'M ACTUALLY, I'VE ALREADY PAID LIKE ALMOST $9,000 JUST TO TALK TO YOU GUYS.
SO IT'S A KIND OF INTENSE HERE.
ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS YOU COME TO US AND YOU ASK FOR ONE OR TWO VARIANCES AND YOU GET THEM AND YOU START BUILDING AND THEN YOU'D GO AND YOU GET A CITATION AND YOU GET RED TAGGED AND YOU GET STOPPED BECAUSE OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU COULD HAVE ADDRESSED WITH US.
AND INSTEAD YOU'RE NOW STOPPED AND YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO US AND SAY, OKAY, NOW I NEED ANOTHER ONE AND SPEND ALL THAT MONEY AGAIN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH GUYS FOR DOING THIS.
THE KIND OF PERSON I WANTED TO HELP WHEN I JOINED THIS BOARD.
SO, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.
MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 MOTION IS BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER EATS AND, UH, TOMMY IT'S.
WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE 13TH OF DECEMBER.
[F-1 Discussion of the October 11, 2021 Board activity report]
NEW BUSINESS ITEM, F1 THE BOARD ACTIVITY REPORT.ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, EVERYONE.
THANKS FOR KEEPING TRACK OF ALL THIS FOR US.
[F-2 Discussion and possible action regarding Bylaws.]
F TWO F THREE F FOUR AND FIVE ARE ALL GOING TO KIND OF RUN INTO EACH OTHER.UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND A RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL MOVE TO THE PDC, UH, AT HIGHLAND.
UM, HOPEFULLY EVERYONE'S GOTTEN A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER.
I WANT TO START WITH BYLAWS FIRST, IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT.
UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T AWARE OF THE BYLAWS, ANY CHANGES WE MAKE TO THE BYLAWS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COUNCIL, UH, WHICH TRIGGERS A PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS I RECEIVED ABOUT THE WAY WE WERE BEING INFORMED THAT WE WERE GOING TO MOVE IS THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC TRAINING ON IT, OR EVEN ANY INPUT FROM THE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS IT'S AFFECTING.
[02:55:01]
MADAM CHAIR, ONE QUESTION BY OUR WAY IN THE BACKUP, IT IS FOR THE SECOND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, UH, THERE'S A LATE BACKUP.SO IF YOUR DUES, THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH, NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I DID THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BUT THE BYLAWS STILL ON TUESDAY.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE THAT TO SAY MONDAY.
IT WASN'T DEFINED AT ALL IN OUR BYLAWS, OUR, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, ABOUT THE, WHEN ARE THE, WHERE.
SO I JUST TOOK FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONS BY LAW BECAUSE IT WAS AN EASY COPY AND PASTE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE TUESDAY CAME FROM.
BUT FOR US, IT WOULD BE 5:30 PM ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF EACH MONTH.
SO IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT'S ALSO IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROPOSAL.
THAT WAY ON THIS IS TUESDAY INSTEAD OF, OH, THE LATE BACKUP ON, UH, THE ROSA PROCEDURE SHOULD HAVE THE MONEY IN IT.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO WAIT, UH, ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CHANGE TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, BUT NOT VOTE BECAUSE LEGALLY ANY CHANGES THAT ARE MADE TO THE RULES OR PROCEDURES SHOULD ALSO BE REFLECTED IN THE BYLAWS.
THEY CAN'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
SO WE'LL DO BYLAWS FIRST ALONG, HOPEFULLY WITH THE RESOLUTION OR SCHEDULE AND, UH, MAKE BETWEEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE BYLAW CHANGE WITH THE CHANGE THAT IT'S THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH, RIGHT? DO Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? DID Y'ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT TO DEONDRE? LIKE EVERYONE GETS WHAT'S GOING ON? UH, I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY, UH, IN ORDER TO BE EQUITABLE, THAT ACCESS HAS TO BE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.
AND CITY HALL WAS LITERALLY DESIGNED TO BE THAT POINT OF ACCESS FOR EVERYONE.
THIS IS A CENTRAL PLACE FOR EVERYONE TO MEET FOR PUBLIC DISCOURSE.
IT'S LITERALLY DESCRIBED THAT WAY ON THE WEBSITE, UH, SEVEN BUS LINES HERE, TWO OVER AT HIGHLAND.
