Feb 14, 2022 Board of Adjustment

IS THAT WHAT DID I MISS ANYONE? OH, CARRIE WALLER.

AND I'D LIKE TO JUST THANK EVERYONE IN ADVANCE FOR THEIR PATIENTS WORKING THE NEW FORMAT FOR BOTH HYBRID IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING.

SO MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TILL WE GET ALL THE DETAILS HAMMERED OUT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE, UH, THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 DRAFT MINUTES APPROVAL.

LET'S START WITH ITEM ANYONE.

[A-1 Staff requests approval December 13, 2021 draft minutes]

ANYONE TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SORRY GUYS.

I'M PRETTY SURE I HEARD VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

MAKE THE MOTION WHO SECONDED? I DID.

OBVIOUSLY ANNA RODRIGUEZ.

A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES MADE BY VICE-CHAIR HOT FLOOR AND SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY TOMMY EIGHTS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

[00:05:02]

KAY WALLER I'LL HAVE TO STAY IN.

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

BEING ONE STUFF.

AND APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.

THIS WILL BE FOR ITEM F1, C 15 20 21 0 0 9 7 4 4 3 1 5 AVENUE E ELENA.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER POSTPONEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED? NO MA'AM YES, SIR.

I DID NOTICE THAT WE HAVE, OR AUSTIN ENERGY DENIALS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THEM UNTIL, OR TABLE THEM EITHER WAY UNTIL THEY CAN GET IT.

SHE'S RESOLVED BY, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY RE I THINK TONIGHT WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD GUYS' AGENDA AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THEM UP.

I WOULDN'T NOT LIKE PICK THEM UP IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

WE'LL HAVE A SECOND, SECOND MOMENT ALSO, BECAUSE IF THEY'VE BEEN DENIED, THEN THEY HAVE TO REDESIGN.

AND THAT, THAT COULD BRING UP A TOTALLY DIFFERENT VARIANTS THAT THEY'D HAVE TO BRING OVER TO US.

SO THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH POINT IN US HEARING UNTIL THEY GET THAT RESULT.

THERE'S ALSO A NEW GRAPHIC THAT'S REQUIRED, UM, TO PROVE THE 15 FOOT, UM, CLEARANCES.

PERFECT.

OH GEEZ.

SO THERE ARE FOUR AUSTIN ENERGY DENIAL CASES.

THIS WILL BE ITEM C ONE C 16, 20 22 0 0 0 1 FROM 1 0 1 0 7.

RESEARCH BOULEVARD, ITEM E THREE, C 15 20 22 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 3.

CLAWSON ROAD ITEM NINE, C 15 20 22 0 0 1 8 54.

ANTHONY STREET, AN ITEM EATEN C 15 20 22 0 0 1 9 PER 6 0 7 EAST 49TH STREET.

THIS IS A LIAISON ARE Y'ALL REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TILL MARCH 14TH, 2022.

WE ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT ON MARCH 14TH, 2022.

MA'AM UH, MS. LOPEZ, CAN I CALL BOTH OF THESE TOGETHER, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A SEPARATE MOTION MADE TO POSTPONE THE USED CASES? SUPER LET'S DO THIS ALL AT ONCE.

JEEZ.

SO I HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BY AN OLIN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

AND THIS IS TO POSTPONE ITEMS, F1 AND E 10 TO MARCH 14TH, 2020 TO TOMMY.

DO THOSE CASES HAVE BEEN POSTPONED? ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD, UH, TO CHANGE THE CURRENT AGENDA LINEUP.

WE HAVE SOME CASES THAT WERE INTERRUPTED IN THE DECEMBER, UH, 2022 MEETING DUE TO THE INTERNET OUTAGE HERE AT CITY HALL.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT, UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE ITEMS F THREE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY F TWO AND THEN PICK UP WITH THE NORMAL AGENDA AT C1.

AND WE CAN DO THIS WITH A NOD OF APPROVAL.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS?

[00:10:02]

NOPE.

SO WE'LL BE HEARING ITEM

[F-3 C15-2021-0101 Michael Whellan for 201 E Koenig Lane, LTD 403 & 201 E. Koenig Lane, 5613 Avenue F (Part 1 of 2)]

F THREE FIRST.

THIS'LL BE C 15 20 21 0 1 0 1 MICHAEL ISLAND FOR 2 0 1 EAST KEENAN LANE, 4 0 3 AND 2 0 1 EAST KANDAK LANE, 5 6 13 AVENUE F UH, MR. WAYLON, AS WE DISCUSSED, WE'LL BE TREATING THIS LIKE A NEW CASE THAT WASN'T HEARD LAST TIME, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES HERE TONIGHT.

SO GIVE ME JUST A SECOND TO GET MY TIMER UP.

A CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS FOR LETTING US GO FIRST.

I'LL WAIT TILL YOU START.

SORRY, ONE MORE SECOND.

YOU HAVE THANK YOU.

UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

I'M HERE TODAY TO FOLLOW UP ON A VARIANCE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

INITIALLY HEARD IN DECEMBER ON CANUCK LANE, AS YOU MAY RECALL, CITY POLICIES ESTABLISH A CLEAR VISION FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE USE FOR THE SITE, MARKING IT AS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NEW GROWTH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PARKLAND.

HOWEVER, THE SITE FACES A NUMBER OF UNIQUE HARDSHIPS THAT IMPACT OVER 30% OF THE SITE AREA AND UNDERMINE THIS REASONABLE USE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE BY WAVING COMPATIBILITY BEYOND 50 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY, THUS ALLOWING THE PROJECT TO ACHIEVE THE BASE ZONING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET ACROSS THE SITE, BOTH THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.

WHEN WE LAST SPOKE BEFORE THE BOA, UH, THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN DIGGING INTO THE REASONABLE USE IN HARDSHIP AND FURTHER DETAIL TO PREPARE FOR THIS MEETING.

WE REVIEWED THE COMPATIBILITY HEIGHT CASES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS APPROVED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT OUR REASONABLE USE ANALYSIS AND OUR IDENTIFIED HARDSHIPS ARE FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PRECEDENTS.

NEXT SLIDE, THIS TABLE COMPARES OUR REQUEST TO OTHER COMPATIBILITY.

HEIGHT.

VARIANCE IS APPROVED BY THE BOA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE CASES DESCRIBED THE REASONABLE USES IN TERMS VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE.

WE HAVE PRESENTED IDENTIFYING WHEN A SITE ALIGNS WITH CITY PLANNING AREAS OR PRESENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

OUR REQUEST ACTUALLY MEETS MORE OF THESE CRITERIA THAN THE OTHER CASES BOA APPROVED.

IT IS LOCATED IN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER IS SURROUNDED BY THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK IS LOCATED ALONG THE RED LINE.

PARKWAY TRAIL IS DESIGNATED FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE ZONING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND WE'LL BE PROVIDING PARKLAND AND A PARKS DEFICIENT AREA.

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS A SITE WHERE OUR CITY PLANS AND POLICIES DIRECT NEW GROWTH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PARKLAND, FULLY CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENTS FOR REASONABLE USE, WHICH IS THE STANDARD ON APPROVED CASES.

HOWEVER, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS THREATENED THIS VISION FROM ALL SIDES, A COMBINED IMPACT OF OVER 30%.

I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY AND WITH BETTER EXHIBITS.

FIRST, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF HERITAGE AND PROTECTED TREES ON SITE THAT WE ARE PRESERVING IMPACTING ABOUT 1% OF THE SITE.

NEXT SLIDE, SECOND, THE SITE'S UNIQUE LOCATION BETWEEN THE RAIL RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THE STATE CONTROLLED INTERSECTION MEANINGFULLY LIMITS, WHERE WE ARE ALLOWED TO PLACE OUR CURB CUTS, WHICH HAS A CASCADING IMPACT ON OUR SITE LAYOUT.

NEXT SLIDE, THIRD, WE HAVE A WATERLINE EASEMENT RUNNING ACROSS MUCH OF THE SITES NORTHERN BOUNDARY IMPACTING SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE SITE AREA.

NEXT SLIDE FOURTH, WE HAVE TWO STACKED EASEMENTS RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERN END OF THE SITE IMPACTING ABOUT 2% OF THE LAND.

NEXT SLIDE, FIFTH OSHA STANDARDS ESTABLISH A 15 FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF OUR SITE IMPACTING ANOTHER FIVE AND A HALF PERCENT.

NEXT SLIDE AND SIXTH, THE SITES ODD PARALLELOGRAM LIKE SHAPE ALSO HAS A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON HOW THE SITE CAN, CAN AND CANNOT BE LAID OUT, WHICH MEANINGFULLY LIMITS ITS USE IN LAYOUT EFFICIENCY.

AND SINCE THIS SITE IS PARKS DEFICIENT CITY POLICIES, THEN CALL UPON ANOTHER 15% OF THE SITE AREA TO BE PROVIDED AS PARKLAND.

SO ONCE YOU FACTOR IN ALL OF THESE VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS IMPACTING THE SITE FROM ALL SIDES, YOU'RE DEALING WITH A TOTAL HARDSHIP IMPACT OF OVER 31% OF THE SITE.

NEXT SLIDE, THIS ANALYSIS IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF TYPES OF HARDSHIPS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS COMPATIBILITY HEIGHT CASES THAT BOA APPROVED THE DETAILS OF EACH OF THESE CASES WHERE YOU NEED TEACH SITE.

BUT THE TYPES OF HARDSHIPS IDENTIFIED AT A HIGHER LEVEL WERE SIMILAR.

ACTUALLY ONE PRIOR CASE EVEN NOTED THAT AN ADJACENT RAIL LINE HAD A CASCADING IMPACT ON THE SITE SHAPE.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, OUR SITE ACTUALLY FACES MORE OF THESE VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS THAN OTHER CASES BOA HAS APPROVED.

SO WE MEET MORE OF THE CRITERIA FOR AN IDENTIFIED REASONABLE USE AND MORE OF THE HEART IDENTIFIED HARDSHIPS.

HAVE HINDERED THE SITE'S REASONABLE USE WITH TWO MAJOR IMPACTS.

AS A REMINDER, THESE HARDSHIPS

[00:15:01]

FIRST IT FORCES A LOSS OF 10 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A DISTRICT THAT IS BEHIND ON ITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS.

SECOND, IT FORCES THE PARKLAND.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE TO BE SPLIT UP IN SMALLER DIVIDED AREAS.

NEXT SLIDE, IN CONTRAST, APPROVING THE VARIANTS WOULD CONSOLIDATE AND EXPAND THE PARKLAND AND INCREASE AND INCREASE AFFORDABLE UNITS, DELIVERING BETTER OUTCOMES ACROSS THE BOARD.

IN OTHER WORDS, IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE IDENTIFIED HARDSHIPS AND ALLOW A REASONABLE USE NEXT SLIDE, AND AS NOTED BOTH PARK AND THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

AND I BELIEVE YOU ALSO HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM, UH, TWO OF THE SKYVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS WHO TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY AS WELL.

I KNOW HERE WE HAVE JASON BURROWS TODAY, PRESIDENT AND BRIAN AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO ADDRESS YOU AND FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT, RANDY SCOTT AND ROBIN HYMENS HAMAN'S EXCUSE ME, FINALLY, NEXT SLIDE.

SO TO RECAP, SITE CONSTRAINTS ARE PREVAILING OR PREVENTING A REASONABLE USE FOR THE SITE, REDUCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SPLITTING UP ONSITE PARKLAND.

NEXT SLIDE, APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND ALLOWING 60 FEET ACROSS THE SITE.

WE'LL ADDRESS THESE CONSTRAINTS AND MAXIMIZE PARKLAND AND AFFORDABILITY.

AND FINALLY, BOTH PART IN NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT THIS.

AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME.

THANKS.

UM, MS. LOPEZ, DID I ACTUALLY NEED TO STATE THAT WE WERE REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR DID I DO THAT BY SAYING WE WERE GOING TO, WE THE CASE FROM THE BEGINNING.

JUST WHERE TO MAKE SURE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES WHEN YOU'RE READY.

UH, THANK YOU, MEMBER OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

UH, MY NAME IS BRIAN BED ROSIE, AND I'M THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CECO AND PART ON THIS PROJECT FOR SOME TIME WITH THE MAJORITY OF LAST YEAR AND SOME TEMPER WE MET, UH, AS AN ORGANIZATION TO, UH, DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPORTING A VARIANCE, THE VARIANCE, UH, IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

AND THE NEIGHBORS REALIZED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS THE, WAS ONE OPPORTUNITY ON OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROVIDE TWO LONGSTANDING GOALS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ONE OF WHICH IS A PARK.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NONE IN ANY, UH, PROXIMITY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW, AND ALSO TO INCREASE THE AFFORDABILITY AND FAMILY ORIENTED HOUSING POSSIBILITIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING PURELY ON, UH, SINGLE BEDROOM UNITS.

SO THE NEIGHBORS CAME OUT IN SUPPORT, UM, AND OFFERED THEIR SUPPORT.

IF THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER WAS WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF MORE AND BETTER PARKLAND.

AND FOR MOST PEOPLE THAT MEANT ONE LARGE PARK INSTEAD OF A BUNCH OF SMALLER PARKS, THEY WANTED A MEANINGFUL PARK SPACE, MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, MORE FAMILY ORIENTED UNITS.

UH, THE ORIGINAL PLAN CALLED FOR THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 56TH STREET.

AND THE MAIN REQUEST WAS TO MOVE THOSE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY TO ADDRESS NOISE, UH, AND PRIVACY CONCERNS, AND ALSO TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

ALL OF THESE WERE BROUGHT FORTH BY SEACO AND A SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATION IN NOVEMBER.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MET AGAIN AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THE VARIANTS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

UH, I THINK THAT THIS IS A MODEL FOR HOW NEIGHBORHOODS, CITY STAFF AND DEVELOPERS CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MEET GOALS FOR ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT AGENCIES.

AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THE VARIOUS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS.

WAS THE BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR? UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021, YOU ASKED TO, UH, PAY A FEE IN LIEU INSTEAD OF DEDICATING LAND FOR A PARK, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A PARK DEFICIENT AREA? UH, I IT'S INTERESTING.

WE ACTUALLY HAD A SITE THAT HAD THE 15% COMMISSIONER AND THE ONLY WAY WE WERE ALLOWED TO APPEAL THE DECISION TO, UH, ADJUST THE LOCATION OF THAT LAND WAS TO ASK FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT FEE IN LIEU APPEAL

[00:20:01]

THE DECISION.

BUT IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR APPEAL COMMISSIONER, YOU'LL SEE, WE COMMITTED TO VOLUNTARILY GIVE THE 15% INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.

THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SPLIT UP AS YOU SAW IN THE DIAGRAM.

SO, UH, IT IS CORRECT ON PAPER THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT FEED AND YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE, AND WE WERE ALSO INCLUDING A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OF 15% SPLIT UP INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, BUT, BUT THAT WAS ONLY IN ORDER TO APPEAL IT.

THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY YOU WERE ALLOWED BY CITY AND CITY LEGALS HERE.

AND THEY CAN ADDRESS THIS.

THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY WE WERE ALLOWED TO APPEAL THE PARKS DECISION WE HAVE SINCE MADE PEACE WITH PARKS, WHICH IS WHY RANDY, EXCUSE ME, MR. SCOTT AND MRS. HAYMAN'S ARE HERE.

WE'VE MADE PEACE, UH, AND HAVE AGREED NOW TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO CONSOLIDATE IT INTO ONE WITH THIS COMPATIBILITY BEARINGS.

I REMEMBER I HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. WHALEN, MR. WAYLON.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY, HAVE THE, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE, UH, OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES SAYING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE FOUR OR FIVE THAT ARE, I'M SORRY, THAT ARE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES.

YEAH, I THINK IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU HAVE, I KNOW, UH, UH, LET ME SEE WHICH ONE, ONE IS SUPPORTIVE.

UH, OH, HERE.

SO YOU DO HAVE ONE FROM RYAN GOODRICH SKYVIEW ACROSS THE WAY WHO WAS SUPPORTIVE.

UM, I HAVE NOT SEEN OPPOSITION FROM EXPLICITLY IN THE BACKUP OR PRESENTED TO STAFF UNLESS, UH, MS. RAMIREZ HAS IT, UH, OP EXPLICIT OPPOSITION FROM, UH, UH, TRIGGERING PROPERTIES, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.

UH, COMMISSIONER, AM I CORRECT? I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THAT.

SO I WAS JUST WONDERING, HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THEM, HAVE, Y'ALL TRIED TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT Y YES.

UH, WE HAVE, THAT'S WHY WE BEEN MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.

AND I, I, I'VE GOT A LIST OF DATES OF THE MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

AND, UM, I KNOW THAT THIS WAS OF GREAT INTEREST TO THEM.

AND AS MR. ROSEANN POINTED OUT, UH, WE, WE STARTED, WE MET ORIGINALLY IN JANUARY OF 2021 WITH THE LEADERS MAY 5TH, 2021, SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2021, WHICH IS THE REFERENCE THAT MR PETROSIAN MADE WHEN THE BIG NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS THERE.

AND EVERYBODY WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRIGGERING PROPERTY, I HOPE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OCTOBER 6TH, 2021, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2021.

SO WE'VE, UH, AND, AND I WOULD ALSO GIVE CREDIT AND KUDOS TO PARD WHO HELPED FACILITATE THOSE MEETINGS AND ATTENDED THOSE MEETINGS WITH US.

I THINK THIS HAS BEEN AS MR. PETROSIAN INDICATED, UH, A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, UH, IN THAT REGARD VERY MUCH.

UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THOSE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES? KNOW TH TH THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS, UH, A TEXAS GAS SERVICE, UH, OFFICE RIGHT THERE WHEN YOU'RE AT EGG, UH, ABOUT TO GO, UH, UP THE RAMP AT, UH, AIRPORT.

YOU CAN CONTINUE ON CANUCK AND THERE'S A TEXAS GAS SERVICE, UH, AREA, WHICH I THINK IS 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

IT'S, IT'S AWFULLY HIGH IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

CAUSE IT'S ALSO A WORK AREA WHERE THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF LET-DOWN AND TRUCKS THAT ARE STORED.

I WAS JUST WONDERING, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT AREA IS SORT OF MIXED IN WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL STUFF.

AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, OR IF IT WAS ALL PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, NO, DIRECTLY BEHIND US AS RESIDENTIAL.

SO THIS WILL SERVE AS A, ALSO AS A NICE BUFFER IN TERMS OF NOISE FROM 20 TO 22 FROM CANUCK TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING THAT A ONE ACRE PARK THERE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR? I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SHOULD I JUST STATE MY QUESTION? GO AHEAD.

WITHOUT ASKING FOR THIS VARIANT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE JUST UNDER AN ACRE FOR PARKLAND ON SITE, AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU COULDN'T RE REDESIGN THE PROJECT SO THAT THE, UH, PARKLIN COULD BE IN ONE SPOT RATHER THAN SPLITTING IN TWO.

I KNOW IN, UH, THIS SITE IS OVER SIX ACRES, RIGHT? IT'S A VERY, VERY LARGE SITE.

AND I WONDERED HOW MUCH EFFORT WAS PUT INTO REDESIGNING THE PROJECT SO THAT THE PARKLAND WOULD BE CONTIGUOUS

[00:25:01]

YEAH, A GREAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.

WE, UH, AS YOU, AS YOU HEARD, MR. PETROSIAN INDICATE WE'VE SPENT ABOUT A YEAR ON THIS, UH, AND THAT INCLUDED, UH, AGAIN, THE SHAPE OF THE SITE, THE PARALLELOGRAMS SHAPE AND THE EASEMENTS, AND WE CAN PULL THE, UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH THE CONSTRAINTS REAL QUICKLY.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT ELEVATES AND ANSWERS THE QUESTION MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

THE, THE EASEMENTS WERE PROVIDING A BIT OF A ISSUE IN TERMS OF, UM, CREATING THAT SPACE WITHOUT COMPLETELY MOVING THE BUILDING.

YOU ALSO, THE CURB CUT HAS TO BE IN A VERY PARTICULAR LOCATION BECAUSE OF TXDOT, UM, LIMITATIONS AS WELL.

