Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:01]

WHEN THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

WE'RE STILL HAVING A LITTLE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY GETTING OUR VIRTUAL MEMBERS ONLINE, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO

[CALL TO ORDER]

ORDER IT IS DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 AT 5:46 PM.

WOULD YOU HAVE A QUORUM? I'M GOING TO START THE ROLL CALL FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE.

AND THEN ONCE OUR VIRTUAL MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO JOIN, I'LL FINISH IT.

SO ACTUALLY LET'S JUST GO IN ORDER KELLY BLOOM I'M HERE.

IT TOOK A WHILE FOR THE MIC TO SWITCH OVER.

IT FELT GOOD.

UH, BARBARA MACARTHUR HERE, BROOKE BAILEY RON MCDANIEL HERE, HERE.

I FORGOT TO PUT ON THE MICROPHONE HERE.

WE'RE GOOD.

NICOLE.

WADE.

YOU GOT IT.

CAUSE YOU HAVE MIKE ON, IS IT WORKING HERE? THERE WE GO.

PERFECT.

OKAY.

SO LET'S LOOK AT ITEM

[A-1 Staff requests approval November 8, 2021 draft minutes]

APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 8TH, 2021 DRAFT MINUTES.

OH, THERE WE GO.

EXCEPT WE'VE GOT TWO, THREE, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A SECOND? AND I KNOW MELISSA IS TRYING TO LOG IN, SO IT'S OKAY.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE BOARD MEMBER BUNDLE IS TWO.

SO I'LL JUST, WE CAN DO THE MINUTES WITH THE SEVEN ON THE DIOCESE.

SO, UH, BROOKE BAILEY? YES.

UH, JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

BARBARA MACARTHUR? YES.

RON MCDANIEL? YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

NICOLE WADE? YES.

AND KELLY YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S FOR THE MINUTES APPROVED.

OKAY.

AND THEN MOVING ON TO

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

ITEM B, ONE STUFF AND APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT ON THE ROLE OF ITEMS POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE ITEM C ONE C 16, 20 21 DASH 0 0 1 1 FOR 2, 1, 1, 1 REAL GRAND STREET IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 10TH, 2022, ITEM E ONE C 15, 20 AND 21 0 0 9 7 4 4 3 1 5 AVENUE EIGHT POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT TO ONE 10, SORRY, JANUARY 10TH, 2022.

AND ITEM D THREE C 15 20 21 DASH 0 1 0 2 4 3 2 0 1.

WESTLAKE DRIVE AS WITHDRAWAL OF EMOTION.

JUST SORRY, JUST QUICKLY.

UM, ON THE SIGN, THE C1, UM, SHOULD WE SOMEHOW DO SOMETHING WE'RE POSTPONING THAT EVERY SINGLE MONTH, DO WE NEED TO TABLE THAT OR DO A LONGER POSTPONEMENT? WHAT ARE THEY WAITING ON? DO YOU KNOW ELAINE? AND IN BETWEEN THAT, MELISSA JUST TEXTED ME THAT SHE'S METED ON BOTH VIDEO AND AUDIO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FROM AB YEAH.

ELAINE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE WAITING ON? ON C1? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

SO SHOULD WE LIMIT DIVERSITY IN YOUR BOARD? OVERLAID LIGHTING KEYS.

YES.

I MEAN, OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND POSTPONE IT EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE POSTPONED OF AT LEAST THREE REQUESTS? YES.

UH, IS THERE A REP HERE TONIGHT FOR THAT ITEM?

[00:05:04]

WELL, LET'S TRY TO TALK.

ARE THE, UH, VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS ON NEEDED YET? YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE ALL MUTED AND THEY CAN'T.

I BELIEVE I'M ON MUTE.

OKAY.

THAT'S DARRELL'S ZONE.

SO THERE'S MELISSA.

SO ANYWAY, SO BEFORE WE JUST DO ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT, DO WE JUST DO ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT AND THEN ANOTHER ONE NEXT MONTH? DO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS IN THE PROCESS CASE.

I THINK THAT'S YET ANOTHER, THERE MUST SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE LAND OF CODES AND ORDINANCES.

MELISSA, HANG ON A SECOND.

EXCUSE ME.

IVY TECH.

THE, CAN YOU TAKE THE PRESENTATION DOWN PLEASE? WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE FACES OF WHOEVER'S SPEAKING.

WELL, THIS ONE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE CHANGING OWNERSHIPS.

SO MAYBE IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE CODE.

IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OWNERSHIP, CHANGE IT.

ONE OF THE EMAILS ABOUT AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE.

DO YOU NEED, SO IS THAT A NO, NO ONE HERE FOR I AND NOBODY KNOWS.

LET'S JUST PUT ONE ON, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANY MORE TIME, ACTUALLY.

JESSICA, REAL QUICK.

CAN WE TAKE ROLL FOR THE, SO BACK TO FOR OUR VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS AND JUST GONNA FINISH THE ROLL CALL.

TOMMY EIGHTS HERE, MELISSA HAWTHORNE HERE, DARYL HERE.

MICHAEL VAN NOLAN.

THAT'S EVERYBODY.

UM, IT'S FINE.

LET'S JUST POSTPONE IT.

I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO SPEND 30 MINUTES ON THIS.

I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR MS. LOPEZ.

AREN'T APPLICANTS SUPPOSED TO ATTEND THE MEETING, EVEN IF THEY REQUEST TO POSTPONE IN CASE WE DECIDE TO HEAR, OKAY, WELL I'LL LEAVE IT UP.

WELL, BEST PRACTICES IS A LOT OF TIMES THEY JUST DON'T.

IF THEY ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE BEST, I WOULD SAY IF THIS HAS BEEN POSTPONED THREE TIMES THOUGH, AT UP KIM REQUESTS, MAYBE, UH, THIS IS THE LAST ONE.

IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE SAME CASE.

I THINK THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR OF THEM.

THREE OR FOUR OF THEM.

OKAY.

THERE ARE, BUT THIS ONE HAS BEEN POSTPONED SEVERAL TIMES AND, AND I KNOW IT'S BIG AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S BECAUSE OF THE CODE, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE CODE.

THAT'S WHY THAT IS.

THAT'S WHAT SHE'S TOLD.

YES.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

SHOULD WE JUST PUT THIS ON? WELL, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO MOVE IT PAST THE 60 DAYS BECAUSE THEN SHE HAS TO PAY THE RE NOTIFICATION FEE.

SO THAT'S WHY SHE'S REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT.

MY, I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO HEAR IT NEXT MONTH PROBABLY.

BUT DO I HAVE A MOTION AS IT IS FOR THE CURRENT POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS? YES.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

SO THE MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY WITH A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE, TOMMY EAR.

WE'RE VOTING ON POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.

OKAY.

JESSICA COHEN? YES.

BROOKE BAILEY.

YES.

ALYSSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

BARBARA MACARTHUR.

YES.

RON MCDANIEL.

YES.

DARRYL PUT YES.

AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

YES.

MICHAEL VAN ALLEN.

NICOLE WADE.

YES.

KELLY BLOOM.

YES.

SHE PROVED.

WHERE DID THE POSTPONEMENTS TO JANUARY 10TH, 2022 AT AUSTIN CITY HALL.

KEY.

SO NOW THAT WE'RE ALL HERE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH THE PREVIOUS SIGN.

POSTPONEMENTS.

NOPE.

C1 POSTPONED, NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM

[00:10:01]

D ONE.

NOPE.

GOOD BROTHER.

ALL RIGHT.

ITEM D

[D-1 C15-2021-0057 Stuart Sampley, AIA for Bryan & Laura Burkhart 2000 Peachtree Street]

ONE C 15 20 21 0 0 5 7 STEWART SAMPLING FOR 2000 PEACH TREE STREET.

WE'RE READY.

COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM PLEASE.

ONE SEC.