YOU KNOW, MY DISTRICT DISTRICT THREE WOULD BE HEAVILY IMPACTED BY THAT IF YOU KNOW THAT WELL, AT LEAST UNTIL THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GROWS THROUGH, AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL START SEEING SOME MORE RESIDENTS FROM MY DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER OF BLOOM.
UM, NOW I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I, I ACTUALLY, I'M FINE WITH THE LOCATION.
OTHERWISE I'M HAPPY TO DO WITH WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE BOARD PREFERS, BUT I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER THAT THERE REALLY DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON THESE.
SO EVEN IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY DURING LIKE SAY EVEN THE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION PORTIONS OF OUR MEETING TO AT LEAST GET SOME INPUT.
MAYBE THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN, THAN HAVING NONE AT ALL 100% OR AGREE.
MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT THE WAY WE WERE KIND OF BUSHWHACKED WITH THIS MEMO FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DSD, THAT HOW ARE CITIZENS GOING TO KNOW ABOUT THIS? IF WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS COMING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHY I WANT TO GET THIS OUT IN FRONT OF, YOU KNOW, SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CAN LOOK OVER IT AND REALLY PUT IN THEIR 2 CENTS ON IT.
UH, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR, IT WAS REALLY DISTURBING THAT THEY MAKE THE DECISION THAT THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WOULD BE MOVED TO A PLACE WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO VIDEO ACCESS UNTIL SOMETIME LATE FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR.
UM, THAT WAS VERY, VERY DISTURBING.
SO I REALLY SUPPORT THE ACTION ON THESE THINGS RIGHT NOW.
I'LL TELL YOU THAT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE HAS TOLD SOME OF THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THEY'RE STILL NOT ALLOWED TO BOOK US IT'S CITY HALL PAST FEBRUARY, WHICH IS HOPEFULLY AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT THIS WILL ADDRESS BY BRINGING ATTENTION TO A BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
THIS, UM, AFTER WE GO THROUGH THIS, CAUSE I THINK WE ALSO PRETTY MUCH SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, THE RULES, BUT, UM, AS FAR AS THE MEETING SCHEDULE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT IF WE VOTE? NO, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO MEET WELL, AND, AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION THAT I ALSO PROPOSED AND TECHNICALLY IT'S WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO VOTE AGAINST ADOPTING THAT SCHEDULE.
HOWEVER, FROM E UH, ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, DID WE LOSE HER? OH, SHE HAD ENOUGH FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW.
IF WE VOTE NO AGAINST IT, THEN WE GET MOVED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST, UH, AS FAR AS BOOKING ROOMS. SO AN ALTERNATIVE THAT I WAS GOING TO FIT,
[03:00:03]
IS IT THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN BOOK US INTO? SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO GET PUSHED TO THE BOTTOM.I WAS GOING TO OFFER AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT INSTEAD OF VOTING ON A DATE AND A LOCATION, WE AMENDED IT TO STRIP ALL LOCATION OUT OF THE SCHEDULE AND LEAVE JUST DATES AND TIMES, AND THEN USE THE BYLAW CHANGE, CERTAIN NAME, THE PLACE.
CAN WE DO THAT AGAIN? I DISCUSSED IT WITH MICHAEL A BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL.
WELL, SO, UH, SO ONE THING TO ADD, I AGREE WITH YOU IN GENERAL TERMS, BUT I THINK THAT YOUR POINT IS THAT MUCH MORE SALIENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOVEREIGN BOARDS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT AMONG THE SOVEREIGN BOARDS THAT THIS BOARD AND VISIBILITY TO THIS BOARD IS EVEN MORE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN THE OTHERS, BECAUSE OUR FUNCTION IS NOT ADVISORY WHERE APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO, UH, I, I, I, UH, I OBJECT PRETTY STRENUOUSLY TO MOVING THIS, THIS PARTICULAR BOARD OUT OF CITY HALL TO A VENUE THAT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR HIGHLY VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, BOTH IN RECORDED MEDIA AND IN REAL TIME.
SO I WOULD BET I'M CHAIR IF I MAY.
SO I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, UM, WHILE OUR STAFF IS VERY, VERY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US, LEGAL IS ALSO AT CITY HALL.
AND SO WE WOULD BE ASKING LEGAL, BEING ABLE TO HIRE THEM ALL AS WELL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.
SO, UM, IF I COULD, NO, ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
DID YOU, WAS IT FOUR, COULD YOU, HER THE BYLAW CHANGE WITH THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH? I JUST DIDN'T GET A SECOND.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE BYLAW CHANGE.