SO I WOULD SAY OF THE SIX CONSTRAINTS I POINTED OUT THE ONES THAT MADE THAT PARTICULAR, UH, ISSUE OF CONSOLIDATING IT, THE HARDEST WOULD BE THE CURB CUTS, WHICH PROVIDE A, UH, A PREDEFINED, A PREDETERMINED LOCATION, I THINK, PLUS, OR MINUS LIKE SEVEN FEET OR 10 FEET.

WE DON'T, WE ONLY HAVE ONE LOCATION WITH VERY LITTLE GIVE IN TERMS OF WHERE IT CAN BE.

UH, WE HAVE THE WATER LINE EASEMENT ON THE FRONT, WHICH WASN'T AS, UH, AS IMPACTFUL IN THAT REGARD, BUT THE ELECTRIC EASEMENT UP AGAINST THE RAILROAD, WHICH IS ANOTHER 20 FEET, WAS A IT'S TWO IT'S THE TELEPHONE ELECTRIC EASEMENT.

AND THE PEE-WEE WAS ALSO PROVIDING AN IMPACT THAT JUST CREATED TWO, TWO STRUCTURES THAT WEREN'T GOING TO WORK IF YOU HAD TO, UH, LOP OFF A, AN ENTIRE ACRE AND ONE, A PARTICULAR LOCATION.

UH, AND THEN, AND THEN AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, THE PARALLELOGRAM DESIGN, UH, WAS CREATING THE, UH, PARKING STRUCTURES, UH, WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO MANEUVER ONCE YOU, UH, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU HAD TO DO IT THAT WAY.

SO GOING UP, GOING UP WAS THE WAY THAT THAT WORKED, WHICH IS WHY WE DECIDED TO SEEK THE ADDITIONAL, THE ONE ADDITIONAL, UH, UH, FLOOR.

WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED OF ABOUT HOW YOU CAN PROVIDE PARKLAND CONTIGUOUS WITH ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS IN ONE CASE, BUT, AND NOT THE OTHER.

SO IS IT REALLY THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT YOU WANT TO BUILD THERE? THAT'S CAUSING YOU TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THE POVERTY IS CONSTRAINED AND YET YOU CAN PROVIDE THE PARKLAND OF ONE ACRE, IF YOU CAN GO HIGHER.

SO ARE THOSE CONSTRAINTS? NO, WE, WE, WE HAVE A SITE PLAN IN THAT'S WILL BE APPROVED WITH TWO, UH, PARKS, AND THAT'S THE OPTION ON THE TABLE.

I, UH, WE, IT IS CORRECT.

YOU ARE CORRECT THAT WE DO GET, UM, A FEW MORE UNITS AND THERE ARE, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THAT MIX AS A RESULT OF THIS.

BUT WE WON'T, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO, UH, UH, DO, IS YOU'RE SUGGESTING CONSOLIDATE IT AND NOT GET THE COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE.

WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE TWO SMALLER SPLIT UP PARKS, WHICH IS WHAT THE SITE PLAN ALREADY IS.

UM, CURRENTLY WE'LL JUST GO WITH THAT.

WHY, UH, CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WORKS FINANCIALLY.

WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO 10% OF YOUR UNITS AS AFFORDABLE WITH NO PUBLIC SUBSIDY, NO TAX CREDITS, IT'S A, UM, IMPORTANT, AND IT'S ALSO A COST THAT'S BORN BY THE MARKET UNITS AND TO MAKE ALL OF IT AFFORDABLE, YOU KNOW, TO SOME EXTENT, UH, YOU'VE GOTTA BE ABLE TO, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY, WITHOUT TAX CREDIT, RIGHT.

BALANCE, AND THE RIGHT BALANCE WAS, UH, WHAT IS ON OUR CURRENT SITE PLAN, WHICH IS THE PARK BEING SPLIT UP.

AND THAT'S WHAT IF THIS FAILS? I MEAN, WE HAVE, THAT'S THE OPTION.

WE WILL GO WITH THAT ROUTE AND HAVE 10 FEWER AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SPLIT UP THE PARK.

UH, MR. MARLIN, MR. VIOLIN, COULD YOU STAY AT THE PODIUM? I'M SURE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

UH, CAN YOU PUT A NUMBER ON THAT? HOW MANY ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IT'S 10, 10, 10, 10 ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE? WELL, THE TOTAL NUMBER WAS 46.

IT'S AN ADDITIONAL TOTAL OF 42 ADDITIONAL UNITS.

UH, BUT REMEMBER, WE'RE ALSO ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS ABOVE AND BEYOND, UH, THE 10% REQUIREMENT.

THAT WAS PART OF OUR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT.

3 25 IS THE PARK IN ONE CHUNK ON THE TRIANGULAR PIECE, IT STILL CONTAINS A DOG PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE.

HAWTHORNE.

SO IN THE PACKET ON PAGE F 3 26 IS THE SPLIT PARK WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.

AND ON AFTER

[00:30:01]

UM, BUT IT PUTS THE PARK IN ONE PIECE.

IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE A HARD SITE BECAUSE YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE BIG ARTERIAL.

AND SO YOU'VE KIND OF GET IT IN BOTH DIRECTIONS LIKE THIS, AND I'VE ACTUALLY WORKED ON A PROJECT AND THAT AREA, UM, AND HAVE SEEN PROJECTS ALONG CANINE JUST BECAUSE YOU KIND OF GET IT FROM BOTH SIDES.

SO YOU CAN'T EVER LEVEL OUT.

AND IT'S NOT USUAL THAT YOU HAVE, UM, THAT MANY EASEMENTS ON A PROPERTY AS WELL HAD AS THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PEAK FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS.

ACTUALLY, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS FROM THREE DIRECTIONS.

THERE WOULD BE MICHAEL, DID I, DID I HEAR A SECOND FROM MICHAEL VANILLIN? YES.

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SINCE, SINCE, UH, SINCE I STARTED TALKING.

THAT WAS A MOTION TO, UH, OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER VIOLIN.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A UNIQUE PROJECT.

I WANTED TO COMMAND THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BOTH OF THEM FOR WORKING TOGETHER AS WELL, AS LONG AS WELL AS STAFF AND PART, UH, I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS ONE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

AND I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY WERE ABLE TO DO CONSOLIDATE THE PARKLAND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, UP ON THE FRONT, I WOULD LIKE TO HORSE TRADE AND GET 45 OUT OF THE AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN SQUEEZE THREE MORE UNITS IN THERE, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS I'VE BEEN IN THEIR SHOES.

I LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THE DOG PARK, UH, THAT THE PET, THE DOG PARK, AND IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ART BECAUSE ODD PARK PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO GET, UM, OR ENOUGH PRETTY GOOD.

AND SO, UH, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE, REASONABLE, UH, EXCHANGE OR GRANT THEM THE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.

IT'S ALSO ON CANDY LANE AND THAT AREA BEHIND THE DESK, WHAT USED TO BE SOUTHERN UNION GAS.

I THINK THERE'S A LOCATION FOR THIS SITE.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM THIS PROJECT.

THE KEY, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE JUST REAL QUICKLY, MR. BOYLAN TO DO.

I, I, I THINK THE NUMBERS THAT I WANT TO BE SURE I GOT THE NUMBERS, CORRECT.

WE ORIGINALLY HAD 42 AFFORDABLE.

WE JUMPED TO A REQUIRED 50 AFFORDABLE TOTAL, AND WE HAVE ADDED TWO TO MAKE IT 52 AFFORDABLE.

AND THE OTHER THING, COMMISSIONER MACARTHUR THAT WE DID, I WENT AND DOUBLE-CHECK IN ADDITION TO THE ONE ACRE PARK.

IN ADDITION, WE HAVE, IF WE CAN PULL UP THE PRESENTATION TO LOOK AT, BUT THE ENTIRE AREA ON THE FRONT, WHICH I THINK IS 20 FOOT, 20 FEET DEEP, BUT I THINK IT IS THE AREA IN THE FRONT AND THE POCKET PARK, UH, UP IN THE CORNER AS WELL, REMAINED.

SO IT'S MORE THAN AN ACRE THAT'S BEING CONTRIBUTED ULTIMATELY AS PARKLAND.

ONE MORE QUESTION, UH, THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MY FATHER WANTED TO BE AT 80%, WHICH IS THE AREA.

THE EASEMENTS, UTILITY AND SUCH, AND IT'S ODD CONFIGURATION, UM, TO MAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS WORK, UM, WOULD BE A UNIQUE SITUATION.

UH, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE TO APPROVE WITH THE SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER, ONE OLIN LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

I'M GOING TO DO FINDINGS.

OH, FINDINGS.

THAT'S A REALLY GOOD THING TO HAVE.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

SO ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE SITE IS UNIQUELY CONSTRAINED BY ALL SIDES, BY A WATER LINE AND PUBLIC UTILITY TELECOM, EASEMENTS, ONSIDE TREES, POWER LINES, SETBACK, AND THE PROXIMITY TO RAILROAD CROSSING TO THE EAST, AS WELL AS THE AVENUE OF KENNY LANE INTERSECTION TO THE WEST, AS WELL AS THE ODD CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE AND HAVING COMPATIBILITY COME UP ON BOTH SIDES.

SO IT'S, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DESIGN A SITE, UM, WITH THAT COMBINATION OF CONSTRAINTS AS WELL AS THEN, UH, PROVIDE QUALITY PARKLAND WITH AMPLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.

YOU NEED TO PROPERTY IS NOT IN GENERAL, THE AREA IN WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED WITH ALL

[00:35:01]

UM, NOW I NEED TO, SORRY, THE DOCUMENT THAT I'M WORKING FROM DOES NOT HAVE OUR PRINTED FINDINGS.

SO IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, I'LL HAVE TO PULL UP ANOTHER ONE, JUST SO I CAN SEE THE STATED WORDS.

THE HARDSHIP HAS NOT GENERALLY THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND THAT NOT ALL PROPERTIES HAVE THAT CONFIGURATION OR THAT MANY EASEMENTS, UM, ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH THE POWER LINES AND THE RAIL LINE, UM, AND THE TXDOT FRONTAGE, IT'S JUST A VERY ODD, UM, TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE VARIOUS WALL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF AREA ADJACENT THE PROPERTY, WENT ON PAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS COMING TO YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THE OPEN SPACE.

UM, IT WILL PROVIDE A QUALITY VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECT THAT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN ALONG A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK, AND I'M GOING TO STOP THERE.

SO AGAIN, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE WITH THE SECOND BY A BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN.

TOMMY EATS.

YES, BROOKE BAILEY.

AND JUST QUICKLY, I AM A HUGE PROTECTOR OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, BUT THIS, I FELT LIKE THIS ONE WAS DIFFERENT AND THAT HOW MUCH WORK HAD BEEN PUT INTO IT WITH BOTH PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THE VERY RARE ONE THAT I VOTE.

UM, AGAINST COMPETITIVE ABILITY STANDARDS, JESSICA COHEN.

AND ALSO SAME THING FOR ME.

GREAT JOB.

WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THIS, UH, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, ANY ADDITIONAL HOUSING WE CAN ADD RIGHT NOW, ANY GREEN SPACE WITH THE CITY, WHICH THE CITY DESPERATELY NEEDS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT THERE ON A TRANSIT CARD DONE DEAL.

SO YES, FOR ME, FOR SURE.

ALYSSA HAWTHORNE.

BARBARA MACARTHUR, NO DARRELL PUT, UH, I'M GOING TO VOTE.

NO.

THE APPLICANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE REASONABLE USE IN THIS PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH THROUGH.

AND JUST BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS BETTER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY'VE MET THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO FIND, UH, THAT THEY'VE MET IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, WHICH IS THAT THESE CONSTRAINTS PREVENT ANY REASONABLE USE.

AND I THINK THEIR OWN EVIDENCE IS THAT IT DOES NOT.

AND SO I'M VOTING NO AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ, NO RICHARD SMITH.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO COMMEND, UM, THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, WORKING SO WELL WITH THE STAKE, VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND FRANKLY BEING VERY CREATIVE TO ACHIEVE, UH, AND ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY.

YES, I, MR. WELLA AND I APOLOGIZE, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED AREN'T YOU TO GET WITH THE LANE AND COME BACK FROM CONSIDERATION MADAM CHAIR.

BOARD, WHICH, UH, WAS, UH, ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO GRANT VARIANCES IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.

I WAS BITING MY TONGUE ON THAT ONE, BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO SAY IT.

I FEEL LIKE WE JUST THREW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER

[00:40:01]

AND I THINK THAT HAVING THAT PARK THERE WITH YOU HAVE SUPPORT FROM MY 14, 15 YEARS ON THIS BOARDING AREA, WE HAVE ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS COMING TOGETHER TO SUPPORT A VARIANTS LIKE THIS, AS WELL AS WORKING WITH STAFF AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THESE PEOPLE PUT INTO IT.

UH, I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN ALL TAKE A LOOK INTO OUR HEARTS AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE REASONABLE, THOSE 10 ADDITIONAL, UH, WE'RE TALKING 52 AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, UNIT AND THOSE 10 ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS.

WE JUST THREW OUT WITH THE BABY IN THE BATH WATER.

AND I JUST THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M GOING TO STOP RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M NOTICING IS HAPPENING.

IF WE'RE GONNA JUST SIMPLY GO BY AND, AND BURKHART I COMMAND.

CAUSE I DO KNOW HOW YOU ARE COMPATIBILITY.

I'VE BEEN WITH YOU ON THIS LONG ENOUGH, BUT IT WAS A HARD ONE TO VOTE.

BUT, UM, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE GRANTING VARIANCES, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HOLD TO THE LETTER OF THE CODE, BUT THIS BOARD DOESN'T NEED TO EXIST THE WAY IT IS WHEN HE'S DENY EVERYTHING AND SAY, OH, THAT'S PER CODE AND LET'S GO ON DOWN THE ROAD.

I'M GOING TO GET OFF MY SOAP BOX.

BUT, UH, I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THIS ONE.

AND I DON'T THINK I'VE EXPRESSED A QUESTION TO THAT, THAT MATT, THAT DRAMA IN THE PAST, BUT I'LL SHUT UP.

I DID VERY WELL CHAIR.

CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING REAL QUICKLY? UH, IT JUST, UH, IT'S IN REALLY RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER PRUITT AND REASONABLE USE TO, I KNOW THAT RECONSIDERATION IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE AND THAT COUNSEL CAN ADVISE YOU ON THAT.

IT CAN BE DONE HERE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I'D LIKE TO ALSO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE DONE JUST NOW.

I MEAN, THE HEADLINE TOMORROW IS WORD OF ADJUSTMENT, DENIED ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DENIED ADDITIONAL PARK SPACE.

THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

AND I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THE CHANGEABLE, I CAN'T KEEP TALKING ABOUT HAVING A HOUSING CRISIS AND THEN DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE ON BECAUSE WE'RE SHORT ON TIME TONIGHT.

NEXT IS GOING TO BE ITEM F TWO.

SORRY, A CHAIR.

CAN WE SET ASIDE TIME AT THE END TO DISCUSS THIS WITH COUNSEL MS. LOVE ALREADY CONSIDERATION.

IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? LET ME CHECK WITH LEGAL REAL QUICK.

SORRY GUYS.

ONE SECOND.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE THIS BACK UP, RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

WELL, WE COULD TAKE IT BACK UP IF WE WANTED TO RESCIND AND RECONSIDER, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO DO THAT.

C 15 20 21 0 1 0 0 IN ELLIS FOR 1003 CUNY AVENUE.

I MEAN, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION TO RESCIND, TO RE, TO RESCIND AND RECONSIDER OUR PREVIOUS ACTION, BUT YOU PROBABLY WANT TO GET LEGAL TO DO THAT.

BUT I WOULD BEING THE MOTION MAKER.

I THINK IT HAS TO COME FROM THE MOTION MAKER IN THE SECOND, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, I MEAN, I'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME REASON TO DO THAT.

DOESN'T IT REQUIRE NEW EVIDENCE.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, UM, MS. LOPEZ, CAN YOU LOOK INTO THAT FORMAT, MR. MARLIN? CAN YOU STAY HERE FOR A FEW MINUTES AND LET'S GET ON WITH, UP TO YOU REAL QUICK, PLEASE.

AGAIN, WOULD YOU HAVE A REALLY FULL AGENDA TONIGHT? SO I'D LIKE TO GET TO THIS NEXT AND MR. LOPEZ, LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU FIND OUT THERE.

HEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR ITEM F TWO

[F-2 C15-2021-0100 Ian Ellis 1003 Kinney Avenue]

JUST A SECOND HERE.

WHAT TIME ARE UP? AND COULD YOU SKIP TO THE SIXTH SLIDE, PLEASE? YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

HELLO.

MY NAME IS IAN ELLIS.

I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THE SUBSTANDARD LOT VARIANTS AT 1003 KENNY AVENUE.

UM, I'LL BE THE PRIMARY SPEAKER TONIGHT, BUT ALSO AVAILABLE VIRTUALLY IS FROM OUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM, INGRID GONZALEZ FEATHERSTON FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON SHE'S PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING IN PERSON IS ALSO A BACKUP ON OUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM, SARAH JOHNSON, UM, AS A REFRESHER OF WHERE WE LEFT OFF, WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS IN THE NOVEMBER HEARING, WE'RE REQUESTING A STUB LOT VARIANCE FOR THIS SF THREE LAW.

UM, IT IS 5,460 SQUARE FEET.

THE MINIMUM IS 5,750.

UH, WE'RE PROPOSING A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A POOL.

THERE IS NO ADU.

UH, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT IS BOUNDED BY KENNY AVENUE.

UH, ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THERE IS A NEIGHBOR TO THE

[00:45:01]

LEFT NEIGHBOR ABOVE IT TO THE REAR.

AND THERE IS A RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS NEVER DEVELOPED, UM, WHICH HAS SHOWN THERE WITH THAT YELLOW PROTECTED TREE.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RIGHT OF WAY IN THE 1896 PLAT, BUT THEY NEVER DEVELOPED IT.

IT'S NEVER BEEN PAVED.

THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.

UM, SO NOW IT'S FULL OF NICE, LARGE, BEAUTIFUL TREES.

UM, WHEN WE MET WITH THE BOARD, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS OF DIRECTION THAT WE WERE ASKED TO PURSUE FURTHER.

ONE OF WHICH WAS TO MEET WITH THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS A COURTESY.

AND THE SECOND WAS TO TAKE THIS BACK TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THE BUILDING AND REVIEW STAFF TO ACTUALLY SEE IF THE VARIANCES REQUIRED AS THE BOARD FELT THAT PERHAPS IT WASN'T.

UM, THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT WE NEED TO CLEAR FROM THE CITY IN ORDER TO SECURE OUR BUILDING PERMIT.

SO ADDRESSING ITEM ONE, UM, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING IN NOVEMBER, WE ASKED TO MEET WITH THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

THEY REFUSE TO MEET IN PERSON OR BY TELECONFERENCE OR VIDEO CONFERENCE.

AND INSTEAD WE ONLY RECEIVED GENERAL OPPOSITION EMAILS FROM LORRAINE ATHERTON AND THE ASSOCIATION, AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS DO SIMPLY ACQUIRE MORE LAND TO GROW OUR PROPERTY SIZE, UH, TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE MINIMUM.

UM, WE FELT THAT WAS KIND OF A ONE-WAY CONVERSATION AND VERY LIMITED.

SO WE OPENED AND MAINTAIN COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT WERE IN SUPPORT AND IN OPPOSITION OF THIS SO THAT WE COULD SATISFY THE BOARD'S INTENT OF SPEAKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR ITEM TWO, WITH THE CITY, WE DID ESCALATE THIS TO ERIC THOMPSON, ERIC THOMAS AND SUSAN BARR.

THEY WATCHED THE NOVEMBER HEARING.

THEY WANTED TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE BOARD WAS SAYING AND INDICATING THEY LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS AGAIN.

UM, THEY MET INTERNALLY AND THEY FOUND ONCE AGAIN THAT THEY STILL BELIEVE THAT OUR VARIANCES REQUIRED NOT ONLY DO THEY BELIEVE A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, THAT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, NOTHING CAN BE BUILT HERE.