COULD YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE PRESENTATION PER ITEM? DO YOU WANT PLEASE? I HAVEN'T BEEN INSTRUCTED, BUT I'M GUESSING THAT THIS MOVES IT.

IT'S THE, A CLICKER WORKING TO THE SLIDES FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT.

GO.

AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.

THANK YOU.

CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? OKAY.

GOOD EVENING TONIGHT.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY CLIENTS IN THE NAME, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS STEWART SAMPLING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING TONIGHT.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY CLIENTS AND THE HOMEOWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY.

LAUREN BRIAN BURKHART.

I'M THE ARCHITECT THAT DESIGNED THEIR HOME LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BLUE BONDED IN PEACHTREE IN THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE AWARE THAT BLUEBONNET IS VERY ACTIVE STREET IN THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ZILKER ELEMENTARY, JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY AND THE POPULAR BLUE BONNET CONVENIENCE STORE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE EARLY DESIGN PHASES OF THE PROJECTS, THE BUILDINGS MASSING RELATIVE TO THE STREET WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THREE LARGE HERITAGE PECAN TREES ON THE SITE'S PERIMETER DROVE MUCH OF THE FOOTPRINT ALONG WITH THE DESIRE FOR A SOUTH FACING POOL, ALLOWING NATURAL LIGHT INTO THEIR HOME AND YARD.

AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH VISUAL AND ACOUSTIC PRIVACY ALONG THE BUSY STREET WERE IMPORTANT.

SO I DESIGNED A FENCE TO COMPLIMENT THE HOME BUILT WITH STUCCO CLOUD MASON, REDWOOD TO SURROUND THE PROPERTY.

THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO BALANCE A DESIRE FOR PRIVACY WITHOUT MAKING THE FENCE FIELD TOO TALL OR OVERWHELMING BY THE PASTOR.

BY ALONG BLUE BONNET.

THE FENCE IS INTENTIONALLY SET BACK FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE ROOM FOR LANDSCAPING AND TO SOFTEN THE WALL ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND THE BIKE LANE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE.

THIS FENCE WAS PART OF THE PERMIT DRAWINGS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY CITY STAFF.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THESE WERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THAT IS ULTIMATELY MY RESPONSIBILITY AS THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND BUILT TO COMPLY WITH OUR BUILDING AND ZONING REGULATIONS.

AND IN THIS, I WAS AN ERROR IN MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE LANGUAGE.

WHILE I KNOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE FENCE CODE, I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO ALLOW OFFENSE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE PROVIDED IT DOES NOT EXCEED AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET OR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVEN.

THESE FENCES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE CONSENT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

ONCE IT EXCEEDS THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT AND QUALIFY FOR EITHER A CHANGE OF GRADE OR HAZARDOUS SITUATION, WRITTEN CONSENT IS REQUIRED FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

REGARDLESS IF IT'S ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THIS FENCE WAS COMPLETED IN A FEW MINUTES AFTER THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED, MY CLIENTS MOVED IN AN ANONYMOUS CODE COMPLAINT WAS FILED STATING THE FENCE REQUIRED A PERMIT AND THAT IT WAS TOO TALL.

I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT WHERE THEY REQUESTED THE ACROSS THE STREET NEIGHBORS AND CONSENT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

SO I COULD QUALIFY UNDER THE EIGHT FOOT CODE SECTION, WHICH I DID IN QUICK FASHION.

AFTER REVIEW THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT WOULD IN COORDINATION WITH THE DSD DETERMINED THAT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THAT THE CITY WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE CONSENT.

AND THAT OUR ONLY REMEDY WAS TO MAINTAIN THIS FENCE WAS TO REQUEST A HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE CODE SECTION STATED IN THE REQUEST AS PART OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, WE'VE REBOOKED RE-UPTAKE AND SUPPORT FROM ALL OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

MANY, IF NOT ALL OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY NEIGHBORS THAT DIRECTLY OPPOSE THIS PROJECT OR THIS REQUESTS.

WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO HELP US BRING THIS CHAPTER TO A CLOSE AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

I CAN SHOW SOME OF MY PRESENTATION NOW, MAINLY THESE ARE JUST SOME PHOTOGRAPHS

[00:15:01]

AND SOME CONTEXT.

THIS IS THE SITE PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE RED IS THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT IN RED SHOWING THE FENCE.

AND THESE ARE THE APPROVED PLANS.

UH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEWED FROM THE PEACHTREE STREET, OR EXCUSE ME FROM, UH, BLUE BONNET.

UH, THIS IS A LONG PEACH STREET.

AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE SCALE OF THIS FENCE RELATIVE, AND THESE ARE JUST SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF FENCES THAT ARE ACTUALLY ON THE SAME STREET AND ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION, IF I COULD GET YOU TO GO AHEAD AND STEP TO THE SIDE, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

UH, I'M LORENE ATHERTON WITH THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING COMMITTEE.

UM, I'D DIRECT YOU TO A LETTER, UH, SUBMITTED BY, UH, DAVE PIPER, UH, UH, REGARDING THIS, UH, THIS CASE AND, UH, THE Z AND A ZONING COMMITTEE'S OPPOSITION TO IT, BUT ALSO, UM, UH, AN EMAIL FROM KURT SCHULTZ THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR BACKUP.

UH, UH, AND, UH, MR. SCHULTZ, I GUESS IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.

UH, BUT HE, UH, HE, UH, IS THE ONE WHO FIRST REPORTED THE, THE CODE VIOLATION AND, UH, HIS, HIS LETTER SAYS THAT HE REPORTED IT, UH, WELL, BEFORE THE FENCE WAS FINISHED, WHEN THE PREFAB FRAMING WAS STARTED, UH, IT WAS OBVIOUS THE FENCE WAS GOING TO BE TOO HIGH.

HE REPORTED IT TO 3, 1, 1, AND REPORTED IT AGAIN AFTER, UH, GOING TO RESIDENTIAL REVIEW.

AND THEN HE WAS REFERRED TO CODE COMPLIANCE.

UH, SO AT LEAST FOUR OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION HAVE BEEN SENT.

UM, UH, AND, UM, UH, I CAN, UM, UH, HE'S ACTUALLY MEASURED THE FENCE.

IT'S WELL OVER SEVEN FEET SECTIONS OF IT ARE WELL OVER SEVEN FEET AND MEMBERS OF OUR ZONING COMMITTEE HAVE ALSO MEASURED IT AND THEY'VE MEASURED THE, UH, EXAMPLES OF OTHER, UH, OTHER FENCES AND WALLS, UH, IN THE, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS PRESENTED AS EXAMPLES.

AND, UH, UH, UH, THE, UM, UH, UH, THERE'S, UH, ONE OF THEM, UH, WAS ACTUALLY IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, ONE OF THEM NEARBY, AND THEY WERE REQUIRED AFTER THEY BUILT THEIR FENCE.

THEY WERE REQUIRED TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE TO CUT IT DOWN.

SO, UH, UH, WE REALLY, REALLY CAN'T CAN'T SUPPORT, UH, UH, ANY, ANY VARIANTS FOR THIS, UH, WALL.

UM, EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN COMPLIANCE AND IT'S, IT'S NOT, UH, THE, UM, AND THOSE THAT ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE NEED TO NEED TO BE COME INTO COMPLIANCE AS WELL.

SO I CAN ANSWER, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

I CAN GIVE YOU THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE OTHER FENCES.

UM, UH, BUT, UH, WE, WE CAN'T SEE ANY RE ANY REASON TO ALLOW THIS FENCE TO REMAIN THIS WALL, TO REMAIN THAT HIGH.

THANKS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO BEFORE WE START THE REBUTTAL, I DID FORGET ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING THAT I NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE CAN HAVE ANY MORE TESTIMONY AND THAT'S THE OATH.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, I NEED YOU TO STAND REAL QUICK, PLEASE.

AND I'M GOING TO ASK

[00:20:01]

YOU, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? OKAY, THANK YOU.