THIS WOULD, UH, CHANGE ARTICLE 70.
IT WOULD REMOVE THE WORD MONTHLY AND ADD AT 5:30 PM ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF EACH MONTH AT AUSTIN CITY HALL.
I FORGOT TO REPEAT THAT MOTION WAS BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY MYSELF.
[F-3 Discussion and possible action regarding Rules of Procedure]
I DON'T F THREE IS THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK OVER THAT, ESSENTIALLY, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST THE SAME THING IT'S ADDING IN A COUPLE.
THE FIRST PART WOULD BE UNDER MEETINGS, WHICH WOULD, UH, ADD THE TIME DATE AND SECOND MONDAY OF EACH MONTH AT AUSTIN CITY HALL.
BUT I'D LIKE TO WAIT ON THAT ONE AND JUST KEEP IT ON THE TABLE FOR NEXT MONTH IN CASE WE NEED IT.
UH, THERE IS A SECOND PART TO THIS THOUGH, UH, IN YOUR LATE BACKUP,
[03:05:01]
UNDER, UH, ARTICLE FIVE HEARINGS AND DECISIONS.AND IT'S UNDER THE ORDER OF BUSINESS, UH, DURING THE PANDEMIC YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE NOTICED INSTEAD OF THE BOARD LIAISON CALLING, UH, EACH AGENDA ITEM EACH MATTER, UH, IT FELL TO THE CHAIR, UH, FIRST ON THE ME, UM, I LIKE THAT FORMAT, BUT CURRENTLY OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE PREVENT US FROM DOING IT, WHICH IS WHY ELAINE GOT STUCK CALLING THE MATTERS TONIGHT.
UM, IT'S UNDER AN ARTICLE FIVE ITEM B ORDERS.
THE BUSINESS WOULD ADD WHO WILL CALL EACH MATTER WILL BE DETERMINED BEFORE THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR.
AND THIS IS JUST A LONG RUNNING CASE.
FOR SOME REASON, WE DO NEED, UH, THE LIAISON TO ASSIST AND THEN A LITTLE ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, MOVE THE CHAIR SHALL ADMINISTER AN OATH TO ALL PERSONS PROVIDING TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO FOLLOW AFTER THE CHAIR CALLS THE MEETING TO ORDER.
WHAT'S THERE ALREADY TO A DIFFERENT POSITION.
SO THERE READS A LITTLE BETTER AND THEN, UH, INSERT EITHER THE CHAIR OR IN FRONT OF THE STAFF LIAISON SHALL CALL EACH MATTER IN THE ORDER.
AND, UH, ULTIMATELY IT WOULD READ WHO WILL CALL EACH MATTER WILL BE DETERMINED BEFORE THE MEETING, BY THE CHAIR, AFTER THE CHAIR CALLS THE MEETING TO ORDER THE CHAIR SHALL ADMINISTER AN OATH TO ALL PERSONS PROVIDING TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE, EITHER THE CHAIR OR THE STAFF LIAISON SHALL CALL EACH MATTER.
AND SEAN ANNOUNCED THE CASE NUMBER, THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE STAFF LIAISON SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE KEYS AND ADVISE THE BOARD OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED CHAIR.
IS THERE A, UM, I UNDERSTAND IT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, UH, IS, IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.
IS IT POSSIBLE SINCE WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO AUDIT AND FINANCE, THAT WE COULD DO THEM AT THE SAME TIME AS, OKAY, THIS IS ACTUALLY RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SO IT'S JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FROM THE BOARD.
THIS ONE DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO TO AUDIT AND FINANCE.
THAT'S THE ONLY BYLAWS CHANGES.
IT'S STILL KIND OF HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT OF DOING THEM AT THE SAME TIME, BUT I'M OPEN TO MAKING A MOTION.
IF IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO IT TODAY, I'D LIKE TO DO THE SECOND PART TODAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWED ME TO CALL THE CASES OF THE NEXT MEETING.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT PORTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO ARTICLE FIVE B HEARINGS AND DECISIONS.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE A CHANGE TO ARTICLE FIVE B HEARINGS AND DECISIONS, UH, TO READ AS IT DOES IN THE LATE BACKUP F THREE LATE BACKUP ONE, TOMMY S YES.
WHO SECONDED THAT MOTION? UH, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
UM, I SAY I MISSED BOARD MEMBER.
VANILLIN YOU LANDED SAFELY BY THE WAY.