A HOUSE CANNOT BE BUILT HERE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE OUT OF SMALLER HOME HOUSE CANNOT BE BUILT UNLESS WE SOMEHOW SIMPLY ACQUIRE MORE LAND FROM A NEIGHBOR, WHICH WE SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO BUY TWO LOTS TO BUILD ONE HOME.

UH, BUT ALSO BEFORE WE CAME TO THE NOVEMBER HEARING, WE HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE CITY AND THE RIGHT OF WAY STAFF TO SEE IF THEY WOULD VACATE THESE CELL, CONVEY ANYTHING WITH THE ALLEYWAY THAT THEY'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WITH.

AND THEY POLITELY SAID, NO.

UM, THEY PLANNED TO KEEP IT ODDLY ENOUGH, HAD WE KEPT THIS ALLEYWAY, UH, AS PART OF THE SITE FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

UM, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS THE HOMEWORK PROPOSING.

UM, SINCE NOVEMBER, HOPEFULLY THE TEAM HAS HAD SOME TIME TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH OUR ARCHITECTURE, OUR BUILDING CAPABILITIES, AND THAT WE'RE DOING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

I'M NOT PROPOSING AN ADU, WHICH WAS A CONCERN FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO PROPOSE THAT EITHER.

UH, ALSO BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO ENCROACH ANY MORE ON THE PROTECTED TREE.

THAT'S ALREADY IN THE ALLEYWAY THAT IS BEING HEAVILY ENCROACHED ON BY THE OTHER NEIGHBORING WATTS.

SO IN OTHER DOCUMENTS, IN THE BACKUP AND ALSO IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO LATER, UM, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS THAT WE JUST SIMPLY HAD NO CONTROL OVER.

WHEN WE INITIALLY ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY, T CAT HAD IT LISTED AS ONLY 10 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE MINIMUM, WE LATER GOT A REAL SURVEY AND FOUND OUT IT WAS CLOSER TO 290 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE MINIMUM.

SOMETHING WE CAN'T CONTROL SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS VERY FREQUENTLY IN AUSTIN, BUT ODDLY ENOUGH, THIS LOT WAS DIVIDED IN 1947.

SO THAT'S A REALLY LONG TIME FOR THAT ERA TO EXIST.

UM, ALSO THIS IS HALF OF A LOT.

SO PREVIOUSLY IN OUR 1896 PLAT, THE OTHER HALF OF THE LOT WAS ABLE TO DEMOLISH THEIR HOME AND BUILD A NEW ONE IN 2007, WITHOUT THE USE OF VARIANTS WITH THE SAME CONSTRAINTS, SUBSTANDARD LOT SIMILAR STREET, ALL THE SAME STUFF.

IT'S THE OTHER HALF, UM, THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE.

MAYBE IT DIDN'T, IT SLIPPED THROUGH SOMEHOW, BUT WE'RE GETTING MIXED MESSAGES THERE.

WE ALSO WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT OUR LOT WAS NEVER SUBDIVIDED OR AMENDED WITH THE COUNTY.

UH, WE HAVE THAT IN THE RECORDS AS WELL.

SO THE 1896 PLATT IS THE REAL ONE, BUT SINCE IT WAS CONVEYED AS THE HALF LOT IN 1947, WE DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THE 1946 EXEMPTION OR RULE.

SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LATE AND WE'RE A FEW SQUARE FEET TOO SHORT.

UM, BUT WE'D LIKE TO BUILD THIS HOME AND WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO DO SO.

IT IS THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAVE LEFT TO CLEAR THE REST OF THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT.

IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL HOME.

IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, LET US KNOW.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE A SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION OR THIS ONE, UH, LORRAINE OPPORTUNITY YOU HERE.

A NEW VARIANT UNDER SECTION 25 TO 9 63.

UH, YES.

UH, THIS IS, UH, LORRAINE ATHERTON WITH THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING COMMITTEE.

I'M HERE TO COMMENT ON THE, UH, THE NEW EVIDENCE, UH, IN THIS CASE.

UM, AND TO ASK THE BOARD TO PLEASE ENCOURAGE THIS APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR

[00:50:01]

AND HERE'S WHY THE EMAILS FROM SUPERVISOR THOMAS SHOW THAT THE HARDSHIP FINDINGS AS WRITTEN ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

THE, UH, ALLEYWAY HAS BEEN RIGHT AWAY, HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1896, UH, PLAT.

IT HAS NEVER CHANGED.

OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BOARD CANNOT APPROVE A VARIANCE.

IF ANY, ONE OF THE FINDINGS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

WE HAVE URGED THE APPLICANT TO REWRITE THE FINDINGS, TO REFLECT THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

WE BELIEVE THAT A VARIANCE FROM THE 50% LIMIT ON DEMOLITION UNDER 25 TO 9 63, COULD ALLOW A HOUSE TO BE BUILT HERE UP TO THE SAME SIZE AS THE ADJACENT HOUSE AND WITHIN THE SAME CODE THAT APPLIES TO THE SEVEN OTHER SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN THIS BLOCK THAT APPROACH AT LEAST WOULD INTRODUCE FACTS THAT THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER REGARDING FAR AND IMPERVIOUS COVER.

MR. THOMAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS AN OPTION HERE.

INDEED.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE SECONDARY DWELLINGS HAVE BEEN BUILT ON PARCELS AS PART OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN SOLD AS SEPARATE CONDOS.

IN THIS CASE, THE INVESTMENT GROUP COULD NEGOTIATE A CONDO REGIME WITH THE OWNER OF 1001, KENNY, IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE REPLANTING.

SO IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR THE INVESTORS THAN THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL LAND XE, AND A HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING DWELLINGS ALONG WITH COMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND OUR APPRECIATION OF THE DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN 25 TO 9 63 AND 9 64 IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT POLICY.

AGAIN, WE ASK THAT YOU ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR THE PROPER VARIANCE UNDER 25 TO 9 63.

SO THAT, THAT THIS, UH, THIS LOT, THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY ON THIS LOT CAN BE REPLACED UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT APPLY TO OTHER, ALL THE OTHER LOTS, UH, UH, IN THIS BLOCK.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SPEAKER AND FEVER, UH, INGRID GONZALEZ, FEATHERSTON ARGUING HERE ON THE LINE.

UH, YES.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, I'M WATCHING Y'ALL ON TV.

UM, SO YES, I WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ALSO, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE, ON THE CASE WITH, UH, ENLS AND SARAH JOHNSON WITH THE MSP TEAM.

UM, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY, OR JUST ADD, UH, THAT WHEN WE WERE ALSO GIVEN THE BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW, UH, LAND STATUS, DETERMINATION, OR EXEMPTIONS, WE COULD PURSUE ON THAT ROUTE.

WE DID FIND ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY, UM, WHICH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENTATION, UM, WHICH WE ALSO DID PROVIDE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THEM TO REVIEW AS, UM, A MEANS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON THIS LOT.

SO WITH THAT PREVIOUS APPROVAL, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS ALSO BE IN CONSIDERATION, UM, TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE LOT, UM, THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY LOOKED AT.

IT WAS APPROVED, UH, THEREFORE ALLOWING THAT TO BE AVAILABLE PROPERTY.

THAN ACQUIRING AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OR TRYING TO BUY THE ALLEYWAY FROM THE CITY, WHICH WE CAN'T DO, BUT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S AN, AN UNDUE BURDEN ON NEIGHBORS THAT POTENTIALLY ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN ISSUES GOING ON.

AND, UH, LET'S SEE, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

SO THERE WERE TWO THINGS THAT I HEARD IN THE, IN THE OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT SOMEHOW THE 1896 PLAN FOR THE ALLEYWAY IS NEW EVIDENCE.

IT IS NOT, IT'S INCLUDED IN OUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION.

WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT IT SINCE THE NOVEMBER HEARING WE'VE SHOWN IT IN THE DOCUMENTS IT'S IN THE BACKUP.

IT'S VERY CLEARLY THERE.

NOT ONLY THAT BEFORE WE EVEN CAME TO THE HEARING, WE HAD ALREADY HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT ON, COULD WE USE THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS? WOULD THEY LET US PAVE A CERTAIN PORTION OF IT? UM, COULD WE PAID AT CONTROL AND MAINTAIN A CERTAIN PORTION OF IT? COULD WE PUT ALL THE LIABILITY ON US TO USE IT AND ALL OF THE ANSWERS WERE NO.

UM, SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE NEW EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT EXISTED BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING.

UM, THE SECOND COMMENT ABOUT PUTTING EVEN MORE BUTTER BURDEN ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORS TO WORK OUT SOME SORT OF DEAL FOR A USE AGREEMENT FOR US TO CREATE A CONDO REGIME THAT SEEMS UNREASONABLE, UM, LESS THAN REASONABLE

[00:55:01]

UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS.

LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT HERE AT VICE YOUR HAWTHORNE.

SO THE CODE CHANGED ACTUALLY IN 2007, WHICH WOULD BE HOW THE LOT ADJACENT DIDN'T REQUIRE THE SAME VARIANCE.

AND THIS LOT IS ABOUT NINE MONTHS FROM THAT GRANDFATHER DATE.

UM, SO I WILL TAKE THAT, I WILL SAY IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MATERIAL, WHEN YOU GET YOUR APPLICATION PACKET ON THE FIRST PAGE, AND I BELIEVE AT THE TOP OF THE SECOND PAGE, DID ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO MEET WITH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.

SO I DON'T FIND THAT IT IS A, A, UM, A BIG ITEM TO ACTUALLY SPEAK TO PEOPLE BECAUSE WE ALL SIT HERE.

OUR, IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE LOOK AT ZONING CASES, WE LOOK AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES, AND RIGHT NOW WE LOOK AT A LOT OF WHITE HOUSES.

OH, I REALLY LOVE WHITE HOUSES.

SO, UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT RIGHT UPFRONT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO PEOPLE IS REALLY NOT A BIG THING TO ASK.

UH, UM, I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED AT THE TONE THAT THIS TOOK.

UM, BUT I JUST NEEDED TO SAY THAT.

AND IN 2007, THE CODE CHANGED AND THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT NINE MONTHS TOO LATE, I THINK.

OR THAT CODE SECTION THAT I WAS REFERRING TO UNLESS BARBARA, YOU SAW SOMETHING ELSE.

JUST MAKING SURE, UM, MR. RON OLAND, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR BOARD MEMBER PRO? I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT YOU DIDN'T GET A SURVEY, UH, UNTIL AFTER YOU'D BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, BUT YOU TYPICALLY GET A SURVEY WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

DID YOU NOT GET A SURVEY PRIOR TO CLOSING ON THIS PROPERTY? NO.

UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, IS, IS TYPICAL WITH ALMOST EVERY PROPERTY TRANSACTION IN AUSTIN WITHIN THE LAST YEAR AND SURVEYORS WERE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL LATER.

UM, THE SELLER DID NOT HAVE A SURVEY THAT WAS READILY AVAILABLE.

SO WE USE THE BEST THAT WE COULD FROM WHATEVER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE GIS INFO.

THERE IS, UM, A SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO FROM THE T CAD, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA THAT SHOWED IT WAS ONLY A 10 SQUARE FEET UNDER, BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER WE WERE ABLE TO CLOSE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SCHEDULE AND FIND A SURVEYOR TO PERFORM IT ACCURATELY AND CHECK THE MEASUREMENTS.

YOUR TITLE COMPANY DIDN'T REQUIRE A SURVEY.

I DID NOT PERSONALLY HANDLE THE TITLE TRANSACTION, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET A SURVEY UNTIL LATER.

AND THEN THE DOCUMENTATION WE'VE RECEIVED, AT LEAST THE LETTER FROM THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SAYS THAT, UM, THERE WAS A SURVEY DATED FEBRUARY 23RD.

DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021 PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE.

I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THE EXACT DAY.

WELL REMEMBER, SO WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT THIS HALL HAD IT TO THIS CLEAN LOCK IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEMOED.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING OR IS THAT WHAT IS BEING INTIMATED, CORRECT? YES.

YOU KNOW, FAR REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAD DONATED THE HOME TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PRACTICE IN AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS.

WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.

WELL, MADAM CHAIR, AS I'M STAYING AT SYDNEY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE HARDSHIP OR THE HARDSHIP.

UH, I'M, I'M HAVING A, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS ONE.

I MEAN, IF, UM, IF, IF WE GRABBED THE, AND I WOULD HAVE, UH, I DON'T, I'M SURE SOMEBODY WOULD REQUIRE IT, NOT PETITE FAR,

[01:00:01]

UH, AND THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT, UH, THE SIZE OF THAT HOUSE PLACED ON THAT LOT.

IT, IT LOOKS PRETTY BIG THERE.

SO I WOULD, I GUESS, UH, I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT, IS HE ABLE TO MEET THE FAR RECOMMENDATIONS OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE? I'D LIKE TO DEFER THAT QUESTION TO THE ARCHITECTS IT'S IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR INGRID TO ANSWER THAT.

ABSOLUTELY.

ARE THEY ON THE PHONE? OKAY.

YEAH, STILL HERE.

UM, SO THE CURRENT DESIGN AS PROPOSED DOES MEET, UH, WITH CURRENT SUBCHAPTER APP ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF FAR IN PREVIOUS COVERAGE AND BUILT-IN COVERAGE.

SO WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN, I BELIEVE PAGE TWO WITH THE MASSING AND RENDER, UM, IS ALL, UH, COMPLIANT.

UM, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE PROVIDED FOR THE PERCENTAGES EITHER.

TO REITERATE, THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAVE LEFT TO CLEAR TO RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, 0.1 POINT 0.4, NOT THE 2300, THE 0.4, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BASED ON YOUR LOT AREA.

IT MEETS THE, UH, 2300, SINCE THE CODE ALLOWS FOR YOU TO SELECT, UH, EITHER THE COATS AT 2300 OR THE 0.4, WHICHEVER OF THE HIGHER.

UM, SO CURRENTLY WE CALCULATED, WE KEPT, OH, EXCUSE ME, SORRY.

UM, WE CALCULATED WHAT THAT REDUCTION WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO REMOVE, UM, TO THE ACTUAL 40% VERSUS THE 2300.

AND IT WOULD BE, UM, ONE BEDROOM OFF OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD IT CHANGE THE MAPPING OF THE HOUSE? IT WOULD JUST CHANGE.

UM, IT WOULD JUST CHANGE A DEEPER PORCH AREA THERE.

REMEMBER MACARTHUR, I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

UM, YOU'VE GOT A SUSPENDED BUILDING PERMIT ON THIS PROPERTY AND IT SAYS TOTAL NEW ADDITION BUILDINGS, SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 2,602 SQUARE FEET.

AND THAT'S ABOUT 48% OF 0.4, EIGHT RATIO.

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? IS THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S EXEMPTIONS BUILT INTO THE CODE AND I KNOW THERE IS, UH, YES, THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS THAT WE ARE PROVIDING ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, UM, LIKE THE ASSUMPTIONS, BUT THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SPEAKING TO THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

I'M LOOKING AT MY PERMIT SET NOW TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT NUMBER TO CONFIRM, UM, WHAT YOU'RE LEAVING THAT.

SO YEAH, THE COVERED PORCH EXEMPTION, WE WOULD, UH, BE RECEIVING THAT THE GARAGE, WE WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT FOR THAT AS WELL.

SO, UH, THOSE WOULD BE WHAT THOSE ADDITIONAL NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE SEEING BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.

OH, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION ANY LONGER.

THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS FOR MR. ATHERTON, UM, YOU, UH, CONVEYED A FAIR AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THERE, UM, ABOUT THIS, UH, PROCEEDING WITH ANOTHER, UH, FORM OF VARIANCE.

AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WAS THAT COMMUNICATED, UH, TO THE APPLICANT UNDERSTOOD FROM THE APPLICANT, MAYBE THERE WAS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION.

UM, WE, WE COMMUNICATED THAT IN, UM, UH, OUR, OUR FIRST, FIRST, UH, RESPONSE, UH, UH, TO THE INITIAL, UH, HEARING AND, UH, WE'VE, UH, WE'VE INCLUDED IT IN, I THINK, THREE OTHER EMAILS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS DURING THE HOLIDAYS AND, UH, DURING COVID AND WE, UH, WE JUST, WE DID EVERYTHING IN WRITING, UH, VIA EMAIL.

SO THERE'VE BEEN THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST AT LEAST, UH, THREE FAIRLY LENGTHY DETAILED, UH, EMAIL EXCHANGES.

AND, UM, WHILE WE'RE PURSUING THIS CURRENT VARIANCE, I DID NOT SEE A REASON TO TRY AND START ANOTHER ONE.

UH, COULD JUST ASK APPLICANT, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE CNA ON THIS? MY COMMENT WAS ABOUT, WE'VE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH LORRAINE ATHERTON.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM OTHERS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE TYPICALLY SPEAKS IN THE MEETINGS, BUT WHEN WE WERE DIRECTED TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE WERE EXPECTING THAT TO BE MORE THAN ONE PERSON, BUT YES, WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL ROUNDS OF EMAILS FROM LORRAINE ATHERTON.

UM, I'VE ASKED QUESTIONS, I'VE PROVIDED DOCUMENTS THAT SHE REQUESTED BASED ON WHAT THE COA FOUND WHEN WE WENT BACK TO THEM.

[01:05:01]

WHEN THE PREVIOUS BOARD SENTIMENT MIGHT BE THAT A VARIANCE MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IN GENERAL.

SO DO YOU WANT, DO NOT WANT TO MUDDY THE WATERS IF I DON'T NEED TO THANK YOU.

MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VENTOLIN.

AND IN THE SENSE OF I'M GOING TO EMOTION POSTPONE THIS BECAUSE I'M READING THESE HARDSHIPS AND HARDSHIP, DOESN'T GET ME THERE.

YOU KNOW, AND EVEN IF I WAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, IT WOULD BE FOR FAR NOT, NOT TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE, BUT, UH, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT STATES IN HERE THAT IT NOT IMPROVED DOA ALLEY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I JUST DON'T, UM, I CAN'T GET THERE WITH, WITH THIS, WITH THIS, UH, WITH THE HARDSHIPS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN HERE.

SO THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND COME BACK WITH A BETTER, WITH A BETTER HARDSHIP OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE SMALLER THAN I WAS AT 754 FEET.

THAT DOESN'T QUITE CUT IT, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON, I BELIEVE BROOKE HAD SOMETHING THAT PAID OFF.

I'LL SECOND THAT MAINLY BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY EXPERIENCED BUILDER, THEY'RE ALL OVER AUSTIN.

THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND, AND THEIR ARCHITECT I'M SURE DOES TOO.

AND I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE MORE TAKING ADVANTAGE THAN GIVING US A TRUE HARDSHIP.

SO IF THEY CAN REWRITE THEIR HARDSHIPS TO SHOW ME THAT I'M WRONG, UM, THEN MAYBE I CAN SUPPORT IT.

BUT AS IT IS, I CAN'T.

SO I THINK MR. OLAND'S CORRECT IN ASKING FOR POSTPONEMENT.

AND I ALSO AGREE WITH THE 40%, I HAD A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

UM, I MEAN, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM LATELY BOARD MEMBER, COULD I GET YOU GUYS TO STAND A LITTLE BIT TO THE RIGHT MS. LOPEZ, COULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM COMPLETELY REWRITING THEIR APPLICATION AND COMPLETELY REWRITING THE BASIS OR THE VARIANCE, THE, THE VARIOUS, UH, ART SHIPS THAT THEY ARE CLAIMING, UM, CHAN WE JUST POST PALM.

UM, AND, OR DOES IT NEED TO BE RE NOTICED OR DO WE NEED TO JUST DENY THIS ONE? AND I MAKE A NEW ONE.

I'M JUST, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS APPLICATION CAN BE AMENDED OR REWRITTEN.

UH, GIVEN THAT WE'RE, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HEARING, UH, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ARE THEY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO A NEW, UH, SECTION OF CODE? OH, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, THIS IS THE LIAISON.