APOLOGIES AGAIN.

OKAY.

NOW FOR REBUTTAL, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, IF YOU'D LIKE, YES, SIR.

UH, AS A REBUTTAL TO MS. ATHERTON, WHICH I'VE NEVER SPOKEN WITH BEFORE, UM, AS IT RELATES TO HARDSHIP, WHICH IS, I KNOW SOMETHING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT YOU GUYS ARE HERE TO, UM, FOR ME TO PROVE, AND FOR YOU TO ACCEPT IF I'M USING THE CORRECT TERMS, THAT WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE IF THIS FENCE WAS JEW AGAINST AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, UM, THAT WE COULD ASK FOR THEIR CONSENT AND THEY, IT WAS THEIR CHOICE TO GIVE IT TO US OR NOT.

UM, AND THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, AS IT RELATES TO FENCES AGAINST THE RIGHT-AWAY, THE CODE ACTUALLY DOESN'T SPEAK TO IT AT ALL.

UH, IT JUST SAYS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND SO AS WE GET TO THIS POINT AND WE QUALIFY FOR THAT PIECE, THERE IS NO MEASUREMENT FOR THE CITY.

THERE'S NO ONE AT THE CITY THAT'S WILLING TO PROVIDE CONSENT.

AND SO IN SOME RESPECTS, THAT'S A HARDSHIP TO US WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT.

UM, SO THE FENCE MEASURES SEVEN FEET IN HEIGHT IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, IT GOES UP OR DOWN ABOUT AN INCH OR SO, AND WE HAVE MEASURED SOME OF THE ADJACENT FENCES.

WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT OUR FENCE.

I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE CONTEXT, PICTURES OF THIS IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE STREET.

ONE PARTICULAR THING WITH US IS THAT THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH A LOT OF THESE OTHER FENCES DON'T HAVE.

AND THAT'S REALLY MY ONLY REBUTTAL, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.

JUST QUICKLY, UM, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS A HARDSHIP IS A CODE ISSUE, NOT A HARDSHIP.

SO I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.

JUST MY TAKE ON THIS CASE.

REMEMBER BLOOM? YEAH.

QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO MS. UM, UM, SHE STATED THAT SHE'S MEASURED THE FENCES THAT YOU SHOWED AS EXAMPLES AND DETERMINED THAT THEY WEREN'T, THEY, SOME OF THEM WERE INCOME.

THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE, AT LEAST SOME OF THEM.

HAVE YOU MEASURED THOSE, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US? I GUESS WE COULD PUT THE PRESENTATION BACK UP.

I HAVE MEASURED A NUMBER OF THOSE FENCES MYSELF.

UH, I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT INFORMATION OF THE EXACT HEIGHTS OF THOSE FENCES, BUT MOST OF THE FENCES ALL EXCEED SEVEN FEET IN HEIGHT.

THERE'S ONE ABOUT SIX HOUSES DOWN THAT MEASURES OVER 10 FEET IN HEIGHT.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THEIR FENCES.

WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS FENCE AND THE HARDSHIP THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS FENCE AND THE WAY THAT IT WAS BUILT AND ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IN HEIGHT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

POOR MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICA.

SO IF IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS THAT THIS FENCE WAS TOO TALL, COULD YOU SPEAK ABOUT YOUR INTERACTIONS AND HOW YOU CAME TO BE WITH, UM, THE CODE PEOPLE WHO WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THE FENCE AND THEN SPEAK ABOUT WHY THE FENCE IS THAT TALL? IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, UM, IT SAID THAT IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS, DURING THE BUILDING OF THE FENCE, IT WAS NOT, IT, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT UNTIL AFTER THE FENCE.

AND THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETE.

THAT'S WHEN WE WERE NOTIFIED FOR THE FIRST TIME, UM, THAT THE FENCE WE WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD BY THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS A LITTLE MESSY.

THEY CAME OUT AND SAID, YOU NEED A PERMIT FOR THIS.

AND WE SAID, WELL, THIS IS NOT IN A FLOOD PLAIN.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT.

AND THEY SAID, OH YEAH, WE'RE WRONG.

I'M SORRY.

OH, BY THE WAY, NOT THE FENCE IS TOO TALL.

WELL, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S TOO TALL? AND THEY SAID, THIS IS THE WAY THE CODE IS INTERPRETED.

IT WAS A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH.

IT WAS A LITTLE MESSY.

AND WE WERE ALSO IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID.

SO THERE WAS A LOT OF, IT WAS MESSY.

SO TO SAY, UM, AND AS SOON AS WE SAT DOWN WITH THE SUPERVISOR, WE HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPERVISOR OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT.

HE SAID, LOOK, THE CODE

[00:25:01]

SECTION SAYS AN AVERAGE OF SIX FEET OR A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN.

UM, THE AURA AND THAT CODE IS THE INTERPRETATION THAT I TOOK INCORRECTLY.

UH, AND THAT THE FENCE WAS BUILT TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

IT WAS ALSO BUILT FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT LEVEL OF PRIVACY THAT WE NEEDED FROM THE STREET AND FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.

UM, WHEN THAT WAS DONE, WE WENT TO THE CODE.

THEY SAID, IF YOU CAN GET THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU TO PROVIDE CONSENT, THEN YOU QUALIFY UNDER SECTION D BECAUSE OF THE POOL AND BECAUSE OF THE GREAT CHANGE THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DID THAT.

WE CAME BACK AND GAVE THAT WE ALSO ALSO CONTACTED THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND THEY SAID, PROVIDE, THERE'S NOT A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THIS FENCE IN TERMS OF A BLIND CORNER OR WHATNOT, THEN YOU'LL QUALIFY UNDER THIS AND THIS WILL ALL BE OVER.

SO WE DID ALL OF THOSE.

AND THEN AGAIN, THIS IS STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID.

IT SAT VERY QUIET FOR A WHILE.

AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, ACTUALLY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS THE CITY.

AND UNFORTUNATELY NO ONE AT THE CITY WILL GIVE YOU CONSENT.

SO THE ONLY REMEDY THAT YOU HAVE IS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ASK FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

AND THAT PROVIDED THAT YOU CAN SHOW THE HARDSHIP FOR THAT PROCESS AND SHOW THE HARDSHIP THAT EXISTS, THAT YOU COULD QUALIFY UNDER THIS, ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE AT THE CITY TO APPROVE THAT.

AND THE ONLY MECHANISM IS TO ASK FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM, TO GO FROM SIX FEET TO SEVEN FEET.

THIS IS NOT, YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURES.

THIS IS NOT AN AGREGIOUS FENCE.

IT'S BEEN LANDSCAPE.

IT'S BEEN, IT'S BUILT VERY WELL.

IT SETS BACK FROM THE STREET, ALL OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT LIVE AROUND MY HOMEOWNERS, WHICH ARE HERE TONIGHT.

UM, I LIKE THE FENCE.

THEY THINK THAT IT PROVIDES, IT ADDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT ADDS TO THE SCREEN STREETSCAPE.

UM, AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS RELATIVELY MINOR.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STREETSCAPE IN A LONG VERSION, ALL THESE FENCES ALONG BLUE BONDED ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET ALL HAVE THE SAME BARRIER THERE FOR ACOUSTIC AND VISUAL PRIVACY.

SO AGAIN, I SAID THAT MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WAS AN ERROR, AND I'M STANDING UP HERE TELLING YOU ALL OF THAT, UH, HOW WE'LL NEVER MAKE THIS MISTAKE EVER AGAIN.

UH, AND, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PACKET THAT YOU HAVE, I DIDN'T FOCUS ON THIS IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE REASONABLE USE AND THE HARDSHIP AND SOME OF THE KEY POINT ITEMS THAT I'VE POINTED OUT FOR US.

UM, AND THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP RIGHT THERE.

HOPEFULLY I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION IN A VERY LONG-WINDED WAY, BUT IT ANSWERS HER.