[F-4 Discussion and possible action adopting a resolution affirming meeting location and legally required public notice for in-person Public Hearings for the Board of Adjustment shall reflect the address of Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Austin, Texas, 78701.]
BUT NOT LEAST, UH, FOR THIS, AT LEAST IT'S GOING TO BE A FOUR AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE SCHEDULE OF FOUR IS JUST A RESOLUTION TO SEND A COUNCIL, UH, WITH A LOT OF REASONS THAT I THOUGHT WERE GOOD REASONS FOR WHY THE BOARD SHOULD CONTINUE TO HOLD ITS MEETINGS AT CITY HALL.AGAIN, IT'S JUST DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE KIND OF BLINDSIDED BY THIS MOVE, AND WE ALL FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY THAT THE MEETING SHOULD STAY HERE TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE AND EQUITABLE.
[03:10:01]
NEED TO READ THIS TO APPROVE IT? OR COULD WE JUST GO OFF OF WEBSITE BACKUP MS. LOPEZ? NOPE.CAN WE JUST ACCEPT IT BY SOMEONE? IT IS.
HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER IT? OKAY.
AND ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR PROBLEMS WITH IT? WORDING.
DID I SEE YOUR HAND VICE CHAIR OR YOU JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? OKAY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO? TELL HIM HE BEAT YOU TO IT.
I THINK I'LL SECOND TOMMY'S MERCHANT.
BY ALL MEANS, UH, COUNCIL, UM, BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL SAID, AND, UH, I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD INCORPORATE SOME OF WHAT HE SAID IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S HERE, THE ONLY THING THAT'S NOT INCLUSIVE OF WHAT I SAID, IN MY OPINION.
AND I APPRECIATE THE KIND WORDS IS THAT A, IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS QUASI JUDICIAL.
IT, IT SAYS THAT IN NOT APPEALABLE TO COUNSEL, TO ME IS THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT APPEALABLE TO COUNCIL MAKES THAT SIGNIFICANT.
IT IS SIGNIFICANT AT LEAST TO ME.
UM, AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE, THE, THE CLUE THAT WAS ACTUALLY AN OVERSIGHT, BECAUSE THAT WAS ON MY LIST TO PUT THAT IT'S ONLY APPEALABLE TO DISTRICT COURT.
I SAID THAT IT WAS CLOSET JUDICIAL.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT PEOPLE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT MEANS FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATION OF THAT.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE LEGAL AVAILABLE OR NOT AT HIGHLAND MALL, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN SEEN LATELY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO WHY DON'T WE CHANGE LINE TO THE SECOND? WHEREAS, WHEREAS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL SOVEREIGN BOARD, AND RIGHT THERE WE'LL INSERT ONLY APPEALABLE TO STATE DISTRICT COURT.
WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT SUFFICE, I WOULD SAY RATHER THAN COUNCIL APPEALABLE TO THE STATE DISTRICT COURT RATHER THAN COUNCIL.
SO WE'RE ASKED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THE QUASI JUDICIAL SOVEREIGN BOARD ONLY APPEALABLE TO STATE DRASTIC DISTRICT COURT RATHER THAN COUNCIL THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
COULD YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? YES.
WHEREAS, AND I'LL EMAIL THIS TO YOU AFTER AS WELL.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL SOVEREIGN BOARD ONLY APPEALABLE TO STATE DISTRICT COURT, RATHER THAN COUNCIL COMMA, THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO VICE CHAIR WITH, UH, YOU SAID MOTION, UM, TOMMY, TOMMY WAS THE MOTION OF HER.
OH, AND JUST A, UH, JUST A GRAMMATICAL THING THAT IT'S IN THE, IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HEREBY REFLECT, LEAVE RESPECTS THAT IT'S MEETING LOCATION.
WHERE IS IT? OH, SEE, YOU RELY ON SPELL CHECK SO MUCH AND IT STILL DOESN'T CATCH THE GRAMMAR MISTAKES.
SO LET'S ALSO STRIKE THE APOSTROPHE FROM THE, UH, ACTUAL RESOLUTION, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEREBY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT ITS MEANING LOCATION CONTINUED TO BE AT AUSTIN CITY HALL.
SO IS EVERYONE ACU TO VOTE ON THAT? OKAY.
AND KELLY AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR FILLING IN TONIGHT LAST MINUTE.