I HEARD LORRAINE ATHERTON STATE THAT THEY NEED TO REQUEST THE CORRECT BARENTS FOR THE CORRECT SECTION OF THE CODE.

SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET RE NOTICED AND THE FEE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PAID FOR THAT.

I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, I EXPERIENCED ON THIS BOARD AND SAYS IT HAS BEEN THAT THIS IS A LOT OF WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THINGS GET POSTPONED.

SO PEOPLE CAN GO BACK, TALK TO NEIGHBORS AND WORK THESE THINGS OUT.

UM, I JUST, I'M NOT REAL CLEAR ABOUT, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF WHAT WE CAN DO, AND THEN WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S EVEN WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT, CAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO CONSIDER IT WHILE THIS ONE WAS PENDING.

SO I THINK FOR NOW, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ON THE TABLE, WE NEED TO STICK TO THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT, NOT THE KEY PIECE, A BOARD MEMBER, BLOOM AND VICE CHAIR.

YOU'RE UP NEXT.

I SEE.

OH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THE MARRIOTTS WITH THE 40% FAR CONDITION AS WELL.

SO IF IT COMES BACK TO US, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.

I ALSO WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH THE 0.4.

UM, SO WHAT I HEARD BOARD MEMBER ON OLIN SAY IS THAT THE HARDSHIP SECTION OF THE APPLICATION NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL, PERHAPS FINE TUNING.

THERE IS ALSO THE THOUGHT OF, UH, TELL YOU HAVING THE CASE TAKE THE NON-CONFORMING ROUTE, BUT THE BUILDING IS GONE.

SO IT REALLY ISN'T THERE.

AND, UM, THIS SECTION THAT I WAS THINKING OF WAS AMENDED AND HAS A VERY SPECIFIC DATE THAT THIS

[01:10:01]

PROJECT MISSED.

I REALLY THINK IT WAS BY ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS ON CONFIGURATION.

SO IT DOES HAVE A LEGALIZED STATUS.

UM, IT, IT JUST, LITERALLY THE DIVIDE ON THE LOT IS LIKE SEVEN MONTHS IN DIFFERENCE.

AND THAT CODE CHANGE WAS IN 2007.

SO THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

SO IF THEY ARE GOING THE NON-CONFORMING ROUTE, WHICH IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE THERE WAS INTEREST IN THAT, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE RE NOTICE OF WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT THE HARDSHIPS NEEDED WORK ON THE VARIANTS THAT HE'S APPLIED FOR NOW.

I'M DONE BOARD MEMBER OF, AND CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT JUST SO I CAN JOT IT DOWN PLACE? THAT'S CORRECT.

EXACTLY WHAT THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MELISSA SET IN THE RECORD I'M IN.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING SHE SAID.

THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECTLY.

IT, THE HARDSHIP WHERE THEY'RE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T GET ME THERE.

UH, I'M WILLING, I WAS WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE, UH, THE FORM FOR FAR, BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, I JUST, I CAN'T EVEN GET THERE WITH THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T READ IT THE RECORD.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 14TH, 2022 MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VONN, OLIN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

I'M STAYING RICHARD SMITH.

DALE PUT AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

I ABSTAIN KELLY BLOOM.

LET'S SEE.

EAT THREE.

UH, WHAT'S THE NUMBER WE NEED FOR POSTPONEMENT? SIMPLE MAJORITY KEY MOTION IS PASSED POSTPONE TILL MARCH 14TH, 2022.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WATCH THE VIDEO, OUR CONTACT, ELAINE, FOR CLARITY ON PRESS FOUR ON THE HARDSHIPS.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

MOVING ON.

WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK REALLY QUICK

[F-3 C15-2021-0101 Michael Whellan for 201 E Koenig Lane, LTD 403 & 201 E. Koenig Lane, 5613 Avenue F (Part 2 of 2)]

TO ITEM F THREE.

WE HAVE AN OPTION BEFORE US, BEFORE THE BODY, WHERE IF ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTED NO, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND, UH, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT.

WE WOULD THEN NEED A SECOND AND WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON IT UPON WHICH THE MOTION WOULD BE RESCINDED.

AND WE COULD REVOTE, IF YOU CHOSE TO DO SO.

I MOVED TO RESCIND.

I WAS NOT ON MY SCREEN YET.

WHO WAS THAT? AUGUSTINA AUGUSTINA I'LL SECOND.

THAT MOTION.

WHO SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.

I'M CHAIR AT POINT POINT OF ORDER.

DOES THE SECOND NEED TO COME FROM ONE OF THE, UH, FROM ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO VOTED, UH, IN THE NEGATIVE? NO, NO.

ONLY THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, HAS TO BE MADE BY SOMEONE WHO VOTED.

NO.

THE SECOND CAN COME FROM ANYONE IN THE BODY.

SO THAT WAS ALMOST, UM, MADAM CHAIR.

IT SIMPLY DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD TO, TO, TO OBTAIN THE VARIANCE.

AFTER WE VOTE ON THIS MOTION, CAN I MAKE THE SAME MOTION WITH THE SAME FINDINGS? YES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

A KEY LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

THIS IS A MOTION TO RESCIND THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR ITEM C 15 20 21 0 1 0 1.

EXCUSE ME, MADAM CHAIR.

I HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER.

THEY, THEY, THEY VOTE WAS ON WHETHER TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

[01:15:02]

THERE ISN'T A VOTE.

THERE ISN'T A VOTE TO RESCIND.

THERE WASN'T A VOTE TO DENY.

THE VARIOUS SIMPLY DID NOT MEET EXTENTLY DID NOT MEET THE VOTE THRESHOLD TO GAIN THE MERITS.

I THINK, I THINK THIS IS IMPROPER TO RESCIND AND RECONSIDER AS NOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT W THAT WORD WAS NOT SAD.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO RESCIND.

THE MOTION TO RESEND IS WHAT THE MOTION TO RESCIND.

CAN YOU JUST HANG ON, PLEASE.

LET'S HEAR FROM LEGAL, UH, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

SO THERE WAS A MOTION TO RESCIND AND THAT WAS MADE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT VOTED NO, THEN THAT WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORN.

AND NOW BEFORE THE BOARD IS A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RESEND.

IF THAT PASSES, THEN THERE'LL BE ANOTHER VOTE ON THE MOTION, UM, FOR THE ORIGINAL VARIANTS.

SO THERE'S STILL, THERE'S STILL TWO VOTES THAT HAS TO OCCUR.

AND THAT WAS MADE THAT MOTION TO RESENT WAS MADE BY A MEMBER THAT HAD VOTED NO ON THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE.

SO, BUT, BUT BOARD MEMBER PRO IT BRINGS UP A REALLY GOOD POINT.

IT'S NOT REALLY, WE DIDN'T VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

WE VOTED TO APPROVE IT AND DIDN'T GET ENOUGH VOTES TO, UH, TO PASS THE APPROVAL.

SO WHAT WOULD HE BE? RESCINDING, RECIDIVISM THE VOTE.

WE'RE SENDING THE ACTUAL VOTE, THAT EIGHT, THREE VOTE.

YOU'RE RESENDING THAT VOTE.

AND THAT IS WHY THE PERSON, THE PREVAILING PARTY, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE THREE BOARD MEMBERS THAT SAID NO, THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO MAKE THE RE THE MOTION TO RESET.

SO I SHOULD BE PHRASING THIS AS A MOTION TO RESCIND THE VOTE.

AS A MOTION TO RESCIND THE VOTE THAT ORIGINALLY OCCURRED.

DOES EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

LET'S LET ME REPHRASE THEN.

THIS IS A MOTION TO RESCIND THE VOTE ON THE VARIANCE.

I HAD AN AIR.

I APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION.

THIS IS GOING AUGUSTINE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR MOTION, BUT I STILL SEE NO VOTES ON THE DYESS.

AND I MEAN, KISSING UP A ROPE.

I'M NOT REALLY, UH, INTERESTED IN, UH, REVISITING THIS AND OPENING IT UP AGAIN.

IF WE DON'T HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE, THE OTHER TWO, UH, ONE OF THE OTHER TWO, UH, COMMISSIONERS.

AND SO, UM, I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS IS REALLY GOING TO GET US ANYWHERE AND WE HAVE A VERY LARGE AGENDA.

SO I WILL, I WILL, I WILL VOTE.

YES, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF, UH, IT'S OPENING THE TOASTING UP A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION, UH, PONTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAYING THAT WE HEARD THE KEYS AND WE'RE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.

IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGAIN WITH THE SAME FINDINGS, I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

SO VICE CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER PRUITT'S HAD CAME UP FIRST.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER POOL.

SECOND GRADE BY BOARD MEMBER SMITH THOUGHT IT WAS TO, OH, THIS IS THE MOTION TO DENY.

THE FIRST MOTION WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO DENY WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

IF YOU WANT TO RESCIND YOUR SECOND, YOU CAN'T IT'S.

THIS IS WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE THAT'S REQUESTED.

[01:20:01]

I'LL RESCIND MY SECOND.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT.

I SECOND IT.

NOW IT'S A MOTION TO DENY.

I'LL SECOND DIDN'T CHAIR.

VICE CHAIR.

UH, WASN'T HER MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST.

I'M CONFUSED.

THE, IT WOULD BE IF I MADE A MOTION AND HE'S TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

WELL, AND IT WAS, IF I MAKE A MOTION, NOT, I MAKE A MOTION.

SO BOARD MEMBER PRUITT COMES FIRST.

HE TAKES PRECEDENT.

SO WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AT THIS TIME? OR SHOULD WE JUST CALL THE ROLL AND THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION? OH GOD, MY ROBERT'S RULES.

UM, MS. LOPEZ MOTION TO DENY CAN NOT GET A SUBSTITUTE OR AN AMENDMENT.

I DON'T REMEMBER MADAM CHAIR WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR A RESPONSE FROM LEGAL.

WE'RE LIKE A DOG OUT HERE CHASING OUR TAIL.

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO GOD, MOTION TO DENY THAT IT'S GOING TO FAIL.

AND WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO BOOT, WHICH IS GOING TO FAIL WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

UM, I MEAN, I HOPE WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD ON THAT.

IT'S STARTING TO GIVE ME A HEADACHE.

I'M SITTING HERE.

THAT SOUNDED LIKE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION.

SO LET'S CALL THE QUESTION.

UH, SO THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY TOMMY EIGHTS.

VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

CARRIE WALLER, NO KELLY BLOOM.

NO MOTION FAILS.

VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS.

I HAVE A SECOND.

SORRY, ONE SEC, GUYS.

THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS MADE BY VICE CHAIR.

HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN.

DARRYL PUT NO AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

AGAIN, CARRIE WALLER.

KELLY BLOOM.

MR. WAYLON, YOUR MOTION IS GRANTED.

KEEP MOVING ON I'M CHAIR.

BOARD MEMBER FOR, I LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS BOARD IS NOT IMPLYING THE TEXAS LAW.

IF THEY HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF THAT PROPERTY, WE ARE BY STATE LAW REQUIRED TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.

UM, THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY, MADAM CHAIR TO FOLLOW UP WITH CAROL'S COMMENT.

THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE.

THIS BODY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE YOUR DEEP PEOPLE IN AN, WITHIN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND PERSONALLY MYSELF, I FEEL THAT WITHIN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY, NUMBER ONE HAVE A, THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT'S IN THE CENTRAL CORE.

AND NUMBER TWO, ARE YOU ABLE TO PROVIDE THE PARKS ONE ON ONE SIDE, ONE ON THE OTHER FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS AS IT RELATES TO THE DOGS? I KNOW THAT'S A MINIMAL THING, BUT I'VE GOT, I'M A DOG GUY.

SO THAT'S WHERE I SIT AND THAT'S FINE.

THIS IS A PREVIOUS SIGNED POSTPONEMENT, C 16 20 21 0 0 1 1 FOR 2,111 RIO GRANDE STREET, REMI, BORN FOR VILLAS.

ITEM C ONE HAS BEEN POSTPONED BACK TO A NORMAL AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM.

DO YOU WANT,

[D-1 C16-2021-0011 Renee Bornn for Villas Rio, LP 2111 Rio Grande Street]

REAL IS BORN IN YOUR HAIR.

[01:25:05]

RENEE MS. BARN.

THIS IS TIFFANY MEISTER SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF RENEE.

ARE YOU GOING TO BE SPEAKING IN HER PLACE? YES.

AND, UH, SORRY, ONE SECOND, MS. LOPEZ.

IT IS OKAY FOR APPLICANTS TO, UH, PRESENT FROM OR VIRTUALLY.

JUST MAKING SURE.

CAN YOU GIVE ME A SECOND? LET ME PULL UP MY TIMER.

DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? UH, YES, WE DID.

GO AHEAD AND SEND THINGS OVER, UM, TO ELAINE.

UM, AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION GOES OF JUST SOME EXAMPLES, SIGNAGE, WE'RE PULLING IT UP NOW.

UH, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S GOING TO BE ABOUT A 32ND DELAY IF YOU'RE WATCHING US ON APX THEN WHEN YOU SAY NEXT SLIDE, WE WILL CHANGE THE SLIDE.

SO WE ARE ON YOUR FIRST SLIDE, PROPERTY SIGNAGE, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

PERFECT.

UM, SO WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK OVER THE PROPERTY, UM, IN SEPTEMBER FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP WHO DID GO AHEAD AND FILE THIS APPLICATION WITH YOU GUYS, WHICH WAS POSTPONED BLEED DUE TO COVID.

UM, WE ARE UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT AT THE TIME, UM, WHEN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY, THEY DID GO AHEAD.

BEFORE WE ACQUIRED IT, INSTALLED THE SIGNAGE, UM, ON OUR EIGHTH FLOOR.

UM, THEY DID GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT, THERE IS ON THE SECOND SLIDE.

IF YOU GO AHEAD AND CHANGE SLIDES, UM, IT DOES HAVE AN IMAGE THERE OF THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY INSTALLED ABOVE THE EIGHTH FLOOR.

UM, WE DID GO AHEAD AND DO KIND OF A SURVEY OF OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THEIR SIGNAGE, UM, WHICH IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, IT DOES GIVE TWO EXAMPLES OF TWO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITHIN A BLOCK RADIUS OF US THAT DOES HAVE, UM, SIGNAGE ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR.

OUR SIGNAGE IS ALREADY INSTALLED.

UM, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS DID GO AHEAD AND INSTALL THIS FOR US BEFORE WE EVEN ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.

AND BEFORE THE APPLICATION HAD EVEN BEEN APPROVED, UM, THEY DID GO AHEAD AND MOUNT THIS TO THE BUILDING AND MAKE IT PART OF THE BUILDING, UM, WITH LED LIGHTS UNDERNEATH, UH, WE DID GO AHEAD AND DO THIS, UM, DUE TO THE OLD OWNERSHIP, THEY, WE WANTED PROSPECT EXPOSURE.

UM, THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING TOWARDS RIO GRANDE.

UM, SO THEY DID GO AHEAD AND INSTALLED IT FOR THOSE PURPOSES, JUST TO, I GUESS, IDENTIFY THE BUILDING, UM, TO ANY PROSPECT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS AND HOW THERE THERE'S NO SIGNAGE PROVIDED ON THAT SIDE.

IS THAT EVERYTHING? YES, THAT IS OKAY.

AND YOU WERE ALSO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THERE, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VINYL.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, A SIGN THAT YOU HIT AT YOU WANTING WHO, UM, BACK HERE, I LOST YOU AND DROPPED OFF MY PAGE HERE WANTING TO ADD, AND WHY ARE YOU ADDING, ASSIGN, OR YOU JUST WANT TO TAKE THE ONE SIGN, ALLOW THE ONE SIGN, BECAUSE IF I READ THIS, I'M READING IT NOW THE PAPER, UH, ACES TO ALLOW ONE WALL SIGN ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR MAT CLASSICALLY, AND THEN YOU WANT IT TO BE ELIMINATE ILLUMINATED.

IF THAT AN EXISTING SIGN, ARE YOU ADDING A SIGN? YEAH.

SO THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP DID GO AHEAD AND THEY FILED THIS APPLICATION AND HAVE THE SIGN INSTALLED PRIOR TO APPROVAL.

SO WHEN WE ACQUIRED THE ACQUISITION, WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THERE WAS A PENDING APPLICATION ON THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY HAD ALREADY HAD INSTALLED BEFORE WE ACQUIRED IT.

SO WE'RE HERE JUST TO ESSENTIALLY SEE IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THIS SIGNAGE APPROVED.

UM, OBVIOUSLY IF NOT APPROVED, THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE IT REMOVED, BUT THEY HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY HAD IT INSTALLED PRIOR TO US.

AND IT'S ALREADY ELIMINATED.

YES, SIR.

ILLUMINATED, UM, WITH HIGH OUTPUT LEDS.

THAT, THAT HEARS IT ALL BECAUSE THE WAY I WAS READING THIS WAS A LITTLE, LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

OTHER QUESTIONS, QUESTION BOARD MEMBER SMITH.

SO THE, UH, COMPETITOR SIGNAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ILLUMINATED, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE SIGNAGE IS ILLUMINATED ON, ON OUR SIGNAGE.

IT IS ILLUMINATED WITH LED LIGHTS.

UM, THESE LED LIGHTS ARE INTERNALLY

[01:30:01]

I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE COMPETITOR SIGNAGE THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED.

SO THE VILLAS ON, ON NUESTRAS, THAT ONE IS NOT ELIMINATED.

THE ONE ON MOONTOWER IS ELIMINATED AT NIGHT.

THE SECOND SIGNAGE THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED AS AN EXAMPLE DOES ALUMINATE, THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL THAT WE HAVEN'T, THEY DIDN'T ADD IT TO THE SIGNAGE, BUT THERE'S SEVERAL PROPERTIES, LARC, AUSTIN THAT HAS AN ILLUMINATED SIGN.

I ON AUSTIN, UM, THAT'S ILLUMINATED ON THE EXTERIOR AS WELL.

THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

YEAH, JUST QUICKLY.

IT'S PROBABLY MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION.

WHEN YOU HAVE A SIGN ON THE EIGHTH FLOOR AND YOU SAY IT, SO PEOPLE FROM THE STREET CAN SEE YOU.

I'M SORRY, BUT PEOPLE FROM THE STREET CAN'T SEE UP ON THE EIGHTH FLOOR, YOU NEED IT STRAIGHT IN LEVEL.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR JUSTIFICATION ON THAT X FOR VISIBILITY.

IT LOOKS MORE FOR ADVERTISING TO ME.

WELL, WHEN PROSPECTS ARE DRIVING THROUGH THE WEST, I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD.

WELL, WHEN PROSPECTS ARE DRIVING AROUND THE WEST CAMPUS AREAS WITH SO MUCH HIGH RISE AROUND THIS, AROUND THIS AREA, IT IS HARD FOR PROSPECTS WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING AROUND TO BE ABLE TO LOCATE AND IDENTIFY WHICH PROPERTIES OR WHICH PROPERTIES.

SO IT'S SIMPLY FOR THE FACT WHEN PROSPECTS ARE DRIVING AROUND THIS AREA TO IDENTIFY WHERE OUR BUILDING IS, THEN, THEN WHY WOULDN'T YOU THEN, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE, UM, RELOCATED TO A LOWER FLOOR SO THAT WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING, THEY CAN ACTUALLY SEE IT.

WE DON'T ACTUALLY, WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A PHYSICAL PLACE WHERE WE CAN MOUNT IT LOWER THAT WOULDN'T BE IN A RESIDENTIAL WINDOW.

SO THE, WE DO HAVE LIKE A SHELF ABOVE OUR EIGHTH FLOOR WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE PLACED THIS ABOVE WINDOWS.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO, TO BE PRETTY MUCH OVER A WINDOW.

THERE WOULD BE NO FLAT SURFACE FOR US TO INSTALL ANY SIGNAGE ON THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE.

WE DO HAVE AN ELEMENT, LIKE NOT LAMINATED SIGN, BUT IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

UM, THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE FIRST FLOOR THAT WE HAVE, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LUMINATED AND IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY SIGNAGE ON OUR WEST SIDE.

IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THIS IS ACHIEVING THE INTENDED, IF IT'S SO HIGH UP AND YOU'RE IN A KIND OF A WALL OF TALL BUILDINGS, UM, DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, IT SEEMED ON A LOWER FLOOR.

SOME OTHER SORT OF SIGN ON A LOWER FLOOR WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

NOW THAT WE HAVE A MOTION, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, AMENDMENTS? I THINK THIS APPLICANT MIGHT LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING WRITTEN, HOW THE CODE IS BEING REWRITTEN AND THEY MAY SAVE THEMSELVES SOME ISSUES BECAUSE I CAN'T READ THE BOARD, BUT, UM, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A TOUGH SELL MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S, WHILE IT'S NOT THIS APPLICANT'S FAULT, IT IS ONE OF THESE BUILD IT AND THEN ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, WHICH A LOT OF US HAVE A HARD TIME WITH.

BOARD MEMBER, UH, MACARTHUR.

AND YOU TURN THE SIGN OFF.

UM, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE IF WE COULD TURN THE SIGN OFF.

UM, I DID AN LIKE, WE WEREN'T HERE WHEN IT WAS INSTALLED, SO I'M NOT TOO POSITIVE.

UM, LET ME SEE IF MY STAFF SAY ANYTHING ON HERE ABOUT IT C IT IS ON A TIMER.

SO I'M OR IN A PHOTO CELL.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO NOT ELIMINATE THE SIGN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MADAM CHAIR.

TIME'S ALREADY THERE.

IT'S, UH, IT'S UP.

IT WAS FROM THE PREVIOUS PEOPLE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION BOOTH.

I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED IF IT'S BEEN THERE FOR THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, JUST LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL SO THAT THEY COULD FINISH THE PAPERWORK FOR THE APPLICATION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, TO HAVE A SECOND VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE? I THINK THIS SECTION IS BEING WRITTEN BY REWRITTEN BY COUNCIL BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE SAID HAS HAD AN APPLICATION FOR THESE SIGNS HAS, HAS ACTUALLY POSTPONED, UH, CAUSE IT'S IN THE CAMPUS AREA.

UM, AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T THE ONLY ONE.

I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WILL BE.

UM, BUT IN AN INTEREST OF MOVING THINGS ALONG AND I'LL SECOND, IT APPRECIATE THAT.

CAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T, I WAS GOING TO, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SIGN ILLUMINATION, IF THEY HADN'T INHERITED THE SIGN, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH IT BEING OVER THE SECOND FLOOR.

BUT AS IT IS

[01:35:02]

AND I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH ELIMINATION AS THE LOCATION.

I'LL BE REAL HONEST.

I DON'T LIKE IT UP ON THE EIGHTH FLOOR.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LOCATING FOR ME.

IT HAS TO DO WITH ADVERTISING.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LOWER? NO, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND, AND HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THOSE SOLUTIONS THEMSELVES.

I CAN RESPECT THAT.

DO YOU WANT ME TO DEFINE? CAUSE I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

OH, OKAY.

SIGN NEEDS TO BE DARK, PROBABLY COMPATIBLE.

THAT'S HOW WE SIGN WOULD HAVE TO BE DARK SKY COMPATIBLE, UH, MEETING CERTAIN REQUIRE LUMEN REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTPUT AT NIGHTTIME.

I THINK THAT WOULD OFFSET THE ILLUMINATION AND THE HEIGHT.

IF EVERYONE WOULD BE ALL CHILL WITH THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME, MAN.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN WITH E SECOND BY MELISSA HOTWIRE, PLEASE CALL THE FINDINGS BOARD MEMBER OF ONE-ON-ONE OKAY.

THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE FINDING DESCRIBED A LITTLE IN ORDER TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

THE BOARD MUST FIRST MAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDING DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO AND THREE BELOW THE BOARD MUST THEN MAKE FINE TO BE DESCRIBED AN ITEM.

HORRIBLE.

IF THE BOARD CAN NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDING IT CANNOT APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

THE PARENTS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE FOR HIM IT'S ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNED ON THE SITE.

CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE, SUCH AS DIMENSION, LANDSCAPING, OR TYPOGRAPHY, OR BECAUSE THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SITE PLAN OF THE BUILDING PICKS UP SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE SECOND FLOOR AVAILABILITY FOR ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER SIGNS THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN THE SAME DISTRICT IN THE NEARBY BUILDING THAT OKAY.

MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE, AMENDED TO BE DARK SKY COMPLIANCE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

TOMMY EATS.

YES, BROOKE BAILEY.

I KNOW I WANT THIS ONE.

AND I THINK I, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MOONTOWER, IF THEY HAVE THE PERMIT FOR THEIRS, BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT COME BEFORE US AND IT'S ELIMINATED.

SO I, I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE.

SO LET ME KNOW, MISS ONE, JESSICA COHEN.

I STRA HAWTHORNE.

SO YOU MADE AN AMENDMENT THAT IT WAS DARK SKY COMPATIBLE COMPLIANT.

NO, I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REMEDIED AND IT'S GOING TO COST MONEY AND I CERTAINLY AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE APPLICANT, BUT, UH, SHE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THAT UP WITH THE SELLER MICHAEL WALLEN.

MICHAEL VAUGHN, OLIN.

THIS IS 3002 RUBBER CREST DRIVE, STEPHEN HAWKINS FOR MORGAN AND LYNNEA MILLS.

UH, ONE OF THE REASONS I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE IS BECAUSE NORMALLY IF IT, IF IT'S A BIG ISSUE, THEN UNIVERSITY, UH, ASSOCIATION ISN'T CHORUS, READINESS SKEWER.

AND, UH, I DIDN'T D ANYBODY HERE TODAY.

SO I FIGURED THAT THEY PROBABLY WERE LETTING THIS ONE ROLL WITH THE OH GOD.

MOTION PASSES YOUR VARIANCES.

NEXT ITEM IS POINT B ITEM E ONE

[E-1 C15-2022-0001 Stephen Hawkins for Morgan & Lydia Mills 3002 Rivercrest Drive]

C 15 20 22 0 0 0 1.

[01:40:04]

MR. HOPKINS, ARE YOU HERE? SUPER.

GIVE US A SEC.

WE'LL GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING.

I REQUESTED IT AND HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.

SO, UH, I'M STEPHEN HAWKINS WITH OPERA PERMITS AND WE ARE REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 3002 RIVER CREST RESIDENTIAL UP.

AND, UH, THE OWNER IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.

DID THE LA ZONING 40 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO 25 FEET DECREASING THE SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A FIVE CAR GARAGE, WHICH WILL, UH, SERVE SEVEN RESIDENTS, SEVEN CURRENT RESIDENTS.

IT WILL BE LIVING IN THE, UH, IN THE HOUSE.

UM, THE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY IS THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE ODD CUTOUT.

IT EXISTS IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1995, AMENDED PLAT, WHICH ALLOWED THE CURRENT OWNER TO GET A, GET AROUND A SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK ISSUE.

UM, THIS PROHIBITS, UH, BUILDING THE GARAGE OR THE HOUSE AND THE SIMILAR FOOTPRINT OF, UH, WHAT EXISTED, WHAT EXISTS CURRENTLY IN ADDITION, THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN IN THE BACK OF THE LAW LIMITS, THE SEPTIC OPTIONS TO THE FRONT YARD.

AND YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I JUMPED AHEAD.

AND YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE AS WELL.

THAT'S THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OR THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION IF WE'RE GRANTED THE VARIANCE, UM, LET'S SEE WHERE WE WERE.

THE FLOODPLAIN PROHIBITS THE, UH, SEPTIC FROM BEING IN THE BACK OF THE LOT, WHICH, UH, ALSO PROHIBITS THE GARAGE FROM BEING MORE SPREAD OUT IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT BECAUSE, UH, OF THE SUBJECT NEEDY IN THAT AREA IN THE FRONT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BE PUT IN THE BACK, UM, THERE IS NO INCREASE TO A PREVIOUS COVER BECAUSE THE, AS IT IS PROPOSED, IT WOULD JUST REPLACE DRIVEWAY.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS JUST, UH, SOME EXAMPLES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE WERE SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES WILL JUST BE EXAMPLES OF OTHER HOUSES THAT HAVE LESS THAN A 40 FOOT SETBACK.

SO YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

UH, YOU SEE THREE HERE.

IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SEVERAL OF THEM ARE LESS THAN 40 FEET, BUT SEVERAL OF HER ALSO EVEN LESS THAN 25 FEET.

UM, SO WE'RE NOT, UH, TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND CONTINUE, AND THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE, OF THE LOT.

UM, SO GO AHEAD.

WE HAVE A LAST SLIDES HERE.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS, UH, HERE, HERE'S A GOOD EXAMPLE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T HAVE IS SIDEWALKS AND THERE'S A LOT OF STREET PARKING.

SO WITH SIX RESIDENTS IN THE HOUSE, SEVEN, MAYBE, UM, THERE IS, UH, THERE IS, UH, A NEED TO PUT THESE CARS OFF THE STREET AND IN THE, IN THE, IN THE GARAGE, UM, WE'RE LIMITED WITH SPACE.

SO, UH, WHEN IT DOES IS ALLOW MORE SAFETY, UM, ALONG THE STREET, AS PEOPLE WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREET, OFTEN NEXT SLIDE, SIMILAR EXAMPLES.

THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE STREET JUST ON A REGULAR DAY PARKING.

SO WE'RE TAKING CARS OFF THE STREET OR DID THEM IN THE GARAGE.

THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE PROPOSED.

SO YOU CAN GO TO THERE ON THE, ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN, THE 1995 PLAT THE ORIGINAL AND THE AMENDED 1995, WHICH WAS AFTER LSM WAS IN EFFECT THERE, UH, THERE WAS RECORDED A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACKS.

THIS IS THE 1995 PLAT AS YOU SEE A SETBACKS 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACKS.

NEXT LIE.

IS THAT THE LAST ONE? OKAY, THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

IT'S VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.

NOPE.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON, UH, YOUR PACKET PAGE E 1 65.

IT SEEMS TO SHOW THE SEPTIC IN THE REAR.

IS THAT NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? UH, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY WHAT WAS A DESIGN, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, WE HAD TO PUT IT IN THE BACK, I BELIEVE.

WELL, LET ME SEE BACK IN THE FRONT.

WE HAD TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF SIR, AND I DON'T SEE ANY, ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT DIAGRAM.

[01:45:01]

I HAVE.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S IN THE PACKET.

WE HAVE A, UH, LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT.

WE HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT.

WE, WE ORIGINALLY PUT IN A, A PLAN THAT HAD IT IN THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK.

THE DESIGN WAS BASED AROUND THE 25 FOOT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD.

THAT WAS WHAT WAS THE SCENE WAS THE CASE.

I DID NOT WORK ON THAT, BUT, UH, THERE WAS A, THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS A 25 FOOT.

UM, YEAH, IT'S IN THE FRONT, IT'S IN THE FRONT BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE, UH, NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

I STILL DON'T SEE ANY DRAWINGS OF IT.

YOU SAID YOU HAD ONE.

WE HAVE NOT, NOT WITH US RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DO HAVE ONE IN A, IN AN APPROVED SET OF DRAWINGS, BUT IT'S NOT SUBMITTED WITH THIS PACKET.

IT IS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THIS PACKET.

SO IT DOESN'T SHOW US THE PROPER LOT CONFIGURATION OF, OF WHAT COULD BE OR WHAT IS, SO WHAT YOU HAVE, WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING US, ISN'T EVEN PROPER.

IT'S NOT AN ACCURATE LOT DESCRIPTION.

I BELIEVE IT'S AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW THE SEPTIC.

SO.

SO YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OF A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IS A VACANT LOT, RIGHT? THIS, THE HOUSE IS NOT EXISTING.

THE HOUSE IS EXISTING.

THE, UH, THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DID GET AN APPROVED PLAN.

THE APPROVED PLAN, THE INITIAL SET THAT WE SUBMITTED HAD THE 25 FOOT SET.

I DIDN'T SUBMIT THIS THERE.

UH, ANOTHER, ANOTHER ENTITY HAD A TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK SHOWN THE GARAGE, EXTENDING OUT AS IT IS SHOWN ON ONE OF THE SHEETS HERE, A ONE AND A THAT WAS DENIED.

AND THEN THEY MOVED IT BACK TO 40 FEET, LIMITED IT TO A TWO CAR GARAGE.

AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE DESIGN TEAM, THEY DECIDED TO SEEK THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO NOT HAVE THAT PARKING IN THE FRONT, ON THE STREET.

AND WITH, WE THOUGHT IT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, BE A SAFETY ISSUE AND ALSO AESTHETIC ISSUE BY MOVING THE CARS INSIDE BOARD MEMBER.

I'LL COME BACK TO YOU THE SECOND LETTER, BUT OTHER PEOPLE DO, BECAUSE I MAY ACTUALLY DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER PRO THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW AS A HOUSE WITH TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A, WITH A 40 FOOT SETBACK.

IS THAT RIGHT? WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IS A CONSTRUCTION SITE OF A HOUSE BEING BUILT THAT WAS APPROVED.

IT DOES HAPPEN TO THE CAR GARAGE.

WELL, THE GARAGE HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET.

WE WERE WAITING ON THIS AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PASSES TO, THERE ARE PLANS FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A 40 FOOT SETBACK.

AND THAT'S A REASONABLE USE.

CAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SUPPLIED US WITH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION, SHOWING US THE LAYOUT OF THE SEPTIC OF, UM, THEY SAID, YOU SAID THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT INCLUDING THAT IN THESE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE OR THE PACKAGE FOR THIS YEAH, THE QUESTIONS.

SO THE SAFETY ISSUE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MOVING VEHICLES OFF THE STREET AND PUTTING THEM IN A GARAGE, BUT TECHNICALLY YOU COULD MOVE THEM OFF THE STREET AND PUT THEM IN THE UNCOVER DRIVEWAY AND ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUE.

CORRECT? UH, YES, WE BELIEVE WE COULD DO THAT, BUT, UH, ALSO, UH, JUST TO, UH, TO, UH, SATISFY SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR REQUEST, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO, TO TAKE IT INTO THE GARAGE BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOK LIKE A PARTY'S OVER THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK.

AND HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO SETBACK AVERAGING I'M GOING THERE BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUESTS? UH, WE, WE HAVE, UM, WHAT WE WERE GOING TO SEEK THIS OPTION FIRST.

WE DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, WE'LL HAVE THE SPACE TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY OUT WITH THAT, WITH WHAT THEY PROVIDE AS ONE NEIGHBOR IS FORWARD ONE NEIGHBORS BACK.

SO IT KIND OF BALANCES OUT FOR THE MOST PART.

UH, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND, UH, VICE-CHAIR HARTFORD, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

IT SHOULD BE COMMENT.

IT WAS THE SUBDIVISION PLOT SHOWS A 25 FOOT.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND THEN THE REPLY ALSO IS JUST TWENTY-FIVE FOOT THAT WAS DONE IN 1995.

OVERLAY IS 40 FEET, CORRECT? UM, YES.

BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.

YOU HAD A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

I'LL BE HONEST RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION

[01:50:01]

WHAT IS THE SETBACK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? THAT'S NOT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS IT EXISTS UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IS 40 FEET.

IT'S 40 FEET.

CORRECT.

AND IT, SO IT BASICALLY WAS A VACANT LOT.

AND JUST BECAUSE, WELL, THERE WAS A RESIDENCE THAT EXISTS ON THE SIDE, AGAIN WITH THE DRIVEWAY.

YOU CAN PULL THOSE CARS OFF THE, OFF THE STREET.

SO I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH HARDSHIP HERE.

I ACTUALLY, I DON'T SEE ONE JUST THAT SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE A SIX CAR GARAGE AS OPPOSED TO A TWO.

SO I AM GOING TO DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT AND I REALLY NEED YOU TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION ON WHERE THAT SEPTIC IS, WHAT THE LAYOUT IS, WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT GETTING CARS OFF THE STREET.

CAUSE YOU CAN DO THAT WITH THE, WITH THE DRIVER.

I'LL SECOND IT OKAY.

THAT'S OUR WHO'S TALKING AT FIRST WITH THAT AUGUSTINA IT WAS VICE CHAIR.

I JUST FAST IT.

ANYBODY CAN GLADLY SECOND.

IT I'M JUST MOVING ALONG.

ALSO I KNOW BURKE GAVE THEM A LIST OF, OF UH, INFORMATION FOR THEM TO BRING BACK.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE ALSO IS I'D LIKE TO KNOW BECAUSE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, IN SOME PLACES, MINE HAPPENED TO BE ONE AND HAVE CARS, YOU KNOW, EXPOSED ALL.

THEY HAVE TO BE IN A GARAGE AND HAVE THEM OUT THERE FOR SO MANY DAYS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH.

I'D LIKE TO BECOME PREPARED TO BOOK.

HMM.

SO CAN CARS BE OUTSIDE OR IS THERE ANY LIMITATION ON THEM NOT BEING GARAGED? WELL, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED ON THE STREET, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE, BUT THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, COULD BE WRONG THERE.

SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY WITH EAST SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.

HAWTHORNE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.

I GOT A CHAIR.

IS THERE A SPECIFIC DATE FOR THAT POSTPONEMENT? SO THIS IS A MOTION SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 14TH, 2022.

DALE PUT NO AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

THE KEY, UH, WAS THAT THE 14TH? MARCH 14TH.

SEE 15 20 22 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 2 SHELLEY AVENUE, ETHAN.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GIVE IT THE MILLION TOMORROW.

UH, SHE CAN GET YOU EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION WE WERE ASKING FOR, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST, YOU HAVE YOUR SEPARATE TANK AND THE OTHER ONE AND CARS, GENIE ITEM EAT TO

[E-2 C15-2022-0004 Ethan Goodwin 1012 Shelley Avenue]

GOOD ONE.

COME ON UP MY TIMER RESET AND MADAM CHAIR.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION ON THIS ONE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

A TREMENDOUS IS A DIFFERENT TIER OF FIVE FEET.

BROOKE BALING FINDINGS FINDING.

I DON'T SEE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AN OPPOSITION.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO EAT TO? NOPE.

SEEING NONE.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND? UH, BROOKE SCOTT, I'M TRYING TO GET MY MOUSE ACROSS THE SCREEN.

ONE SECOND AGAIN.

DROP Y'ALL KEY MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OLIN WOULD THE SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY

[01:55:02]

TOMMY IT'S YES.

YES, PLEASE DO FINDINGS.

ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY TO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE, UH, UH, ERIC ATTEMPT TO RESTORE A HOME IN THE WEST LINE REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH ORIGINAL STATE, BUT ARE PREPARED TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED DEMOLITION WORK AND OTHER WORK REQUIRED HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP, THIS VARIANCE IS REQUESTED AS UNIQUE IN THE PROPERTY THAT THIS BUILDING IS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE WEST LINE REGISTER, NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND ALSO THE BUILDING IS A NONCOMPLIANCE STRUCTURE THAT SITS OVER THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.

BY POINT AT 21.78, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL REMOVE THE NON-ORIGINAL PORTION TO THE HOUSE, TO THE REAR AND NON-ORIGINAL PORCH INFILL RESTORING THE HOUSE BACK TO ITS HISTORIC PRINT.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN RESTORED AS THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO AREA CHARACTER.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE RESTORATION WORK WILL ONLY ADD TO THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND TO THE WEST LINE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE I CLOSED THE PUBLIC SHARING, SO I NEED TO DO THAT AS WELL.

SO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET'S TAKE THE VOTE AGAIN.

UM, WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION, SO I'M GOING TO UPSTATE AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.

RICHARD SMITH.

MICHAEL VAN ALLEN K WALLER.

KELLY BLOOM.

YOUR FRANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

MADAM CHAIR, WITHIN THAT PERIOD.

I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT, UH, THE INFORMATION FOR THIS APPLICATION WAS COMPLETELY IN OUR PACKET AND THAT'S WHERE, WHAT I BASED MY MOST EMOTIONAL.

CAN I JUST, CAN I JUST SAY, UM, ARE SIMILAR.