WAS THERE A SPECIFIC PICTURE YOU WANTED TO REFER TO IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WHICH SHOULD BE UP ON THE SCREEN HERE? I MEAN, I, I SEE WHO'S MOVING THIS, THESE ARE JUST THE SAME.

THESE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.

LITERALLY.

I JUST KINDA WENT DOWN THE STREET AND WENT, CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, CLICK ALL THE WAY DOWN.

UM, BUT AS YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER, I MEAN, WE HEAR VARIANCES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

WE DON'T LOOK IT UP.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT THIS IS THIS PICTURE.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT YOU'RE SHOWING THE CONTEXT, WHICH YOU UNDERSTAND.

OKAY.

I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST PICTURE OF CONTEXT WITH THE NEIGHBOR EVEN FURTHER DOWN, BUT ALL OF THESE FENCES, SORRY, THE GREAT CHANGES, BUT ALL OF THESE FENCES ALONG THERE PROVIDE THIS.

THANK YOU BOARD MEMBER.

MACTAN SORRY.

HANG ON ONE SEC, PLEASE.

YES, MA'AM IS IT MY TURN? UH, ONE SEC, PLEASE.

OH, SORRY.

ARE THEY S ARE YOU TRYING TO UNMUTE THEM OR I'M NOT MUTED? NO.

OKAY.

SO ARE WE GOOD TO KEEP GOING? OKAY.

OKAY.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

AND THEN MS. ATHERTON, I'LL HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL.

YES, SIR.

UM, YOU HAD SAID IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT YOUR FENCE, IT SAYS IN THE PACKET THAT IT SAYS, AT NO POINT, DOES IT EXCEED SEVEN FEET, AND THEN YOU SAID IT'S WITHIN AN INCH OR TWO FINE, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT GREATER THAN SEVEN FEET AT ANY POINT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE LAST TIME INSTRUCTION, MATERIAL VARIATION, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

[00:30:01]

THE TOP OF THE FENCE IS, IS LEVEL IT'S BUILT OUT OF MASONRY.

SO, OKAY.

AND THEN HOW MUCH DOES THE GRADE CHANGE UNDERNEATH THERE OVER THE COURSE OF THAT PROPERTY? THE GREAT CHANGE IS NOT, NOT AT THE STREET SIDE OF IT.

I MEAN, THERE IS A SMALL RETAINING WALL.

THAT'S NOT ON THE PROPERTY, BUT GENERALLY SLOPES FROM THE BACK OF THE LOT, TO THE CORNER OF THE STREET.

SO THE HOUSE SITS UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER IN THE BAT.

IS THAT, AM I MAKING SENSE WHEN I SAY THAT, UH, MS. ATTITUDE, IF YOU COULD JUST PERFECT STEP OVER TO THE SIDE THERE.

AND I WENT AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I, THAT I HEARD WHAT YOU'RE SAYING LOUD AND CLEAR ABOUT THE OTHER, ABOUT THE OTHER FENCES IN YOUR TESTIMONY.

DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY IN SAYING THAT YOU GUYS HAD ALSO MEASURED HIS FENCE AND THAT IT WAS GREATER THAN SEVEN FEET? UM, YES.

UH, UH, ONE OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND MR. SCHULTZ, UH, UH, MEASURED, UH, MEASURED THE FENCE, UH, 2000 PEACH TREE ALONG BLUE BONNET RANGED FROM SEVEN FEET, ONE INCH TO SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES, SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES.

WELL, THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.

AND IT'S, AND IT'S, AND IT'S RAISED ON TOP OF THE, UH, THAT RETAINING WALL.

SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY DOMINATES.

NO, BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHEN THE RETAINING WALL WHERE, WHERE IT STARTS IS LESS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE, BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S SEVEN FOOT FOUR.

SO ARE THEY HERE TONIGHT OR DO YOU GUYS NO.

THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING THE PRESENTATION.

THEY, THEY DID ALL THE, SO THAT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS, OR IS NOT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IS PRETTY IMPORTANT.

SO I, I WOULD PROBABLY AT THIS POINT WITHOUT, I MEAN, UNLESS PEOPLE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS MOVE TO POSTPONE UNTIL PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE AS TO HOW TALL THE FENCE ACTUALLY IS, BUT BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL ON D ONE FIVE OF THE LATE BACKUP, THEY DID TESTIFY IN THEIR EMAIL TO, TO LESS THAN IT IS SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES IT'S IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH WOULD THAT SUFFICE.

BUT HE'S SAYING, IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT'S SAYING IT'S NOT.

SO, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW TALL SOMETHING IS.

AND I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE TO MEASURE FOR MYSELF.

IT'S ALSO NOTICED IT'S SEVEN FEET.

OH, SORRY.

WELL, YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEM.

I'LL STOP TALKING.

SORRY, VICE CHAIR.

IT'S ALSO NOTICED THAT SEVEN FEET.

UM, IS IT, IS IT MY TURN OR DO YOU HAVE MORE? OKAY.

SO I GUESS FOR ME IN LOOKING AT THE CASE IN GENERAL, UM, YOU KNOW, NONA, I'M NOT A FAN OF TALL FENCES JUST IN GENERAL, AND I GET YOUR POINT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THESE WALLS, BUT I LOOK AT THE SITE AND, YOU KNOW, I, I LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF, UM, BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING HOUSES.

THEY'RE BEING TORN DOWN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE ALL GOING BACK AND IT'S LIKE, THEY HAVE NO BACKYARDS.

AND THAT THEN MY BACKYARD BECOMES SOMEBODY ELSE'S BACKYARD BECAUSE IT'S JUST FRANKLY OVERBUILT.

SO I LOOK AT THIS AND I SEE YOUR TREES, AND I KIND OF GET THAT YOU DID THIS ORIENTATION AROUND THE TREES, AND, BUT THEY'RE BASICALLY THEIR BACKYARD FUNCTIONS ARE IN THIS FRONT AREA.

AND SO YOU HAVE THIS FENCE HERE AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF BEING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IS THIS CONNECTIVITY AND PORCHES AND PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOGS AND SAYING, HI, AND ALL OF THAT.

AND I GET THAT, THERE'S THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET AND THE CITY WILL NEVER CONSENT TO A FENCE.

UM, I MEAN, THEY, THEY VIEWED THAT AS NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW AND THE CODE, UH, DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO CROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY TO GAIN THAT CONSENT.

SO I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED THAT WAY.

SO FOR ME, IN CONTEXT, I KIND OF NEED TO SEE MORE OF HOW YOU GOT HERE.

AND I ALSO REALLY HOW TALL THE ACTUAL FENCE IS BECAUSE, UM, IF IT IS, IF IT IS MORE THAN SEVEN FEET, THEN IT DOES HAVE TO BE RE NOTICED BECAUSE EVEN IF WE TOOK AN ACTION, SO I WOULD EITHER, UH, B, B WITH A POSTPONEMENT OR, UM, OTHER

[00:35:02]

THANKS.

THAT'S ALL MADAM CHAIR.

I'M GOING TO MAKE MOTION DENYING, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING AT .

IF I TAKE A LOOK AT YOU ON EIGHT, AND I'M LOOKING AT THAT SEVEN, BUT, AND IT, YOU CAN TELL IT, YOU COULD SEE HOW IT ACTUALLY GROWS A LITTLE BIT AS IT COMES DOWN, BUT IT'S SITTING ON TOP OF ANY WALL.

IT ALSO HAS THE LANDSCAPE IN IT.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU ADD THAT TO IT FROM THE SIDEWALK, WALKING ON THAT SIDEWALK, A DOG DOWN THE STREET, I THINK A STANDARD SIX FOOT FENCE ON SAVING THAT HIGH UP WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRIVACY.

ANOTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS ON THE EXPENSES AND WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY.

AND THAT'S NOT JUST HEALTH AND SAFETY, EVEN FROM I'M MEAN OVER GETTING INTO IT.