JUST THE, UH, THE NEXT STEP WITH THIS RESOLUTION IS HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE PRESENTED? AND IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO HAVE A
[03:15:01]
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO ACTUALLY PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR? OKAY.SO WHEN, AS IT TURNS OUT, I JUST LEARNED THIS RECENTLY WHEN I HAD TO DO THIS WITH A RESOLUTION FROM JANUARY, WHEN WE VOTE ON A RESOLUTION, UM, AND APPROVE IT, I ACTUALLY WILL TAKE THIS.
I'M GOING TO CORRECT THE WORDING, LIKE AS WE VOTED ON IT AND I WILL EMAIL THIS TO THE MAYOR AND EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEIR SENIOR STAFF PERSON.
AND THEN I'LL PROBABLY MAKE A FEW CALLS TO MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST MY COUNCILMAN, POSSIBLY A FEW OTHERS ARE AWARE THAT IT'S IN THEIR INBOX AND TO LOOK AT IT, THEIR JOB IS TO TAKE IT FROM THERE AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO ADDRESS IT, PUT IT ON THEIR AGENDA.
IT'S, IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THEM FROM THERE, BUT I'LL, BUT I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP ON IT AND GIVE UPDATES.
IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA OR YOU DID DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO BENDER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT YOU'RE ABOUT THIS KEY.
[F-5 Discussion and possible action regarding adopting proposed meeting schedule for Jan 2022-Dec 2022.]
SO WE STILL HAVE FIVE FOR THE MEETING SCHEDULE.SO ONLINE, I DON'T KNOW FIVE OR IT IS SO I WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION EXCEPT THE DATES AND NOT THE LOCATION OTHER THAN FOR JANUARY 10TH.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATES AS LISTED IN ITEM F FIVE ONE, UH, REMOVING ANY REFERENCE TO A LOCATION DATES ONLY.
I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFE TO, UM, TO KEEP THE JANUARY 10TH AND THE FEBRUARY 4TH OR SORRY, JUST THE JANUARY 10TH.
SO IT'S THE JANUARY 10TH MEETING LOCATION.
IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT NODS OF APPROVAL? GOOD ENOUGH.
SO THIS WILL BE A MOTION TO APPROVE REMOVING ANY REFERENCE OF THE PDC EVENT CENTER AND ITS ADDRESS FROM THE SCHEDULED LEAVING ONLY A LOCATION FOR THE JANUARY 10TH MEETING.
[F-6 Discussion regarding future BOA hybrid meetings/hybrid workshops. F-7 Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP).]
SIX DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE BI HYBRID MEETINGS AND HYBRID WORKSHOPS.SO THERE WAS AN ITEM ON COUNCIL'S AGENDA THURSDAY, WHERE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY NOW THAT WE MIGHT, UH, ACTUALLY START BEING ABLE TO DO VIRTUAL MEETINGS, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ME, UH, IT WOULD BE ME AND, UH, THE LIAISON SHOWING UP, BUT THAT'S I, WAS IT A DIRECTION, A LANE OR AN INVESTIGATION? LIKE, WAS IT A DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER? I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK IT UP.
SO, UM, IT SAYS IT'S TO BECOME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 28TH, 2022.
AND THERE'S A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT I CAN EMAIL OUT TO THE BOARD.
HOWEVER, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.
UM, BUT IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT THEY ARE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A QUORUM TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT.
UM, SO THAT MEANS THAT ONLY THE CHAIR AND THE LIAISONS ARE, WILL BE PRESENT AT THE LOCATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE MEETING.
UM, AND ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER WISHING TO BE, TO ATTEND IN PERSON OR VIRTUAL MAY DO SO.
SO WE DO NOT NEED SIX BOARD MEMBERS FOR A QUORUM ON THE DAYAS.
UH, IF I I'LL GET WITH YOU TOMORROW TO GET THAT DRAFT, LIKE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE THAT WAS, AND I'LL KEEP TRACK OF IT WHILE IT'S GOING THROUGH.
DID YOU, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HYBRID MEETINGS OR AT THE APP?
[03:20:02]
BROOKE? I HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION ONE SEC, BRETT, YOU'RE BREAKING UP AGAIN.WE'LL COME BACK TO BOARD MEMBER BEILEIN AND STUFF.
I'M JUST NOT SPEEDING INTO IT.
UM, YEAH, I'M A BIG FAN OF DOING THINGS IN PERSON.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE READING THAT, I'M THINKING THAT SORT OF UNDERCUTS PERHAPS OUR, OUR, UH, RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE TO HAVE IT HERE.