NEXT ITEM ITEM E THREE, C 15, 20, 22 OF YOUR OWN WELL POSTPONE YOU'RE RIGHT.

IT WAS, IT WAS POSTPONED.

NEXT ITEM IS E FOUR.

[E-4 C15-2022-0011 Jonathan Kaplan for David Scott Kosch 2715 Long Bow Trail]

SO SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE BREAK NOW? OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING BOTH OF THESE AND IT WILL BE AFTER EIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE NEXT DOOR LOT.

SO SHE'LL BE TAKING A SHORT BREAK.

NOW SEVEN 30 SHERMAN WOULD REALLY LIKE A BREAK WAS MOTION RIVERS RECESS.

GOTCHA.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE RECESS NOW.

UH, 10 MINUTES ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE.

SEVEN 40 MEET BACK AT 7 47 45, 7 40.

WHERE YOU SAID STILL 45.

THANK YOU GERMAN.

THANKS.

YOU ALRIGHT.

IT IS 7 45 GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON WITH ITEM E FOR OUR, ALL MY VIRTUAL FOLKS.

BUCK ENOUGH.

ITEM E FOUR C 15 20 22 0 0 1 1.

THIS IS FOR 2 7 1 5 LONGBOAT TRAIL, JONATHAN KAPLAN FOR DAVID SCOTT KOSCH AND MR. KAPLAN, HANG ON ONE SECOND.

WE'LL GET YOUR PRESENTATION AND LET'S START THE CLOCK.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

[02:00:01]

UH, HERE WE HAVE A, OR A LOT THAT'S ABOUT 0.2 ACRES WITH LA ZONING JURISDICTION, OVERLAYING OVERLAYING IT, WHICH DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND IS LIMITING ANY DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES TO AROUND A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, WHICH HAVE NOT REALLY BE ENOUGH TO EVEN INSTALL THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE OF THE LAND DESIGN.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A STANDARD SF TO, UH, IN PREVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWANCES ON THE LOT DUE TO THE FACT THAT S UH, LA JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED TO A LOT OVER ONE ACRE IN SIZE.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE POSITION A LOT ITSELF.

SO I SHOULD NOT FACE IN THE LAKE.

IT'S AN INTERIOR LOT OF APACHE SHORES.

SO IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE FULL PURPOSE CITY OF AUSTIN JURISDICTION.

AND IT'S ONLY THIS ONE IS ONE AND A HALF LOTS AWAY FROM AN AREA THAT IS NOT, UH, LA JURISDICTION.

WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW.

YOU SEE THE CORNER OF THE LOT IS WHAT? 78.86 FEET, ROUGHLY FROM THE CORNER OF THE LOT TO NON LA JURISDICTIONAL LAND, UH, THE PARTICULAR LOT, THESE TWO DO NOT HAVE THIS LOT.

DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING BUILT ON IT PRESENTLY.

UH, IT'S A, FROM THE BOTTOM, IF YOU GO UP, IT SLOPES UPWARD IN SIZE AND THEIR PLANET, THEY'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE HIGHER UP ON THE HILL.

I'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS THE LOT ITSELF.

UH, THE PRIOR OWNER, MY CLIENT PURCHASED THIS.

I WANT TO SAY FOUR YEARS AGO.

UH, THE PRIOR OWNER CARVED INTO A MOUNTAIN UP THERE A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN DID SOME, YOU KNOW, MOVEMENT OF DIRT ON THE SITE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE CUT ON THE HIGH SIDE, BUT THE PLAN IS TO ACTUALLY PUT A HOUSE HIGHER UP ON THAT, CUT TO ELIMINATE ANY, UH, FORWARD, UH, WITH LOW SELF-ESTEEM LADDER TO STOP ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SIDE.

AND THEY'RE ALSO WILLING TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY AND REPORT, UH, TO SHOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DRAINAGE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO ONE MORE SLIDE.

THAT'S NOT THE IDEA WITH A LOT ITSELF IS LOCATED.

WE HAVE ONE MORE POT.

THAT'S THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOWER ONE, THAT IS ACTUALLY A SITE ANALYSIS OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE BLACK IS EXCEEDING THE 35% AND PERVIOUS SLOPE ANALYSIS.

THE DARK GRAY IS THE 25% LIGHT.

GRAY IS 15% AND THE WHITE IS THE ZERO TO 15%.

SO YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE LOT ITSELF IS ACTUALLY QUITE SLOPED.

AND THE PLAN IS TO BUILD THE HOUSE INTO THE DARKER PORTION TO MINIMIZE ANY DISRUPTION INTO THE LOWER SLOPE AREA.

THAT'S IT.

ALRIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.

IF I COULD GET YOU GUYS TO, UH, STEP OFF TO THE SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPOSITION COME UP AND SPEAK AND, UH, THERE ARE TWO OF Y'ALL.

HANG ON ONE SEC.

CAN YOU, SO YOU GUYS GET A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND.

YOU EACH WANT TWO AND A HALF MINUTES? IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S FINE.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.

IS, UH, CON UH, CONCURRENT WITH EXISTING PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY.

MY NAME IS CARL VAN AUSTRIAN, AND I'M GOING TO START WITH A QUESTION AND JUST CONTINUE WITH MY STATEMENT IF THAT'S OKAY.

UH, SO WHY DOES THE CITY HAVE AN LDC WITH A VARIANCE? IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S ALLOWED? THESE LOTS WERE PURCHASED WHEN THE LDC WASN'T EFFECT? SO THE CODE WASN'T A HARDSHIP WHEN THE LOTS WERE BOUGHT, MY PROPERTY WAS CITED AS HARDSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT.

MY PROPERTY HAS 14% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IS REASONABLY SIZED.

I AGREE, UH, VARIANCES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BASED ON HARDSHIP.

I'M ALSO COMFORTABLE WITH THE LDC RESTRICTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.

THESE CODES PRESERVE HERITAGE TREES OF WHICH MANY ARE ON THE PROPERTY AND LIMIT RUNOFF INTO LAKE AUSTIN, WHICH IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, MAKE THE, UH, MAKE THE HARDSHIP AND THE CODE WORK TOGETHER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND GRANT THIS VARIANCE EQUAL TO THE ONE BEING CITED AS A HARDSHIP POST A POST.

THAT'S WHY IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES, BUT ALSO THAT THEY COULD BE, UH, DEVELOPED IN, IN A WAY THAT

[02:05:01]

AND ALSO THAT IS EQUAL TO THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING CITED AS A HARDSHIP FOR REASON FOR, UH, THE VARIANCE.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, 48 SECONDS.

UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS CRAIG LESLIE, UH, AND I ACTUALLY LIVE, UH, IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LIVE, UM, CLOSE TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION I'M ACTUALLY JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.

UM, I, I DO THINK THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, UH, REQUIREMENTS ARE, ARE, ARE RESTRICTIVE.

UM, MY WIFE AND I KNOW ABOUT THIS FIRSTHAND, WE BUILT A FEW YEARS AGO AND UNDER THE SAME, THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.

UM, BUT THE, THE VARIANTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING SEEMS, UH, BOTH EXCESSIVE AND IN ENVIRONMENTALLY RECKLESS.

UM, THE WATSON QUESTION ARE, ARE VERY SMALL 0.2 ACRES.

HE SAID, UH, THEY'RE DENSE WITH MATURE TREES.

THAT'S ALSO WHY THEY HAVE TO BUILD FARTHER UP BECAUSE THERE'S SOME, THERE'S A LOT OF NICE OAK TREES.

UH, THEY'RE ALSO VERY STEEPLY SLOPED AS HE MENTIONED, UH, AND THEY FEED DIRECTLY INTO LIKE AUSTIN INTO, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE, UM, WE'RE JUST A FEW, FEW HUNDRED FEET, A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY.

UH, I'M, I'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO THE, TO THE APPLICANT, UH, BUILDING THE HOUSES, UM, SIZE OF THE HOUSES.

THEY'RE THERE, THEY'RE PLANNING ON IN THE VARIANTS, UH, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE SEEKING SEEMS EXCESSIVE, UH, TO ME.

UH, AND I REALLY, REALLY THINK THAT A MORE MODEST FOOTPRINT IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

UM, IT'S A BETTER FOR THE NATURAL AESTHETICS AND IT'S BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

THERE ARE NOT OTHER HOUSES, UM, THE SIZE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN ANYWHERE AROUND THERE.

UM, AND SO IT'S JUST, IT'S ALSO JUST NOT, IT'S NOT A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAD.

HEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPLICANTS.

YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE IS NOT FACTUAL.

UH, THE FINAL HOUSE PLAN IS UP IN CREATIVE, BUT THE SEPTIC DESIGNS WILL NOT ALLOW US TO PUT A HOUSE ON 2,500 SQUARE FEET OVERALL ON THE PROPERTY.

UH, SO THEY'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT ANY HOUSES BIGGER THAN THAT IN THE AREA.

IT'S NOT TRUE.

THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE, UH, AS TO DO WITH THE HERITAGE TREES.

I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE ONE HERITAGE TRY SIZE TREE ON THIS LOT, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS DEAD ALREADY.

UH, YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE IT IN THE PHOTOS AS TOWARDS THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, HALF THE LIMBS ARE FALLING OFF AND DISAPPEARED.

UH, REST OF THE TREES ON THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY OTHER PROTECTED SIZE TREES ON THE PROPERTY TO ITSELF, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH THE LDC CODE FOR THE LA JURISDICTION.

YES, THEY DID PURCHASE A LOT WHEN THAT CODE WAS IN PLACE, BUT THAT CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS LOT BECAUSE THE LAST, NOT BIG ENOUGH TO MEET THE CODE STANDARDS OF THE LA JURISDICTION, WHICH REQUIRES ONE ACRE.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS UP THEIR BASIS.

BEFORE I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, MS. LOPEZ, CAUSE IT LOOKS TO ME THAT LIKE THE VICE-CHAIRS THAT EARLIER YOU 45 ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING THERE.

CAN WE HEAR BOTH OF THESE AT ONCE OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE HEARD SEPARATELY? ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE HEARD SEPARATELY OR DIFFERENT CASES.

JUST MAKING SURE.

WELL, KIM, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS.

SAY WON OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, BUT, UH, DON'T, UH, UH, HARDSHIP, IT'S NOT GETTING THERE.

BOARD MEMBER VENTOLIN.

UH, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE BEING, UH, SINCE A CLEAR LOT.

THERE'S NOTHING ON IT.

AND I DON'T, I'M S I'M MISSING SOMETHING NOW.

I DON'T HAVE A SET OF PLAN OR ANYTHING THAT SHOWS ME WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

THERE'S A CONCEPTUAL THAT'S ABOUT IT, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE ME ENOUGH INFORMATION.

SHE, WHAT THE SIZING AND MASSES IS IN RELATION TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT.

THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS ON THEM.

SO, UH, THE OTHER IS THE GOING BACK TO, UH, AS I STATED EARLIER, THE HARDSHIP HARDSHIP, UH, ISN'T QUITE GETTING THERE EITHER.

SO IT NEEDS TO BE BEING THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON THE LOT CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW.

AND, UH, WITH CREATIVITY, IT CAN'T, SOMETHING CAN BE DEVELOPED THERE.

IT MAY NOT BE BECAUSE THEY WANT, OR I SHOULDN'T

[02:10:01]

UH, I WILL SAY TO THE, UM, THE APPLICANT, AND THIS IS JUST MYSELF TALKING, UH, BUT BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THIS BOARD, IT IN IMPERVIOUS COVER AREAS ARE LIKE PULLING HEN'S TEETH.

GOOD LUCK.

UH, I'LL STATE THAT AND EVEN MORE SO IF IT'S ON LAKEFRONT, BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT YOU DO THAT IMPACTS COVER, CAN IT IMPACT BONE OFF INTO THE LAKE? SO HAVING SAID THAT, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOME MORE INFORMATION AND I, TO DO A LITTLE BETTER JOB OF SHOWING US WHAT'S GOING ON AT WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE MASSING AND THE LOT.

AND WHERE ARE THERE ONE THING THAT IS VERY CRITICAL TO ME THAT, UH, I'M GLAD WE'RE BROUGHT UP ON A CASE OF BACK.

WHERE IS THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM GOING TO BE LOCATED? I HAVE A SET CHEST.

I'M GOING TO HAVE THE NEWEST HIGH DOLLAR FANGLED SEPTIC SYSTEM UP HERE IN THE NORTHWEST HILLS.

AND MY SEPARATE SYSTEM SOMETIMES FIELD WILL HAVE A, YOU KNOW, ENDING ON A HARD RAIN OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

I MAY HAVE AN ISSUE AND I DON'T WANT THAT RUNNING AT EQUAL MATTER, RUNNING OFF IN SALT LAKE.

SO I DON'T HAVE A SECOND YET, BUT I'M MAKING A MOTION SECOND.

AND I'LL SECOND TOO.

I MEAN, WHILE IT'S LIKE, I WAS GOING TO SECOND WITH THAT COMMENT, I DON'T THINK THEY'VE GOTTEN CREATIVE WITH THEIR DESIGN.

THEY'VE GOT LIKE A STOCK DESIGN THAT PLOPS IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.

AND YOU'RE UP ON THE LOT.

UM, WE HAVE SEEN DESIGNS THAT USE PIERS THAT SUSPEND THE HOUSE WHERE YOU'RE NOT WHERE THAT THE NATURAL, YOU KNOW, SLOPE IS STILL PRESERVED.

AND I DON'T THINK THEY'VE BEEN CREATIVE ENOUGH AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A LOT.

SO I WOULD JUST TELL THIS APPLICANT THAT HE, THAT THEY PROBABLY DON'T HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS, AND THEY NEED TO GET A LITTLE MORE CREATIVE ON BOTH THEIR HARDSHIP AND THEIR DESIGN AND COME BACK WITH MORE DETAILS, NO BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I WANTED TO SAY I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THE ALLOWANCE IN THE STUPIDEST PART OF THE LOT.

AND MAYBE IF WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK, THEY COULD THINK ABOUT, UM, THEIR, THE ALLOWANCE IS GREATEST IN THE STEEPEST PART.

SO MAYBE THERE COULD BE SOME RETHINKING ABOUT THAT FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE POSTPONEMENT, BUT I WOULD WANT TO SEE A GREATER AMOUNT OF REMEDIATION FOR ANY RAINWATER OR STORMWATER, SUCH AS LIKE A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, RAIN, WATER CAPTURE.

UH VICE-CHAIR.

SO IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD THING THAT A BOARD MEMBER VON NOLAN GOT OUT THERE PRETTY QUICK, CAUSE I WOULD'VE MADE A MOTION FOR DENIAL.

UM, THIS IS IN THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY AND IT DOES GO INTO OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.

EXCUSE ME, HONEY.

WE CAN HEAR YOU ALL, EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD CAN HEAR YOU SORRY ABOUT THAT GUYS.

I HAD TO POINT THAT OUT REAL QUICK.

UM, THAT WAS THE REPLY I GOT HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY EVERYBODY.

UM, SO THEY'RE GOING TO GO ANOTHER ROOM NOW.

UM, SO IT IS APPLICABLE WHILE THE LOT MAY NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF LOTS IN LA ZONE AND THE LA OVERLAID THAT ACTUALLY DON'T MEET THE SIZE AND THAT MAY BE PART OF THE HARDSHIP, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT JUST DOESN'T APPLY.

UM, THAT IS OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.

AND SO SOME DETAIL ON THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME, UM, GOING INTO THE STEEPEST SLOPE, ISN'T ISN'T NECESSARILY THE BEST THING NOR ILLEGAL CUT INTO THE LOT AS WELL IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST THING.

I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN OUR PACKAGE HERE, THE BOTH THE, UM, SURVEY, UH, WHICH IS DOCUMENT 11 AND THE, UM, AND THE RENDERINGS WE HAVE, WHICH DOCUMENT 12, UH, ALL RELATE TO 27, 17 27 15.

SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT BEFORE IS TODAY.

SO I SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT AS WELL.

OH, GEEZ.

SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE BOARD MEMBER BLOOM?

[02:15:02]

YEAH, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT AND IF IT DOES GET POSTPONED, I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE IN RESPONSE TO THE TWO OPPOSITION SPEAKERS, COMMENTS, PROVIDING SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE COMPARES TO THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN FOR US.

UNDERSTAND WHAT MELISSA IS SAYING.

ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS SMITH? SO I WOULD, UH, CONCUR IN EVERYONE'S COMMENTS HERE, UH, WOULD ALSO ASK IF THE, UH, WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES BACK TO, UH, HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HERITAGE TREE, UH, FELT LIKE WAS SORT OF DISMISSED AS PROBABLY DID, OR I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

I'D LIKE TO SEE, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT SAVED IF IT CAN BE.

AND, UH, SO I'D LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT TREE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR MEMBER PRO? I HAD A QUESTION FOR LEGAL BECAUSE I ANTICIPATE THAT THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WILL BE POSTPONED AS WELL.

UM, I WAS, I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD CAN FIND A HARDSHIP THAT CAUSES THE PROPERTY TO NOT, UH, BE ABLE TO BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER IF THERE IS AN ADJOINING PROPERTY THAT COULD BE USED EITHER THROUGH REPLANTING OR SOME OTHER METHOD.

AND I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR DISCRETION IS IN MAKING THAT KIND OF REFINERY.

SO ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR QUESTION JUST IN A SIMPLE SENTENCE, IF WE ARE, IF WE ARE, UH, PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE VARIANCE OWNS AN ADJOINING PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY, UH, COULD POTENTIALLY USE, CAN WE STILL FIND A HARDSHIP, UH, THAT CAUSES THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THE APPLICATION TO NOT BE ABLE TO BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER? SO YOU'RE ASKING IF THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN.

ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD CAN REQUIRE THEM TO COMBINE THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER OR WELL, EITHER, EITHER REQUIRE THAT THEY BE COMBINED OR DEVELOPED TOGETHER, UH, OR WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS, UH, SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THERE'S NOT A HARDSHIP FOR THAT ONE PICTURE.

IF THERE'S AN ADJOINING PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU BY THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, BUT, UM, SOMETHING THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT WHAT IF THERE, WHAT IF IT'S NOT THE SAME OWNER, BUT THE F THE FACTS ARE KIND OF PARTICULAR TO THAT PROPERTY, BUT I WILL GET BACK TO YOU WITH A MORE THOROUGH ANALYSIS ON THAT AND A SEPARATE COMMUNICATION.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND ON BOTH OF THEM, THEY ARE THE SAME OWNERS.

SO, OKAY.

WE ALSO HAD THAT PRESENTATION FROM SUSAN BARR ABOUT THE, UM, THE LOTS, UH, I THINK THAT PRESENTATION MAY STILL BE AVAILABLE ABOUT THE STANDALONE LOGS AND AGGREGATING THEM.

UM, THAT MIGHT, IT COMES INTO MY MIND THAT THERE WAS, THERE WAS A PARTICULAR PORTION ABOUT AGGREGATING, UM, AND THE RULES THAT WOULD APPLY, UM, VERSUS THEY COULD LOSE SOME GRANDFATHERING FROM PLAT OR IN, IN AGGREGATING WATTS THAT, UH, THE SHOULD STILL BE IN THE BACKUP FROM THAT MEETING.

ELAINE, IF YOU COULD, IN ALL YOUR SPARE TIME, FIND THAT MEETING, WHICH MEETING THAT WAS, AND JUST EMAIL IT OUT TO US.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? YES.

OR A PRODUCT, A VERY GOOD POINT FACT THAT THEY OWN THOSE TWO LOTS, BOTH LONG-TERM TOGETHER FOR THEM TO PUT IN THEIR HARDSHIP.

IF THE LOTS ARE TOO SMALL, IT'S NOT GOING TO FLY THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN COMBINE THAT LOT.

AND I

[02:20:01]

THEY MAY LOSE SOME OF THE GRANDFATHERING FROM THE PLOTTING, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE HARDSHIP ON THE NEXT IT'S COMING UP.

AND I LOOKED AT THE ONE BEFORE ON THE PREVIOUS ONE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE SIDING IN THEIR HARDSHIP IS THE SIZE OF A LOT.

AND I CAN'T REALLY IN ALL GOOD CONTENTS.