IF THERE'S PULLING THE BAGS BACK DOWN, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY SO THAT OUR FIGHTERS CAN SEE IF THERE'S A FIRE GOING ON AND I CAN GET INTO IT.

IF PD, AS THEY DRIVE BY AND THEY'D DO THEIR CRUISES, THEY CAN ALSO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING GOING ON.

OR IF SOMEBODY BREAKS IN THE RESIDENTS, THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER MITIGATING, SIR, UH, VISIONS THAT WE HAVE REQUIREMENT FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE, BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT A SIX FOOT GETTING UP ON TOP OF THAT LANDSCAPING, CAUSE THE WAY THAT IS AND THE WAY THAT THE GROUND IS GRADING WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRIVACY FOR THE, FOR THE HOMEOWNER.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

I JUST CAN'T FIND OUT REAL, TOO HARD BUT I'M OPEN TO POSTPONEMENT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR POSTPONEMENT, BECAUSE FOR ME, IT'S, I THINK SIX FOOT IS ADEQUATE, BUT I ALSO HAVE YET TO HEAR A HARDSHIP, UM, JUST BECAUSE THE CITY WON'T SIGN THAT'S, LIKE I SAID, A CODE ISSUE, NOT A HARDSHIP.

IT HAS TO BE A HARDSHIP, UM, SPECIFIC TO THAT PROPERTY.

AND THAT WOULD BE ANY PROPERTY ALONG THIS STREET.

SO BOARD MEMBER PRO.

YEAH.

UM, I WAS GOING TO SECOND THE, UH, THE MOTION TO DENY AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

I, I DON'T SEE THE ARCHES.

I, WHAT I HEARD WAS A, A UNIQUE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THE CITY WON'T CONSENT TO A HOLLER FENCE, THAT THAT IS SOMEHOW A HARDSHIP.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED TO FIND AS HARDSHIP IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, WE NEED TO FIND IS THAT BUILDING A FENCE WITHIN THE CODE WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

UH, AND SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF JUST DENIED IT AND I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF MAKING ANY POSTPONEMENTS.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN WITH THE SECOND BOARD MEMBER, BAILEY BOARD MEMBER.

THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE ON THE TABLE THAT, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND AT THIS POINT THAT IF IT DID, WOULD SUPERSEDE THE MOTION, THAT NAYA WILL POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE TREATED CHANGE TYPOGRAPHY AS A HARDSHIP WHEN IT CAME TO THE HEIGHT OFFENSES BEFORE.

HOWEVER, WE ALSO DON'T HAVE MUCH INFORMATION THE PACKET ABOUT WHAT THE CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY IS.

SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS HARDSHIP IS PARTICULARLY STRONG, JUST THAT THERE IS THAT THERE IS A HARSH, IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP.

THAT'S AN ELEMENT POTENTIALLY IT'S BEEN CITED IN THIS CASE.

ALTHOUGH AGAIN, UH, EXCEPT THAT HE SAID, IT'S FLAT ALONG THE PLANE OF THE, WELL, IT WAS FLAT, BUT HE SAID, IT'S FLAT ALONG THE TOP OF THE FENCE.

THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS WHAT HE WOULD SAY.

SLOPE.

THAT STREET IS A FLAT STREET.

DOESN'T SLOPE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THE SITE SLOPES, AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

THIS CASE IS NOT AS PRESENTED IS NOT PARTICULARLY STRONG.

AND PLUS WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE, HOW TALL DEFENSES, SO IT'S NOT LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, I'M JUST SAYING, LIKE, IF, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HERE TO, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HERE FOR ME TO VOTE ON EITHER WAY.

THAT'S MY POINT.

AND I APOLOGIZE.

I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU WERE CONSIDERING MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

NO, NO.

THAT WAS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

NO SKIN OFF MY BACK.

I NOTICED THE SAME THING THAT THERE'S MISSING INFORMATION.

THERE'S NO TYPE OF GRAPHIC OR A SPOT ELEVATIONS OR DISTANCES.

I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW THE, THE SIZE OF THE LOT OR ANYTHING.

SO IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT THE DROP IS.

UM, WHAT THE CHANGE IN GRADE AS WELL, PROBABLY

[00:40:02]

SO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE WOULD SUPERSEDE, UH, THE MOTION OR IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE CAN DO THE MOTION TO DENY.

SO LET'S CALL THE ROLL ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE FIRST.

I'M SORRY, BUT BOARD MEMBER, BROOKE BAILEY WITH THE SECOND ON THAT, OR, OR, SORRY.

NO, UH, AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ WAS THE SECOND ON THAT.

SO POINT A BORDER JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.

SO THERE WAS A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND THEN THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY.

SO IT DOES SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY.

GO FIRST.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, DOES THE MOTION TO POSTPONE SUPERSEDE THIS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR ARE TO DENY? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE DID HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER.

MCDANIEL'S SECOND DID, BUT BOARD MEMBER RODRIGUEZ.

AND NOW WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

SO LET'S VOTE ON THIS.

SO THE, SO THE POSTPONE THAT GETS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT SUPERSEDES NOT THE POSTPONEMENT.

I THINK THE SECOND MOTION SUPERSEDES.

GOT IT.

OKAY.

UM, BUT REGARDLESS IF THERE'S AN ACTION ON A DENIAL, IF THEY SAY THAT THE MOTION FOR DENIAL DOES, UM, GAINED ENOUGH VOTES, THEY CAN STILL FILE FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN 10 DAYS, UNLESS SHE BECOMES THAT IT PROBABLY NEEDS FREE NOTIFICATION AND ACTUAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

UM, BECAUSE IF THE FENCE IS HIGHER THAN SEVEN FEET, THEN THE NOTICE IS INCORRECT.

SO, AND THEN HOW, HOW DO YOU VIEW THE TOPOGRAPHY IN FRONT OF THE LOT? WHEN THE LOT WHEN IT'S OBVIOUSLY RAISED, DEFINITELY IF THE MOTION TO DENY FAILS, WE'LL BE WANTING SOME MORE INFORMATION, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DENY.

AGAIN, THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY MADE BY BOARD MEMBER FIND OLIN SECONDED, BUT BOARD MEMBER BAILEY, TOMMY, UM, I HAVE TOO LITTLE INFORMATION, SO I'M GOING TO NO, SO AGAINST NO, NO.

IN THIS CASE IS KIND OF, YES.

SO THIS IS NO, NO IS YES.

ON A DENIAL.

YES.

YEAH.

BUT THE VICE NO MEANS NO MEANS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DENY.

YES.

MEANS YOU DO WANT IT TO TRY TO SAY IT CLEARLY.

OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

NO, VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

YES.

BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

YES.

BOARD MEMBER MCDANIEL.

NO BOARD MEMBER PUT YES.

BOARD MEMBER RODRIGUEZ.

NO, I'M IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT BOARD MEMBER OF NOLAN.

YES.

MADAM CHAIR.

LET ME CLARIFY THE REASON I'M ALSO MAKING THIS MOTION.

IF WE'RE DEALING WITH AN AIR STATED THE BEGINNING OF THE, OF THE, UH, TESTIMONY THAT HE WASN'T AWARE THAT OF THE, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCING AND ALSO THESE FENCES LIKE THIS, I HAVE SEEN THEM ALL OVER TOWN AND HE EVEN SHOWED AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT THERE STEPPED DOWN FROM THE HIGHER ELEVATION.

ONE THING THAT I WOULD WANT HIM, IF IT MOTION ISN'T GOING TO PASS, AND HE'S GOING TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION AND HIS INFORMATION HE'S GOING TO NEED TO PROVIDE A DETAILED .

CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT ALL IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY IT.