UH, IF EVERYBODY CAN LOG IN REMOTELY, THEN WHY COULDN'T THE PDC BE ACCEPTABLE? I MEAN, YOU'D BE THE ONLY ONE HAVING TO GO THERE, BUT THEN YOUR, YOUR ISSUE.
BUT, UH, I DON'T, I, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW TO, HOW TO PLAY THIS.
I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE DOING IT.
UM, A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE I COULD THINK OF FROM TONIGHT IS ON, UH, ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS WE HEARD WHERE THERE WAS A PHYSICAL PIECE OF PAPER, AND WE WERE TRYING TO DESCRIBE A CERTAIN AREA THAT WASN'T MATCHING UP BETWEEN OUR VIRTUAL MEMBERS AND OUR PHYSICAL MEMBERS.
AND IT MADE COMMUNICATION REALLY DIFFICULT.
SO I DON'T KNOW, PERSONALLY, I'VE ALWAYS FELT WE CAN COMMUNICATE A LITTLE BETTER IN PERSON.
I CAN KIND OF GET A FEEL FOR THE NUMBERS, BUT I MEAN, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE OPTION SHOULD BE THERE, ESPECIALLY UNTIL IF GOD WILLING COVID IS JUST GONE.
WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW WOULD AGREE.
IT'S YOU? IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CHANGE, BUT I THINK IT'S WORKING, I'M SORRY.
A BOARD MEMBER BAILEY WILL COME UP HERE.
SO WHAT YOU GOT? YEAH, I KNOW I WAS, UM, MY WHOLE THING IS NOW WHAT ABOUT THE APPLICANTS? WILL THE APPLICANTS STILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET, COME IN PERSON? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE BIG RELEVANCE TO US STILL PUSHING TO BE AT CITY HALL.
UM, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE FOR CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
UM, I KNOW THEY SAID MORE INFORMATION IS FORTHCOMING, BUT I PROBABLY WILL ASK THAT BEFOREHAND AND I'LL GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU GUYS, AS SOON AS IT'S RELATED TO ME.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY ON LANE REAL QUICK, THEY DID SAY THIS IS GOING TO APPLY TO LIKE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CAUSE I MEAN IT'S FOR ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
I'M JUST THINKING IF I WASN'T REALLY LIKE OVERLY LITIGIOUS, THAT WOULD BE A RIGHT WAY FOR ME TO GET INTO DISTRICT COURT AND MAKE A LOT OF NOISE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME LIKE ERICA LOPEZ IS STARING AT ME LIKE, UH, VICE CHAIR.
I JUST, UM, SO I WITH COVID AND, AND, UH, HIGH RISK, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE, UH, TO BE ABLE TO LOG IN REMOTELY AND WHETHER IT ALLOWS FOR A POSSIBILITY, UM, NOT NECESSARILY A NORM FOR SAME THING TO HAPPEN WHERE WE DIDN'T, WE HAD TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO SOME KIND OF HYBRID MEETING.
SO, UM, I'M OPEN TO THE CHANGE.
I ALSO CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, I HAVE VOLUNTEERED TIME ON, ON SEVERAL BOARDS.
UH, I'VE BEEN HONORED TO SERVE, AND IF, UM, WE DO MOVE, IF THE MEETING LOCATION DOES GET MOVED AND THERE IS NOT A HYBRID OPTION, I WILL NOT CONTINUE BECAUSE I JUST CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME TO GET ACROSS TOWN, TO BE AT A MEETING AT FIVE O'CLOCK.
I'M, I'M WILLING TO BE HERE, BUT I AM NOT WILLING TO, UH, CHANGE MY LIFE FOR IT.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LOSS TO THE BOARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR 12 YEARS, BY THE WAY.
SO FAR 12 YEARS WHERE I'VE ON THE BLA, I THINK RIGHT.
12 YEARS JUST ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND CRAZY.
YOU OTHER LITTLE THINGS HERE AND THERE.
WHAT'S YOU WENT TO CAMP BETTY BAKER BEFORE THAT I WAS IN, I WAS IN CAMP, BETTY BAKER.
SO, UH, AND I, UH, I TOOK TRAINING FROM MARTY, TERRY JOHN'S DINER.