EVEN YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT HIS HARDSHIPS AS WELL, BECAUSE, UH, NO UNDER A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT ELIGIBLE, BUT THIS ONE HERE, AND ESPECIALLY IT, SINCE IT'S ON THE LAKE AND THE LAKE AUSTIN AREA, THE LA ZONING DISTRICT IS IT IS A VERY UNIQUE, PRECIOUS ZONING AREA THAT, UH, I DON'T, A LOT OF THE DEVELOPERS REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO THIS COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING RIGHT ON THE LAKE ITSELF.

SO SOMETHING THAT THEY MAY WANT TO GO TAKE A LOOK AT AS WELL.

I KNOW THAT, UH, DEVELOPERS LOOK AT THE BOTTOM LINE DOLLARS AND YOU COULD PROBABLY GET MORE DOLLARS IF WE COULD DO OFFICES ON THREE DIFFERENT LOTS, BUT, UH, IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, UH, IF YOU OWN BOTH OF THEM AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMBINE THEM, IT'S NO LONGER A SUBSTANDARD ICE LOCK.

WELL, AND, AND TO NOT PUT TOO FINE, A POINT ON IT, THE APPLICATION MATERIALS OR THE ONE BEFORE IS RIGHT NOW, 27 15 CONTAINS ALL THE PLANS FOR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ON 27 17.

UH, SO I, I Y'ALL ARE HERE AND ALL THIS.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 12TH, 2022 MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF ONE OLIN SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

THAT'S MARCH 14TH, 14TH, SORRY.

MARCH 14TH, 2022.

SO THAT'S POSTPONED TILL MARCH 14TH, 2022.

UH, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

GO AHEAD AND COME ON, BACK UP.

AND WE WILL PICK UP WITH ITEM FIVE

[E-5 C15-2022-0012 Jonathan Kaplan for David Scott Kosch 2717 Long Bow Trail]

C 15, 20 22.

ONE, TWO.

THIS IS FOR 2 7 1 7 LONGBOW TRAIL.

JONATHAN KAPLAN, AGAIN FOR DAVID SCOTT.

KOSCH.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION FOR THIS CASE? ANY OPPOSITION? YES.

THERE IS THE SAME TWO OPPOSITION FROM BEFORE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF, UM, I'VE ALREADY DONE MY HOMEWORK AND I'VE COMPARED THESE TWO TOGETHER AND THEY'RE IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER.

AND IN MY, UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE SAME PROMOTION THAT I MADE THE LAST TIME.

IF THE PRESENTER WANTS TO GO THROUGH WITH HIS PRESENTATION, I CAN RESPECT THAT.

WE'D LIKE TO SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND SAVE HIS BREATH AND START FINDING OUT HOW HE WANTS TO MAKE THIS WORK.

AND, UH, UH, I'M STILL GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT BECAUSE I CAN'T USE THESE HARDSHIPS.

YOU KNOW, I SAID A COUPLE OF NOTES TO MAKE ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

SMALLER THAN MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I HAVE NO PROBLEM BRINGING YOU ALL THE BACKUP DATA, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, UH, JUST, YOU KNOW, DESERTS AND MAKE NOTES, EVERYTHING HE WANTED.

SO, UH, ONE OF THE CONSOLE MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT DOING PIER AND BEAM CONSTRUCTION.

UH, CITY OF AUSTIN DOESN'T ACCEPT THAT AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

SO ANYTHING THAT HAS ANY KIND OF ROOF LINE OR STRUCTURE OVER IT IS DEEMED IMPERVIOUS, EVEN IF IT HAS A CRAWL SPACE UNDER IT FOR PIER AND BEAM CONSTRUCTION, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS NOTED, UH, FOR OWNERSHIP.

I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE ACTUALLY OWNED BY SEPARATE LLCS, UH, THINKING OF MY FILES, BUT I HAVE TO GO BACK TO CONFIRM THAT TO BE EXACT.

UH, EVEN IF WE JOINED THE TWO LOTS, THEY STILL BE MORE THAN HALF THE SIZE OF THE LA REGULATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ONE ACRE IS THAT PRESUMABLY THE GRIGGS AS TO A 0.4, THREE ACRE, OVERALL LOT SIZE, AND THEN THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SEPTIC.

THE SEPTIC WOULD BE IN THE FRONT OF BOTH PROPERTIES BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE OF SEPTIC ENGINEERS.

SO THEY'D BE ABLE TO FIT FUNCTIONALLY, OPERATE A FOR TREES.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCE BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING WITH THE TREES I ENTERED, THAT'S PROTECTED BY CITY OF AUSTIN.

ORDINANCES WOULD STAY IN PLACE.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MOVE ANYTHING SPECIAL.

UH, AND THEN THAT, LIKE I SAID, THE DRAINAGE WISE, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING LETTERS OF ENGINEERING.

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING ANY KIND OF SYSTEM AND SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO STORE THE WATER, UH, ON THE DRAINS OPERATIONS OF THE PROPERTIES.

UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE CORE IS, ARE TRYING TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, 2 2500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES THAT ARE MUCH

[02:25:01]

THERE'S NO PROBLEMS APPLYING, PULLING INFORMATION.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN BOOK ON THIS AND JUST TRYING TO GET THE CLIENT IN THE COMMUNITY, THE HOUSING THEY NEED.

GO AHEAD AND GRAB A SEAT, THE OPPOSITION, SAME THING AS BEFORE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES EACH.

HELLO, ONCE AGAIN, UH, JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT I JUST HEARD ON SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS AND JUST REITERATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.

CARL BEN AUSTRIAN, SORRY.

AND JUST TO REITERATE AGAIN, THAT I'M NOT AN OPPOSITION TO, UH, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, I AM, UM, UH, CONCERNED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

UH, MANY OF THESE, UH, PROPERTIES AND HOMES THAT WERE DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA WERE, UM, UH, PURCHASED WITH THE INTENT OF HAVING ONE HOUSE ON MULTIPLE LOTS BECAUSE OF THIS TOPOGRAPHY ISSUE THAT'S GOING ON HERE.

UH, AND ALSO IN, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO ITS PROXIMITY TO LIKE AUSTIN.

SO, UH, AND THEN TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE, UH, THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT THE SIZE OF THE HOME IS SMALLER THAN MOST OF THE LOTS ARE THE HOMES THAT, UM, UH, THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED AS SMALLER THAN MANY OF THE HOMES IN THE AREAS IS NOT TRUE.

MY OWN HOME IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY AND THE, THE HOME THAT IS IN, UM, NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROPERTY ARE BOTH, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

UH, AND SO IS, UH, ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

SO ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT, YES, I'M IN FAVOR OF A, UH, OWNER TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY, BUT, UH, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE THAT ARE DEVELOPED FOR THESE AREAS FOR THE REASON FOR PROTECTING TREES AND FOR PROTECTING THE, UH, DRINKING WATER BLAKE, AUSTIN.

AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.

WHAT THE MEAN AVERAGE ABOUT 3000 RIGHT NOW ALSO WANT TO BRING UP THE PATTY SHORES.

I'M CRAIG LESLIE AGAIN, AND I THANK YOU GUYS FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK JUST TO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT MY NEIGHBOR SAID.

THERE ARE NO HOMES IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA THAT ARE THE SIZE THAT THEY'RE THERE, THEY'RE PROPOSING.

THERE ARE THERE'S ZERO.

UM, THE APPLICANT SHOWED, UH, SOME OVERVIEWS OF THE, OF THE AREA IN, IN, IN HIGHLIGHTS AND PROPERTIES.

NONE OF THOSE HOUSES ARE AS BIG AS THE ONES THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT HE'S IN, THIS IS AN OLDER AREA.

UH, IT'S A ECLECTIC, UM, IT WAS, UH, TRADITIONALLY MORE OF A WORKING CLASS, UH, AREA THAT'S, UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY, THAT'S CERTAINLY CHANGES HAS CERTAINLY CHANGING THERE.

THE, THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE A LOT BIGGER THAN ANYTHING THAT'S AT ALL CLOSE TO THEM.

YOU'VE GOT TO, YOU GOTTA GO A LITTLE WAYS TO FIND SOMETHING, AND I'M SURE THEY'LL FIND SOME EXAMPLES.

UH, BUT THERE, THESE ARE, THESE ARE, THESE ARE GOING TO BE SOME OF THE LARGEST HOUSES IN THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION, AND IT'S A GOOD SIZE A SUBDIVISION.

AND THEN ONE OF THOSE SMALL POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS ABOUT THE TREES.

YES, THERE'S WAS ONLY ONE, UH, HERITAGE, I GUESS, ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF GOOD SIZE MATURE OAKS THAT ARE, UM, THAT WILL BE, I THINK, UH, PROTECTED ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.

AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHY THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD, UH, THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY NEED TO BUILD, THEY WILL HAVE TO BUILD A HIGHER UP BECAUSE OF THE, UH, BECAUSE OF THOSE TREES OR, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, EXCEPTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S ALSO, I THINK WHY THEY'RE LOOKING AT ME THERE.

THAT'S ALL I HAD.

THANK YOU GUYS VERY, VERY MUCH FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

THANK YOU, G AND BACK TO THE APPLICANT, TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL, ALL RIGHT.

TO REFUSE.

SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE THE HOME SIZES.

UH, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT ONE SECTION LONG BOAT TRAILERS.

ONE HOUSE HAS BUILT, I'M GUESSING THE SEVENTIES OR EIGHTIES, JUST LOOKING AT THE STYLE OF IT AND THE ONE NEWER HOUSE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET, BECAUSE IN THAT AREA, THERE'S NOT MANY HOUSES BUILT AT ALL, BUT THE ADJACENT STREET BRASS BUTTON TRAIL, THERE'S GOTTA BE 30 HOUSES UP THERE, AND I'M GUESSING EVERY ONE OF THEM IS RIGHT AT OR ABOVE THE NUMBER WE'RE ASKING FOR.

AND THEY'RE ALSO RIGHT ON THE LA JURISDICTION OF WATER LINES, UH, AS THE COMMENT ABOUT APACHE SHORES, NOT HAVING MANY HOUSES OVER 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THAT'S THE FARTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH.

I'VE PERMITTED PROBABLY 25 HOUSES IN THE LAST YEAR THAT ARE OVER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

SOME AS MUCH AS 5,000 SQUARE FEET, THERE'S OLDER HOUSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE MUCH LARGER AS WELL.

I'D SAY 5,000 IS PROBABLY ABOUT THE BIGGEST,

[02:30:01]

POA, I BELIEVE HAS A 600 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE SIZE, MINIMUM.

AND BASED ON THE PREVIOUS COVERAGE OF THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE MODEL.

UH, PREVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTIES.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE WILL, YOU KNOW, GET THE POSTPONEMENT, WE'LL GET ALL THE BACKUP DATA YOU'RE ASKING FOR ALL THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE EVERYTHING READY FOR YOU.

AND WE'LL ALSO GET YOU A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FROM A CIVIL ENGINEER, SHOWING THE WATERSHED ON THE PROPERTY, HOW WE WOULD COLLECT IT AND HOLD IT.

SO WE'RE NOT CAUSING ANY HARM TO LAKE AUSTIN.

AND GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION MADE SECOND, THE SECOND FROM VICE.

SO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 14TH, 2022 BY BOARD MEMBER, AN OLIN SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, UH, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHILE EACH LOT IS OWNED BY A SEPARATE LLC, BOTH OF THE LLCS HAVE THE SAME MAILING ADDRESS AT ANOTHER HOME.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE? OKAY.

GEE, IF THE ITEMS ARE POSTPONED TO MARCH 14TH, 2022.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NEXT ITEM WILL BE E SIX,

[E-6 C15-2022-0013 Janis J. Smith for Dana & Lenn Sellers 3300 Blue Jay Lane]

C 15 20 22 0 0 1 3.

THIS IS 3,300 BLUE JAY LANE, JANICE SMITH FOR DINA AND LEN SELLERS.

THIS SMITHERY OH, YES, THERE YOU ARE.

I'M GOING TO RISE THROUGH THIS.

SO YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE STARTING THAT, UH, MOUNTAIN CHAIR ONE SECOND BEFORE ONE SECOND BOARD MEMBER ONE ON ONE REAL QUICK.

THE SITE PLAN, UM, PERMITS THIRTY THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE HUNDRED TWO.

SORRY, GO AHEAD.

UM, CAN YOU ASK, UH, JANET SMITH, IF, UH, THIS APPLICATION AS ARE HER LETTER STATES THAT THE THIRTY THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE OH TWO BLUE JANE LANE, IS THAT WHAT'S VERY INTERESTING GOING FOR, OR IS IT JUST 3,300? CAUSE HER LETTERS, SITES BOTH ADDRESSES.

IT'S JUST 3,300.

AGAIN THAT I'M, I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR 300 OR 300, BUT IF THE SITE PLAN IS FOR 3,333 OR TWO, I'LL REPOST IT PROPERTY.

WELL, 33 0 2 THAT THE VARIANTS APPLIES TO 3,300, THAT IT'S AT 3,302 IS IT HAS THEIR OWN ISSUES.

I JUST SAW THAT IN YOUR LETTER.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE PROPER POSTING.

I HOPE YOU'RE FEELING OKAY, JANICE.

OH, YOU MEAN? OH NO, THIS IS JUST MY CONSTANT STATE OF BEING YOU MEAN HOW HORSE I AM? YEAH.

JUST MAKING SURE.

THANK YOU BACK ON TRACK.

SO GO AHEAD.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

PLANNED PERMIT APPLICATION IS CURRENTLY A REVIEW FOR THE SITE.

GOOD EVENING.

AND BOARD MEMBERS.

I'M JANICE SMITH ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR 3,300 BLEEJAY LANG THE OWNERS ARE LAN AND DANA SELLERS.

AND THEY'RE BOTH HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.

WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK ON LAKE AUSTIN, EXTENDING 53.1 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE WITH THE DOCK WIDTH OF 16.4 FEET, WHICH IS WIDER THAN THE 14 FEET ALLOWED BY CODE.

NEXT SLIDE, 3,300 BLUE JAY LANE IS A 0.3 ACRE LAKE FRONT LOT LOCATED ON THE FAR UPSTREAM, RACHEL LIKE AUSTIN, VERY CLOSE TO MANSFIELD DAM AND THE HIGH VELOCITY DISCHARGES FROM THE DAM.

NEXT SIDE, A SHORELINE SITE

[02:35:01]

THE TITLE OF THE PROJECT IS THIRTY THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE OH TWO BLUE JAY LANE.

AND INCLUDES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH AN ADJOINING PROPERTY.

BOTH SITES WERE RED TAGGED IN 2021 FOR UN-PERMITTED WORK.

3,300.

THIS PROPERTY WAS CITED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK WITHOUT A PERMIT.

THE SITE PLAN IS INTENDED TO REMEDY THE RED TAGS AND WE'VE CLEARED ALL CITY REVIEW COMMENTS, EXCEPT THE COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS VARIANCE.

THE DOCK CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN 2017 WHEN THE LAKE WAS LOWERED, THE FLOATING DOCK THAT WAS PERMITTED AND, AND CONSTRUCTED IN 2002 WAS REPLACED WITH A FIXED STOCK.

THIS SLIDE SHOWING THE PERMITTED PLAN AND ELEVATION VIEWS FROM 3000 TO BR VERSUS CURRENT PHOTOS COMPARES THE TWO DOCS.

ACCORDING TO THE OWNERS, THE CONTRACTOR, AND IS SUPPORTED BY THESE PHOTOS.

THE FLOATING SUPPORT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DOCK PILES WERE INSTALLED THE SAME 16.4 FOOT WIDE DOCK DECK AND RESTRUCTURE WAS REATTACHED THE PILES AND THE DOCKS HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FOOTPRINT REMAINED THE SAME.

THE CONTRACTOR ASSURED THE OWNERS THAT NO PERMIT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SINCE ONLY THE SUPPORT SYSTEM WAS CHANGED AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS MISTAKEN.

NEXT SLIDE, BUT DOCS HAVE THE SAME OR NEARLY THE SAME DOCK EXTENSION AND THE EXACT SAME WIDTH AS EVIDENCED BY CITY OF AUSTIN, AERIALS AND PERMITTING RECORDS.

THE CITY OF BOSTON COMMENTS FOR THE 2002 PERMIT NOTE THAT THE DOCK WAS NON-COMPLIANT FOR DOCK, EXTENSION AND WIDTH.

THE REVIEWERS REQUIRED A WAIVER FROM THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENTS NAVIGATION BOARD THOUGH THE WAIVER ISN'T SHOWN IN THE ONLINE RECORDS.

I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE REVIEWERS GOT IT AND AGREE WITH IT.

AS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION WAS APPROVED.

NEXT SLIDE, AERIAL PHOTOS, COMPARING THE DOCK AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

AND PRIOR TO THE 2017 RECONSTRUCTION ALSO INDICATE THAT THE DOCS IN ABOUT THE SAME LOCATION, THESE AREAS ARE FROM 21 AND 2015.

THE DOCK EXTENSION HAS CALLED OUT FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S BULKHEAD BECAUSE IT'S VISIBLE ON BOTH AERIALS.

THE MEASUREMENT OF THE 2015 DOCK EXTENSION IS OVERLAYING ON THEIR 2021 ARIEL.

AND THE DOCK EXTENSION APPEARS TO BE VERY SIMILAR.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT'S LIKELY THAT THE DOCK LOCATION AND DESIGN PARAMETERS COULD HAVE GRANDFATHERED IN HAD THE 2017 CONSTRUCTION BEEN PROPERLY PERMITTED.

THE 2021 AREA IS INFORMATIVE AND EXPLAINING WHY THE DOCK EXTENSION IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A NAVIGABLE DOCK.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WATERCOLOR INDICATING WATER DEPTH DEEPENS AT THE END OF THE DOCK, BUT THE WATER DEPTH AT THE END OF THE DOCK, 53.1 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE IS STILL ONLY TWO FEET AT THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION TO FIT AS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM WATER DEPTH THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AN APPLICABLE NEXT SLIDE.

AS YOU KNOW, MANY DOCS ON THE LAKE, REACH A NAVIGABLE DEPTH AND STAY WITHIN CODE BY DREDGING.

BUT DREDGING ISN'T FEASIBLE AT THIS LOCATION.

THIS SIDE IS ABOUT 0.7 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF THE MANSFIELD DAM CONTRACTOR STATE THAT THE LAKE BED IS ROCK THIS FAR UP THE LAKE DREDGING KIMBRA MOVE SEDIMENT, BUT IT CAN'T REMOVE ROCK.

THIS PICTURE OF THE ROCK LIGHT BED SUPPORTS THE CONTRACTOR'S OBSERVATIONS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT PUBLISHED A STUDY NAMED A REVIEW OF LAKE AUSTIN SEDIMENT QUALITY, 1987 TO 2009.

THE PUBLICATION LISTED THE FOLLOWING IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION, THE UPPER END OF THE WATERSHED TYPICALLY EXPERIENCES MORE SCOURING FLOWS DURING FLOOD EVENTS AS EXTREMELY HIGH VELOCITY WATER MOVES IN FROM THE UPSTREAM DAM AND LESS SEDIMENT WAS AVAILABLE AT THESE SITES DURING SAMPLING OF BITS LIKE AUSTIN IS 22 MILES LONG.

THIS SITE AT 0.7 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF THE MANSFIELD DAM IS CLEARLY, CERTAINLY IN THE UPPER END OF THE WATERSHED.

THE CONTRACTOR STATEMENT ABOUT THE ROCK LAKE BED IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN REPORT.

THIS DOCK SITS ON A ROCK LIKE BED AND DRAGGING CAUSE POSSIBLE.

IT EXTENDS THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE SHORELINE IN ORDER TO BE NAVIGABLE.

THE DOCK HAS BEEN THE EXACT SAME WIDTH SINCE IT WAS PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED 20 YEARS AGO.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE DOCK WITH WOULD HAVE GRANDFATHERED, HAD IT BEEN PROPERLY PERMITTED UPON RECONSTRUCTION.

I, ALONG WITH THE OWNERS, DIANE AND LYNN ASKED THAT YOU APPROVED THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION?