AND SECONDARY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT HIS ONE SEC, WHAT WAS THAT LAST ONE? YOU, YOU WERE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT DETAILED AND HE'S GOING TO NEED TO PROVIDE A DETAILED TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF A PROPERTY.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE, UM, ON A SURVEY, WHAT THE ELEVATION IS FOR THE ACTUALLY PROPERTY PANEL, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE HOMEOWNERS WILL

[00:45:01]

COME IN AND BRING SOIL IN TO BUILD IT UP.

AND SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF HE CAN RUN THE TOP OF THAT FENCE LEVEL IT, AND HE SHOULD HAVE STARTED AT SIX FEET AND GONE FROM THERE AND NOT START AT SEVEN FEET AND GO FROM THERE.

THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER, WADE.

I'M GOING TO VOTE.

YES.

IN FAVOR OF DENIAL AND BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.

YES.

LET ME COUNT REAL QUICK.

THIS ONE SEVEN.

UM, MS. LOPEZ, DO WE NEED A SUPER MAJORITY FOR THIS ONE AT THREE? OKAY.

SO THE MOTION IS APPROVED AND THE VARIANCE IS DENIED.

SORRY.

I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE STAFF LIAISON TO COME BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH THE INFORMATION ASKED FOR.

OKAY.

SO NOW THAT WE'RE BACK ON TRACK A LITTLE BIT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT KEYS.

JUST TO REMINDER TO EVERYONE, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.

AND WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD, SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.

IF THERE'S OPPOSITION, PLEASE DON'T SPEAK TO EACH OTHER.

MOVING ON TO THE NEXT KEY PIECE.

THIS IS GOING TO BE

[Items D-2 & E-2]

ITEM D TWO, SEE 15 20 21 0 1 0 1 MICHAEL WHELAN FOR 2 0 1 EAST KEENAN LANE.

UH, LTD 2 0 1 AND 4 0 3 EAST LEG 5 6 13 AVENUE F.

AND WHEN YOUR PRESENTATION IS UP, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

I'LL BE DIVIDING MY TIME, A CHAIR WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN TO PROCEED CHAIR.

NO, WAIT TILL IT GOES FULL SCREEN AND YOU SHOULD HAVE THE PRESENTER TO MOUSE LEFT AND RIGHT.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A SITE LOCATED AT CANUCK LANE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS CITY POLICIES ESTABLISH A CLEAR VISION FOR THE SITE IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NEW GROWTH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PARKLAND.

HOWEVER, THE SITE FACES A NUMBER OF UNIQUE FACTORS IMPACTING OVER 30% OF THE SITE AREA AND UNDERMINING THE CITY'S VISION.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE BY WAVING COMPATIBILITY BEYOND 50 FEET.

THAT'S ALLOWING THE PROJECT TO ACHIEVE THE BASE ZONING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET ACROSS THE SITE.

AND IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PAGE 17 OF YOUR PACKET AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, PAGE 16 OF YOUR PACKET.

AND WE HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HERE, HERE.

WE CAN SEE THE SITE, A PARALLELOGRAM LIKE SHAPE AT CANUCK LANE'S INTERSECTION WITH THE RAILROAD.

IT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN IMAGINE.

AUSTIN CENTER IS SURROUNDED BY THE CITY'S TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK AND IS LOCATED ALONG THE RED LINE PARKWAY PARKWAY TRAIL PARKWAY TRAIL, AND IS DESIGNATED FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE ZONING.

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS SITE IS WHERE OUR CITY PLANS AND POLICIES DIRECT NEW GROWTH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKLAND.

HOWEVER, VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS THREATENED THIS VISION FROM ALL SIDES, INCLUDING ONSITE PROTECTED TREES, POWER LINES, AND WATERLINE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS.

IN ADDITION, THE SITES PARALLELOGRAM LIKE SHAPE AND TEX DOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DUE TO THE SITE'S UNIQUE PROXIMITY TO THE ADJACENT RAILROAD CROSSING HAVE CASCADING IMPACTS ON SITE LAYOUT THAT MEANINGFULLY LIMIT THE PROJECT.

THESE CONSTRAINTS CUMULATIVELY CONSTITUTE OVER 16% OF THE SITE AREA.

AND SINCE THIS SITE IS PARKS DEFICIENT CITY POLICIES CALL FOR UP TO 15% OF THE SITE AREA TO BE PROVIDED AS PARKLAND.

SO YOU'RE DEALING WITH A TOTAL IMPACT OF OVER 31% OF THE SITE.

AS A RESULT OF THIS HARDSHIPS, HAVE THESE HARDSHIPS HAVE HINDERED THE REASONABLE USE IN SMALLER DIVIDED PARKLAND.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IN CONTRAST APPROVING

[00:50:01]

THE VARIANTS WOULD CONSOLIDATE AND EXPAND THE PARKLAND AND INCREASE AFFORDABLE UNITS, DELIVERING BETTER OUTCOMES ACROSS THE BOARD.

IN OTHER WORDS, APPROVING THIS VARIANCE WOULD ADDRESS THE IDENTIFIED HARDSHIPS AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S VISION, ALLOWING MORE PARKLAND AND EIGHT MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL VOLUNTARY AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 10 ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS, ALL TOLD THIS WOULD MEAN 52 NEW LONGTERM AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A DISTRICT THAT IS CURRENTLY ABOUT 400 UNITS BEHIND ON ITS AFFORDABILITY GOAL.

ACCORDING TO THE HOUSING BLUEPRINT AND AS NOTED BOTH PARK AND THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHO YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM IN A MOMENT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS.

WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH NORTH LOOP SINCE JANUARY OF 2021.

AND WITH SKYVIEW SINCE OCTOBER OF 20 20, 20 21, AT WHICH, UH, ROBIN HAYMANS, HE'S ALSO HERE FROM PARK ATTENDED THOSE MEETINGS AS WELL WITH US.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ONE OF THE SKYVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS WHO TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY AS WELL.

SO TO RECAP, SITE AND CODE CONSTRAINTS ARE PREVENTING A REASONABLE USE FOR THE SITE, REDUCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SPLITTING UP ONSITE ONSITE PARKLAND, APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND ALLOWING 60 FEET ACROSS THE SITE.

WE'LL ADDRESS THESE CONSTRAINTS AND MAXIMIZE PARKLAND AND AFFORDABILITY AND BOTH PART AND THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT THIS RE UH, THIS REQUEST.

AGAIN, REPRESENTATIVES OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ARE HERE INCLUDING RANDY SCOTT AND ROBIN HAYMANS RIGHT NOW, BRIAN AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBOR OF THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WILL TAKE UP THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME.

THANK YOU BOARD.

MY NAME IS BRIAN AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I'M THE VICE-PRESIDENT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND PART OVER THE LAST YEAR, AS MR. WAYLAND MENTIONED ON THIS PROPERTY, UH, WE'RE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE 60 FOOT, UH, VARIANCE INCREASE TO REALIZE THE FULL ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE, UH, THIS PROPERTY LIES ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, IT'S WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY TO CANUCK.

WE HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATING TO REDEVELOPMENT HIS PROPERTY FOR SOME TIME AND RE SEE IT AS A WAY TO REALIZE LONGSTANDING NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS OF INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND OF WHICH WE HAVE NONE CURRENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYWHERE NEARBY, AS WELL AS TRYING TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FAMILY-ORIENTED HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT.

WE MET IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR TO DISCUSS WITH PART AND WITH SICO REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF APPROVING A VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY.

UH, DURING THAT MEETING, A NUMBER OF GOALS WERE, UH, REQUESTED OF SICO, INCLUDING MORE AND BETTER PARKLAND ON THE SITE, UH, INCREASED AFFORDABLE, AND FAMILY-ORIENTED UNITS REDUCING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, ADDRESSING NOISE AND PRIVACY CONCERNS.

AND ONE OF THE LARGEST RELOCATING THE PARKING GARAGE IS OFF 56TH STREET OF WHICH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE CANIK FLATS HAS THEIR PARKING LOT AGAINST THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES.