AND, UH, GOSH, I CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU HOW MANY, UM, NOT THAT ERICA,
[03:25:01]
YOU YOU'RE AWESOME.BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, THERE'VE BEEN QUITE A FEW ATTORNEYS THAT I I'VE TAKEN TRAINING FROM AND NOT FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, BUT ACTUALLY THE ATTORNEYS.
SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON HYBRID MEETINGS ARE GOOD TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? OKAY.
[F-7 Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP).]
SEVEN, UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEWER MEMBERS LAST JANUARY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PASSED A RESOLUTION TO SEND US COUNCIL TO, UH, CREATE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.AND THIS WOULD BE FUNDING PROGRAM THAT WOULD HELP, UH, PAY FOR FEES FOR APPLICANTS, MEANING E CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT ARE, THAT PLACED THEM IN A CERTAIN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS.
UM, THE FULL RESOLUTION IS ONLINE.
UH, CITY COUNCIL DID ACCEPTED.
IT WAS ON THE OCTOBER 14TH AGENDA GAIN.
THEY HAVE DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE AND FIND FUNDING FOR IT, BUT, AND REPORT BACK BY FEBRUARY 14TH.
SO THAT IS THE LATEST ON THE APPLICANT ASSISTANCE FUND.
I'M VERY PROUD OF THAT PIECE OF WORK.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM, F EIGHT DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO FORM A BOA WORK GROUP TO REVIEW AND PROPOSE CHANGES TO BLA APPEALS, NOT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROCESS AND FEES.
SO I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR EVERYBODY.
WE KIND OF WANTED MICHAEL HERE TOO.
DIDN'T WE? SO ANYONE INTERESTED IN CHAMPIONING THIS WORK GROUP? OR SHOULD WE STRIKE IT FROM THE AGENDA FOR NOW? SORRY.
I'M JUST GOING TO PUSH THIS TO NEXT TIME.
LANE FROM WHEN MICHAEL IS HERE.
CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO STRIKE IT WITHOUT HIM.
[F-9 Announcements]
ITEM F NINE, ANY ANNOUNCEMENT WINTER IS COMING.I HAVE FIVE LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS OUT.
YOU BETTER GET A PORTABLE GENERATOR WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.
APPARENTLY THAT ALSO TRUE AT THANK YOU ALL.
[F-10 Discussion of future agenda new business items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests]
ANY FUTURE AGENDA, OUR NEW BUSINESS ITEMS, STAFF REQUESTS.UM, SO ELAINE, THE MAGNIFICENT T LANE THERE USED TO BE A BOARD CALLED THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY COMMISSION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY HAD AN APPLICATION THAT WAS A VERY THOROUGH AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD GET A COPY OF THE APPLICATION SO THAT PERHAPS IF WE DO START A WORK GROUP, THAT WHEN WE HAVE A F I R REQUEST THAT PERHAPS WE COULD, UM, UH, GET WHO LIKE SOME PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS FOR AN FAR REQUEST PARENTS.
I HAVE LOOKED AND I CANNOT SEEM TO FIND IT, BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO DIG INTO THAT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE CASE NUMBER STARTED WITH LIKE OURS OR C 15 AND SIGNS OR SEE 16? DO YOU KNOW WHAT RDCC USED? I DON'T.
YOU KNOW WHAT, ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAD CASE NUMBERS.
THEY WERE TIED TO THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL PERMIT.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU KNOWING THAT OUR APPLICATION IS VERY SIMPLE AND THERE'S A REASON THAT IT'S VERY SIMPLE BECAUSE NOT ALL VARIANCES ARE, ARE LENGTHY, BUT WE GET THESE FAR CASES AND THEY'RE VERY HARD TO ARTICULATE IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP.
AND PERHAPS IF WE HAD SOME LANGUAGE OR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS LIKE WE DO FOR PARKING, THAT IT PERHAPS MIGHT BE MORE APPARENT OR, OR
[03:30:01]
TRANSPARENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT TYPE OF VARIANCE.I WILL, UH, GET THAT ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME, VICE CHAIR AND, UH, ELAINE AND I WILL KEEP DIGGING INTO THAT PRE ANYTHING ELSE ARE YOU NOW? YOU KNOW, WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS BARBARA IS GOING TO FIND IT AND I SEE HER OVER THERE AND I'M GOING TO LIKE, BARBARA IS GOING TO GO.
YOU MEAN THIS ONE? THERE YOU GO.
I KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
CAN YOU JUST PLEASE EMAIL THAT TO ELAINE? I WILL EMAIL IT TO THE LANE.