WE MET AGAIN IN NOVEMBER CECO BROUGHT A REVISED SITE PLAN THAT ADDRESSED ALL OF THESE CONCERNS AND SHOWED A SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN OF THE PROPERTY.

WE TOOK A VOTE DURING THAT MEETING AND ALL MEMBERS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE OF WHICH IS THE REASON I AM HERE TODAY.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE, THIS PROCESS OVER THE LAST YEAR OF THE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE DEVELOPER AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FROM OUR STANDPOINT SHOULD BE A MODEL FOR HOW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE CITY WITH ALL FOLKS WEIGHING IN, TO FIND A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL SOLUTION.

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THE VIRULENCE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES ZACH BRAKE, AND YOU HEAR ME, SO THREE ISSUES, TRAFFIC NOISE, AND PARKING.

I APPRECIATE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAD A MEETING OR NOT AND AGREED TO IT, IT WILL STILL INCREASE PARKING CONCERNS.

IT'S GOING TO INCREASE NOISE CONCERNS.

IT'S ALSO GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, DUVALL STREET, WHICH IS THE STREET THAT I LIVE ON.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS YET TO REPAIR DAMAGE FROM THE ROADS.

SO INCREASING TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA WILL ONLY EXASPERATE THE PROBLEM NOT TO MENTION THE NOISE GOING FROM 40 FEET TO 60 FOOT IS A DRAMATIC CHANGE OF

[00:55:01]

HEIGHT.

THAT NOISE WILL CARRY OVER TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT HEIGHT IS ABOVE THE TREE, THE TREE LINE.

SO THE TREES WILL NOT BE BLOCKING THE SAME AMOUNT OF NOISE THAT IT NORMALLY WOULD.

SO 52 UNITS MEANS THAT THERE'S 52 POTENTIAL CARS AND THOSE CARS WILL TAKE 56TH STREET.

THEY'LL TAKE AVENUE F I'LL TAKE KENNY LANE.

HE'LL TAKE DUVALL.

SO NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU SLICE IT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS INCREASING.

THE HEIGHTS WILL INCREASE THE NOISE AT MY PROPERTY.

INCREASING THE HEIGHT WILL ALSO INCREASE THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING THROUGH THOSE STREETS.

AND IT WILL ALSO, UH, INCREASE PARKING PRESSURE.

IF PEOPLE IN DEVELOPMENT, UH, ARE HAVING PARTIES OR SOMETHING, AND THERE'S, THERE'S NOT ADEQUATE PARKING, THEY'RE GONNA FIND PARKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO IN CONCLUSION, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS MEASURE.

I DO ACKNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATE THE STEPS THAT THEY'VE TAKEN, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS MEASURE AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WILSON, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

UM, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

UH, ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION SINCE THESE ISSUES OBVIOUSLY HAVE COME UP AND THE MEETINGS WERE EXTREMELY VALUABLE.

ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE ENTERED INTO IS WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY UNIT BALCONIES ON THE SOUTH FACING 56TH STREET, UH, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NOISE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.

WE'VE HAD SO MANY MEETINGS THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU, THESE ISSUES, UH, HAVE COME UP AND WE REALLY, UH, WE THINK PUT OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD TO ADDRESS THEM AS YOU HEARD FROM, UH, THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

AND, AND AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BECAUSE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, A NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVE, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING ROBIN HAMAN'S, WHO'S BEEN AT ALL AT, UH, MANY OF THE MEETINGS, UH, INDEPENDENTLY WITH AN INDEPENDENT VOICE.

AND RANDY SCOTT ARE BOTH HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBER BAILEY, MR. WAYLON, DON'T GO SO FAR AWAY.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, THIS, THE PERSON THAT JUST SPOKE, BROUGHT UP PARKING ISSUES.

UM, ARE YOU TAKING ANY REDUCTION IN PARKING? ARE YOU FULLING PARKING THIS? UM, I NEED TWO SECONDS CAUSE I FORGOT THE ANSWER TO THAT, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE VMU AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO, OH, I KNOW THAT.

SO, BUT I'M ASKING, I'M TRYING TO ANSWER CONCERNS FROM THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE SO, UH, WE'RE ENTITLED TO 40% REDUCTION.

WE, WE, PART OF THE DISCUSSION, WE WE'RE ONLY TAKING 20% REDUCTION.

WE REDUCED OUR, UH, AVAILABLE REDUCTION BY HALF, UH, IN ORDER TO BE SURE THAT THERE IS MEANINGFUL PARKING ONSITE, UH, INSTEAD OF IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY.

AND, AND MY SECOND QUESTION CONCERNS THE PARK.

UM, IF PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE COMING TO THE PARK AND SAY THEY'RE A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY, UM, IS THERE ANY KIND OF PARKING, I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WALK TO THE PARK AND THERE'S, UH, THAT'S WELL, I'LL LET, UH, PARK STAFF, IF YOU DON'T MIND RESPOND TO THAT, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT IT'S VERY VISIBLE VISUALLY AND ACCESSIBLE.

AND SO WE'VE REDESIGNED AT A RIGHT, BUT PEOPLE COMING TO THE PARK, UM, SOME PEOPLE ARE, WE HAVE SPECIFIC DESIGNATED SPOTS AND INCLUDING THE HANDICAPPED SPOT AS WELL, RIGHT THERE.

OKAY.

WELL, WE'LL JUST START PARKS CAN HEAR THAT.

YEAH.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S ROBIN HAYMANS, I'M A PARK PLANNER AND A CYCLING REVIEWER FOR THIS SITE.

UM, FOR THE PARKING, THIS TYPE OF PARK IS, IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD IT'S A POCKET PARK.

SO IT IS INTENDED TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S CLOSE AND WALKABLE.

AND WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE PARKING WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

UM, BUT THERE IS A STREET ON STREET PARKING ALONG THE STREET ALONG AVENUE, UM, OR SORRY, 56TH STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR PARKING, INCLUDING HANDICAP PARKING.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER, PUT QUESTION FOR MR. WHALEN.

YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA WANT TO SIT UP IN THIS FRONT SEAT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK AND FORTH.

[01:00:01]

IT'S WAYLAND'S GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN, I REMEMBER YOUR, UM, PRESENTATIONS AT THE LPO ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, AND I, I THINK THAT YOU A REALLY GOOD JOB OF REPRESENTING YOUR CLIENTS AND, AND I COMMEND YOU ON GETTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVED AND, AND TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

ONE QUESTION I HAD, WHICH THIS KIND OF ALWAYS COMES UP AND MAYBE IT'S JUST CAUSE I'M A, I'M A LAWYER.

AND I LOOK AT IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

IF YOU LOOK AT D TWO SLASH 21, YOU HAVE SORT OF A BACKUP PLAN.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE WAIVER, UH, REQUEST IS REJECTED? AM I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA FOR WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD BE.

THAT IF YOU DON'T GET THIS, UH, DON'T GET THIS FROM US.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF YOUR PROPERTY.

YOUR CLIENT CAN THAT'S.

I THINK THAT THAT'S THE BURDEN THAT WE HAVE TO YOU'D HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER FOR US TO GRANT THE VARIANCE IS THAT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, YOU CAN'T HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS, UH, UH, MEMBER, UH, PRUITT.

I, UH, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT D 21.

THAT IS THE YOU'RE CORRECT.

THAT IS THE SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY IN IT SPLITS THE PARK.

UM, I THINK SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF REASONABLE USE ARE VERY SUBJECTIVE OBVIOUSLY.

AND ONE THING THAT CREATES, UH, I THINK A BETTER USE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SUBSEQUENT, UM, LET ME GET THE RIGHT PAGE NUMBER OR THE PREVIOUS PAGE, WHICH IS I THINK, UH, AND I, AND AGAIN, PARKS DEPARTMENT CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS IN TERMS OF PARK SPACE.

YOU GET A, TRULY, A MUCH MORE, UH, REASONABLE, UH, AND MORE, MUCH MORE USABLE, UH, PARK SPACE.

UH, AND, UH, ONE FULL ACRE IS, IS PRETTY UNIQUE FOR A POCKET PARK.

AND, UM, THAT WOULD BE ONE COMPONENT.

AGAIN, I KNOW THAT IT'S JUST A VERY SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT, THE REASONABLE USE.

SO I WAS, UH, WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED, WHICH ARE SOME OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT CREATE, UH, SOME HARDSHIP AND DIFFICULTY THAT ARE PHYSICAL, UH, I THINK, UH, POINT OUT, UM, Y JAMMING A, A SMALLER PARK INTO THIS SPACE, UH, REALLY DOESN'T, UM, BENEFIT THE BROADER COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE LANDOWNER.

I THINK YOU HAVE SOME DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD TO ALSO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY IS BETTER, SIR, IN TERMS OF USABILITY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT PAGE 20 AND THE BIGGER PARK, MY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS I GUESS, MORE OF AN INFORMATIONAL REQUEST.

YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD, UH, AGREEMENTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS.

UH, TYPICALLY WHEN THAT, WHEN THOSE SORTS OF THINGS COME UP, WE MAKE THOSE CONDITIONS OF ANY VARIANCE.

UM, AND SO IF YOU CAN TELL ME THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT GOING FORWARD, IF WE, IF WE MOVED TO APPROVE IT, IT WOULD BE WITH THOSE THINGS AS, AS CONDITIONS TO THE VARIANCE.

AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THE, UH, UM, UH, THE APARTMENTS OR THE UNITS THAT YOU HAVE THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE AND EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS, RIGHT? SO, UM, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS NO UNIT BALCONIES, NO UNIT BALCONIES ON THE SOUTH FACING, UH, OR FACING SOUTH ALONG 56TH STREET.

AND AS WE INDICATED, UH, THE PARKING REDUCTION WOULD BE, UH, ONLY 20%, I BELIEVE.

I THINK THAT'S, UH, CORRECT LOOKING FOR A, NOT 20% PARKING REDUCTION AS WELL WOULD BE ALL.

GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

IF YOU MA MAY JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, I WANT TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, YOUR HONOR, IT IS CAUSING, UM, AND MAYBE YOUR, UH, YOUR TEAM, THEY'RE YOUR LITTLE CADRE.

THEY COULD ALSO JOIN YOU UP HERE NEAR THE FRONT, JUST TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE EASIER.

[01:05:22]

MEN CHAIR.

WE ASK A QUESTION WHILE THEY LET'S GIVE THEM A SECOND TO ANSWER, JUST SO WE DON'T LOSE THE QUESTION.

UH, IF YOU'RE, I'M FINE ANSWERING QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE PULLING UP THERE, THERE IS A, AS A MEMBER PRUITT WOULD EXPECT, THERE'S A LIST THAT WE HAD SHARED BACK AND FORTH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND.

SO WE HAVE THE EXACT WORDS OF THE LIST WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

OKAY.

WE JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT.

WOW.

AND THEN HE WANTED HIM TO LOOK FOR THE OTHER THING.

WHAT'S THE OTHER THING I WOULD, YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO LOOK FOR? IS THERE A CLEAR, UM, A CLEAR DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS YOUR EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH AND ALONG THE EAST IS YOU HAD THE POWER LINE SETBACK AND THE OSHA REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH WOULD LIMIT YOUR BALCONIES ANYWAY, REALLY LIKE THE WAY YOU DID THAT.

AND THEN, UH, BUT ON THE EAST, DO YOU HAVE THAT LARGE GOLD TELECOM AND THEN YOU HAVE THE WATER LINE.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN PULL UP THAT CLEARLY DEPICTS THAT I SEE YOU HAD MENTIONED? YEAH.

IT'S D 19 PAGE 19.

IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S FADED.

UH, YOU CAN SEE THE ELECTRIC EASEMENT ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS AGAIN, IT'S FADED AND THE WATER EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE PRESENTATION PACKARD OR ON THE, OH, I'M SORRY.

IN THE, THE STAFF BACKUP.

IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR.

I MEAN, THOSE, THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT ADD TO YOUR HARDSHIP.

SO, AND OUR LIMITING FACTORS TO YOUR DIPLOMAT.

I WAS JUST LISTENING TO THROUGH IT AND TRYING TO GIVE YOU, UM, PERHAPS CLEAR INDICATION OF THINGS THAT ARE A HARDSHIP, BUT ALIGN WITH THE LIST THAT MIGHT GO A WAYS TOWARDS, SO WHERE WE ARE.

YEAH.

REINTRODUCE YOUR NAME.

HI, I'M JOSHUA.

NEED THEM ON THE APPLICANT.

SO, UH, ON THE, YOU JUST WANT THE CONSENT CONSTRAINTS, SORRY.

I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SOME OF THE BOARD, IF THE KID ACTUALLY SEE THIS CONSTRAINTS ON, ON THE BIG SCREEN, I HAD A PRINTED COPY, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT ELECTRONICALLY.

CAN THEY PROJECT IT? THEY USUALLY CAN PRINTED COPIES.

DO YOU HAVE A, OH YEAH.

TWO ON D TWO 19.

I CAN, I CAN RUN YOU THROUGH IT REAL QUICK.

SO THE, UM, THE WATERLINE EASEMENT RUNS ACROSS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE.

IT'D BE BETTER IF YOU COULD PUT IT UP.

I CAN READ, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT SAID.

I JUST, JUST, IF, UH, AB WOULD DO IT FOR YOU, I THINK THAT IT MIGHT HAVE MORE IMPACT.

IT LOOKS LIKE AVS, NOT HERE ONE SEC.

YEAH.

SO WE CAN'T PROJECT IT BECAUSE AVI IS NOT IN THE ROOM.

I SEE.

SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I WAS JUST NOTIFIED THAT WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANTS.

SO WHY DON'T WE GIVE THE AB TECH A SECOND TO GET BACK? AND THEN IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU TO STEP OFF TO THE SIDE FOR ONE SECOND, I'LL GO AHEAD AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I DO DRI THERE'S A SPEAKER IN FAVOR FOR THIS VARIANCE.

COME ON DOWN TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, SO MY NAME IS JASON BURROWS AND I LIVE AT 5,400 DUVALL STREET.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, JUST ABOUT TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY.

I'M ALSO ONE OF THE VOLUNTEERS ON THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD, UH, AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE.

UM, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS.

THESE ARE BOTH APPROVED BY THE CITY'S PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS KIND OF A BIG DEAL FOR US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS YOU PROBABLY

[01:10:01]

KNOW, THIS IS A VERY PARKS DEFICIENT AREA.

THIS IS PROBABLY OUR ONLY CHANCE TO GET THIS RIGHT.

SO IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE, WE WOULD WIND UP WITH ONE FULL CONTIGUOUS ACRE OF PARKLAND.

UM, WE'D GET EXTRA DENSITY IN THE, IN THE AREA, WHICH IT REALLY NEEDS.

WE'D HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE'D HAVE A LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE, WHICH MAYBE IT'S A COFFEE SHOP OR A LITTLE GROCERY STORE, SOMETHING ELSE WE COULD REALLY USE IN THE AREA.

UM, THE RED LINE PARKWAY GETS A NICE DONATION BY THE DEVELOPER TO HELP IMPROVE THAT.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF HOW WE CONNECT TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

UM, AND BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE MORE RESIDENTS, THERE WOULD BE MORE FEES IN LOOP.

SO THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL MONIES PUT TOWARDS PARKLAND, WHICH COULD BE USED IN THE AREA FOR EVEN MORE SMALL POCKET PARKS, PERHAPS IMPROVING THE, THE CREEK THAT'S NEARBY.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS? UM, WE WIND UP WITH TWO SMALL PARKS.

UM, EACH ONE IS ONLY ABOUT A QUARTER ACRE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THAT WHEN