[02:40:04]

AND GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS, A BOARD MEMBER VENTOLIN.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

HOW LONG HAS THE DOCK BEEN? MAYBE IT'S ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT HOW LONG HAS IT IS ACTUALLY BEEN OUT THERE ALREADY 50 FEET OUT INTO THE LAKE? AND WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE LAKE AT THE, AT, AT, AT POINT THAT THE SHORELINE WIDTH IS LESS THAN 70 FEET SO THAT YOU, THE DOCK THAT IS ACCORDING TO CODE IS 14 FEET ONE, NO, I MEAN THE WIDTH OF THE LAKE GOING FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.

I KNOW I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THAT.

IT'S VERY WIDE PART OF THE LAKE.

IT'S THEN OVER THE LOW WATER CROSSING IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAY.

I'M THERE.

WOULD YOU SAY IT'S ABOUT SAME WIDTH? OKAY.

SO IF WE, THE LAST SLIDE, CAN YOU BRING IT TO THE LAST SLIDE? THAT ONE.

SO WE'RE RIGHT ABOUT AT THE CURVE OF THAT, LIKE YES, BUT YEAH, SO IT'S, IT'S MORE NARROW THAN A LITTLE WATER CROSSING.

IT'S, UH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT WIDER, MORE NARROW THAN THE WATER CROSSING.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CAUSE IN THAT PICTURE THERE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DAM AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NEW BRIDGE.

AND THEN IF YOU LOOK FURTHER TO YOUR RIGHT FURTHER UP, THE GOAL IS NO WATER CROSSING.

THERE USED TO BE THE, ONE OF THE ONLY WAYS YOU COULD GET ACROSS USING BACK IN THE DAY.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT WITH THE WIDTH THERE APPEARS TO BE JUST APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE BIT NARROW.

I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES, YOU KNOW, IN 2002, THEY HAD TO LET THEY REQUIRED THAT THEY HAD A, A, A LETTER FROM PARKS AND REC FROM THE NAVIGATION PORT STATING THAT IT WASN'T A NAVIGATION HAZARD HAS BEEN THERE.

HOW LONG AGAIN? I'M SORRY.

I MISSED THAT PART.

SO IT WAS PERMITTED IN 2002 AND THEN RECONSTRUCTED IN 2017, BUT THE RECONSTRUCTION WAS THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE MUSCLE.

I MEAN THE SAME MORE OR LESS IT'S THERE NOW, CORRECT? YES, IT WAS THE EXACT SAME DOCK DECK.

SO IT WOULD HAVE GONE BACK EVEN FURTHER BEYOND THAT.

IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2002.

AND SO IF YOU GO TO THE SLIDE PROBABLY TWO OR THREE BEFORE THIS ONE SHOW IN THE OFFSET, THEY KEEP GOING THAT ONE IT'S ALMOST SEE 2015 IS PRIOR TO THE RECONSTRUCTION IN 2021 IS CLEARLY LAST YEAR.

SO IT'S, THEY PUT IT RIGHT BACK WHERE IT WAS.

JUST A QUICK REMINDER TO ALL OUR VIRTUAL MEMBERS, UH, KEEP AN EYE ON THAT, UH, SCREEN THAT'S BEING SHOWN IN CITY HALL.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AND THERE'S A PRESENTATION UP YOUR FACE HAS TO BE SHOWN, IT HAS TO BE VIEWABLE BY THE PUBLIC BOARD MEMBER PUT, YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION.

UM, THE RECONSTRUCTION THAT WAS RED TAGGED, UM, SAID, I THINK I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY YOU WENT FROM A FLOATING DOCK TO A ONE THAT'S SUPPORTED.

IS THAT RIGHT? PILES.

AND HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION OR MADE ANY INQUIRIES TO THE CITY ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CHANGING THAT DOCK IN THAT MANNER? NO.

NOW, CAUSE WE, WHENEVER YOU BUILD IT, THIS IS THE FIRST FLOATING DOCK I'VE EVER DONE, AND I'VE PROBABLY DONE 120 DOCS.

I MEAN, DOCS ARE ALWAYS ON PILES.

SO THIS IS KIND OF A THROWBACK, THE FLOATING DOCK.

I MEAN, IF I WAS, THEY, THEY ONLY THING IT SOUNDS LIKE HAS CHANGED.

I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THE SAME HEIGHT.

YOU GET THE SAME WIDTH.

IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME SORT OF FOOTPRINT, EXCEPT THE WAY THAT IT IS SUPPORTED NOW IS USUALLY RIVERBED RATHER THAN UP ON THE DOCK, RIGHT? YEAH.

IT'S YEAH, IT'S ON PILES RATHER THAN FLOATING.

CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER PUT WITH EAST SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER OLIN? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.

ONE BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I SAW YOUR HAND UP.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I DID SOME ART MEASURING IT.

IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET WIDE, HEALTHY DISTANCE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS TO HAVE EMOTION, UM, MOVED TO APPROVE, UM, OR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE EXISTING DOCK TO STAY THERE AND BE IN COMPLIANCE.

[02:45:04]

LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

TELL ME, DID YOU DO FINDINGS FINDINGS? YOU KNOW WHAT? OKAY, SO ANY REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE LOCATION IS ABOUT 0.7 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF MANSFIELD DAM AND THE LAKE BED ROCK.

IT IS SPEC CLEAN OF SEDIMENT BY THE FORCE OF PERIODIC RELEASES FROM THE DAM.

IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO DREDGE ROCK.

AND THE WATER DEPTH IS ABOUT 1.8 FEET AT LAKE FULL CONDITIONS.

AND THAT DEPTH IS NOT NAVIGABLE OR SKI BOAT CAN BE MADE NAVIGABLE THROUGH DREDGING.

RECONSTRUCTED DOCK IS THE SAME DOCK STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN 2002.

UH, THE DOCK, UH, THE HARDSHIP IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY HAS SHALLOW WATER AND THE LIGHT BEDS IMPOSSIBLE TO DREADS AND RECONSTRUCT THE DOCK.

AGAIN IS THE SAME STRUCTURE PERMITTED IN 2002.

AND IT'S NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF DOCK SITES ON THE LAKE CAN BE RENDERED NAVIGABLE, UH, FOLLOWING CURRENT CODE RESTRICTIONS AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT APPEAR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THIS DOCK REPLACES A PRIOR FLOATING DOCK AT THE SAME EXTENSION INTO THE LAKE AND DOCK WITH.

YOUR VARIANCES DISCARDED.

AGAIN, THIS IS MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER PRUITT, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER OF OLIN.

I THINK YOUR MIC WAS OFF.

THIS IS C 15 20 22 0 0 1 4 4 1 2 0 8.

LET'S SEE.

MOVING ON ITEM E SEVEN.

[E-7 C15-2022-0014 Eduardo Ponce for Scott McElwain 1208 Holly Street]

HOLLY STREET, EDUARDO PAWNS FOR SCOTT MC ELWIN.

YOU MEAN MADAM CHAIR? YES.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE, UH, PRETTY DIMINIMOUS IS, UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING LESS, UH, A LITTLE OVER SEVEN FEET OR A LITTLE OVER SIX FEET, UH, LESS THAN SEVEN FEET OF A VARIANCE.

UH, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OH, WHAT DID WE, NOT THAT WE ACTUALLY HEARD THIS IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND GRANTED IT, BUT IT WAS FOR 1919 FEET, 19.5.

WE'LL BE GRANTED THE VARIANCE FOR 19.5.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR ANOTHER ONE FOR A LITTLE SHORTER, OTHER THAN, I GUESS THEY WENT AND LOADED YOUR HOUSE IN THE FRONT.

BUT WE DID GRANT A VARIANCE RECENTLY FOR 19.5.

AND ALL THEY'RE ASKING IS SEVEN THIS TIME, RIGHT? OR SIX J A LITTLE OVER SIX FEET.

UH, THE BODY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.

I'M I'M OKAY WITH IT.

I JUST DIDN'T SIX FEET WAS GOING TO BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE, THEY WERE GOING TO GO FROM 25 FEEDBACK.

THEY MEAN INTEREST.

IS THIS, IS THIS AN ADDITION TO WHAT WE ALREADY APPROVED? OR IS THIS NO, IT'S LIKE AN EXTRA, UM, BILLET FROM WHAT WE ALREADY APPROVED.

MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHY DID THEY NEED THE EXTRA FOOT? I MEAN, I DON'T CARE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS IS ALL I'M SAYING, WHY WASN'T THAT ENOUGH? I WOULD JUST KIND OF LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, BUT IT'S NOT AS IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS READY TO VOTE ON IT.

THAT'S FINE.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION RATHER THAN DO MY WHOLE PRESENTATION? YES.

IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS WANT TO HEAR? ONLY IF YOU TELL ME WHO YOU ARE BEFORE YOU, SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S DO A LITTLE BIT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU CAN, IF YOU JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN

[02:50:01]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND GO AHEAD.

UH, MY NAME IS JASON FRYER.

I'M WITH FORESIGHT STUDIOS.

UH, WE'RE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY.

UH, I WILL SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION AT HAND IN THE IDEA OF EXPEDIENCY.

AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENTATION, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM THE LARGEST REASON WHY THAT IS THAT ONE.

ONCE WE START LAYING OUT THIS HOUSE, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PRESENTATION, WE ENDED UP WITH TWO SUB 12 FEET WIDE BEDROOMS GIVEN THE SPACE THAT WE'RE HAD A, THIS IS A NEW OWNER.

SO THIS WAS A DIFFERENT VARIANCE THAT WAS DONE BEFORE WE WERE BROUGHT ON FOR THIS TIME PROJECT.

WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT MAKING THIS PROJECT FIT WITHIN THE CURRENT SETBACK, AVERAGING NUMBERS.

AND WE RAN INTO AN ISSUE WITH THE THROUGH LOT IN THE PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES, BEING SOME OF THE LARGEST ON TAYLOR STREET, THE STREET BEHIND IT, SOMEONE DRESSED ON HOLLY STREET.

SO OUR SETBACK AVERAGING, IT BECAME THIS MISHMASH OF SOME STRUCTURES WERE VALID AND SOME WERE NOT.

UH, WE CAME UP WITH THIS 18 FOOT TWO AND A HALF INCHES WHEN WE AVERAGE THE FOUR STRUCTURES, TWO ON EITHER SIDE, TWO ARE ADDRESSED ON TAYLOR, TWO WERE ADDRESSED ON HOLLY STREET.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.

AND WHEN WE STARTED LAYING OUT THE HOUSE, WE FOUND THAT THAT NUMBER GAVE US A FAIRLY MODERATE STRUCTURE, MODEST SIZED STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE FROM, I THINK IT WAS 19 BEFORE, AND IT IS 18 AND TWO AND A HALF NOW FOR US OUTBACK.

THANKS.

UH, HANG ON.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? NOPE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBER PRO.

SO I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, UM, PAGE SEVEN HERE, I GUESS IT'S, UM, YOUR SITE PLAN.

UM, IS THERE A STRUCTURE ALREADY THERE AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE INTENDING ON BUILDING TWO STRUCTURES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE BUILDING A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS FACES.

TAYLOR IS A SMALL SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE.

THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.

PART OF THE REASON WE WANTED TO CHANGE THESE SETBACKS AND NOT TEAR DOWN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, YOU'LL SEE ALL THOSE PROTECTED TREES BACK THERE.

SO OUR GOAL WAS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, TO PROTECT THOSE TREES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

I AM.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE ALSO FACING IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS A TRUE LOT AND IT FACES BOTH HOLLY STREET AND TAYLOR STREET.

THEY HAVE TO MEET A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON BOTH SIDES, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE A REGULAR LOT, SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

OKAY, I'M FAST.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD MEMBER, VINE OLIN.

WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE FINDINGS S A REASONABLE USE? THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLY YOU USE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE STRUCTURE IS FACING HOLLY STREET AND CLOSER.

THEN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK PARALLEL DC.

YOU DO SOME SETBACK AVERAGING IN THIS CASE, YOU'LL JUST SET BACK EQUAL TO THE 25 FOOT, BUT PICTURE THE TWO LOT NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LDC SECTION 25 AND 4 92 ESTABLISHES GREATER, REALLY SET BACK ON BOTH SIDES.

25 ON TAYLOR AND 25 ON HOLLY.

THIS PRESENTS A GREATER CHALLENGE TO ACHIEVING A SIMILARLY DEVELOPER APPOINTED AROUND THREE ON NEW PROPERTIES PER CHIP.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTING IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT HOLLY STREET IS A THROUGH LOT.

THE PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ON HOLLY STREET, MTA LEE STREET, FIGURING ITS 25 FOOT STEP BACK ON BOTH THE FRONT AND REAR OF THE LOT, THE PROJECT OCCURRENCE.

IT ALSO HAS A EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THREE LOCATED NEAR THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE AREA'S CHARACTER ON ELLIOT STREET, US PLACE OF A PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS LIMITED TO THE HOLLY SITE.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF SURROUNDING LOTS ARE NOT DREW.

LOTS OF MAKE USE OF MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS ON THE THING A LOT THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE UNDER AREA CHARACTER, BUT THE AREA OF CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO ALTER THE AREA BECAUSE AS IT WILL HAVE ALL THINGS ON A THROUGH LOT SIMILAR TO THE MAJORITY OF THE TRENDING LOT, THAT'S IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IT WAS WHAT'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THE AMENDMENT IT'S ACCEPTED.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VINE, OLIN, SECONDED BY MELISSA VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE, UH, BOARD MEMBER PRO.

I KNOW THAT, UM, PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE SORTS OF SITUATIONS, I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE, THEY'RE BUILDING SORT OF THE PRIMARY, UH, RESIDENTS, BUT TYPICALLY, UH, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE COME TO US FOR VARIANCES NEEDED FOR ADU AND THINGS LIKE THAT, HAVEN'T WE CONDITIONED THOSE UPON NOT HAVING SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

[02:55:01]

SO FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL OR THE ADU FOR THE ADU.

JUST A SECOND HERE.

I'M JOT THAT DOWN.

HI, UH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ERICA LOPEZ.

CAN, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, UM, CONDITION, IF, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO LOOK INTO THAT? UM, WELL YOU HAVE CONDITION WE'VE CONDITIONED THIS MANY TIMES.

WE'RE GOOD TYPE ONE IS OWNER OCCUPIED, UH, KEYING AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH AN AMENDMENT.

UH, NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN THE EDU MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OWEN SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORN.

IT'S CALLED THE BUTTON.

JUST TO CLARIFY THAT'S UH, NO TYPE TWO, JUST TYPE ONE, THE OWNER OCCUPIED.

SO THEY WOULDN'T BE OCCUPYING THE ADU.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

BUT I MEAN, THEY'RE EITHER ON SITE OR, UM, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BLANKETLY MAKE IT BOTH TYPES TYPE TWO IS YOU DON'T LIVE THERE AND IT'S A HOTEL.

WHAT'S THE WORDING I SHOULD USE FOR THE AMENDMENT.

I DON'T KNOW.

CAUSE WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.

WE BASICALLY JUST HAD IT.

WE BASICALLY JUST SAID NO, NO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

IF YOU NEED, IF YOU NEED, IF YOU NEED A VARIANCE TO GET THIS.

I JUST WAS ASKING SINCE LEGAL ASSETS HAD A CONCERN, I WOULD, I KNOW THAT WE DID IT IN THE PAST WHEN PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN THE FRONT, WE'RE BUILDING A GARAGE APARTMENT AND I'M FINE TOO.

WE CAN CONTINUE.

I THINK I WAS THINKING TOO MUCH.

OBVIOUSLY ANNA RODRIGUEZ.

ONE MORE TIME.

SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, WITH NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND THE EDU IT'S CALLED THE VOTE.

YOUR MOTION IS GRANTED.

EIGHT C 15 20 22 0 0 1 7.

YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED.

MOTION PASSED.

WORDING IS EVERYTHING.

QUASI, JUDICIAL LOVE ZERO G NEXT ITEM.

AND LAST ITEM.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

CAUSE IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A LONG NIGHT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE ITEM E

[E-8 C15-2022-0017 Sanjiv Kumar 1210 Angelina Street]

SEND YOU MORE FOR 1, 2, 1 0 ANGELINA STREET.

SECOND.

GET MY CLOCK PULLED UP AND YOU HAVE FIVE FIX.

UH, BOARD MEMBERS FOR HEARING THIS, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST, UM, TO MOVE TO THE NEXT SIDE CHOICE JUST TO TAP ON.

SO BASICALLY, UM, WHAT, WHAT THIS, UH, UH, 12, 10 ANGELINA STREET IS A VERY SMALL LOT.

IT IS 1,129 SQUARE FEET.

UM, IT IS ZONED AS A, AN SF THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

UM, WHAT I'M BASICALLY ASKING FOR IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ASKED FOR AND GRANTED BEFORE, UM, UH, IS TO PUT A SMALL HOUSE ON, UM, ON THIS LOT THAT PREVIOUSLY DID HAVE A SMALL HOUSE ON IT.

SO BACK IN 1935, UH, NEXT SLIDE, THERE WAS A HOME ON IT.

THERE'S A DIRECTORY LISTINGS WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN THERE IN THE 1930S, 19, UH, 35.

UM, THERE WERE ELECTRICAL, THERE WAS UTILITY SERVICES TO THIS PROPERTY.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THIS PROPERTY.

FOR OTHER THINGS BEYOND, UM, JUST THE VARIANCE TO BUILD ON THE LOT.

UM, THIS IN MARCH 9TH, 2015, WILLIAM HODGE PRESENTED THIS, UM, NEXT SLIDE, UH, THIS, UH, THIS EXACT, UH, VARIANCE THAT I AM REQUESTING AND, UH, AND WAS GRANTED AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE ASKING

[03:00:01]

UH, THEY WERE ASKING FOR CHANGES IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER SETBACKS, UH, ET CETERA.

UM, AND, UH, AND, AND ULTIMATELY NEXT SLIDE, UH, UM, THIS WAS JUST A, SOMETHING THAT WAS ASKED FOR AT THAT TIME.

AND IT WAS BASICALLY THE, UM, UH, EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PLATT AND THAT THE, THAT THE, THE LIGHT WAS A ILLEGAL LOT, UH, RECEIVING SERVICES.

NEXT SLIDE, THE, UH, CONCLUSION, UM, UH, BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED IN MARCH OF 2015 WAS THAT THE LOT WAS GRANTED, UM, THE, UH, ABILITY TO BUILD ON IT WITH A POINT FOR FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO, UH, UH, AND, AND, AND THEY WITHDREW ALL THE OTHER, UM, ALL THE OTHER REQUESTS THAT THEY HAD, UM, THIS, THIS VARIANCE WAS THE, THE OWNERS AT THAT TIME, THEN NEVER ACTED ON THIS.

UH, AND SO THE VARIANTS EXPIRED, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR THIS, UH, VARIANCE TO BE APPROVED.

UH, NEXT SLIDE.

UM, WE ARE BASICALLY NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE OTHER, UM, SITE TO OPEN STANDARD REQUESTS WITH REGARD TO SETBACKS, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, THESE, THIS IS AN, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.

THIS PLAN, UM, WAS, WAS DESIGNED BY, BY THE LATE WILLIAM HODGE WITH SPECIFICALLY THE 0.4 F A R IN MIND.

HE LITERALLY BUILT IT FROM LIKE STARTING WITH 0.4 FAR, HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK AND TO CREATE A, UH, AN, A HOUSE THAT, THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE IN.

UM, THE, IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF, OF EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE FDR CALCULATION FOR PARKING EXEMPTION AND BASEMENT EXEMPTION.

UM, IT HAS THIS, UM, THIS KIND OF MODERN APPEARANCE TO IT.

UH, NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS WHAT THE HOUSE, UM, THIS IS A RENDERING FROM WILLIAM HODGES, UM, NOT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT OF IT IN THAT SAME EXACT LOCATION.

SO THAT WAS A DIFFERENT DESIGN THAT HE HAD.

NEXT SLIDE, UM, LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, YOU'D SAY, OH, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE HOUSES THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO IT, BUT THIS IS A STRUCTURE RIGHT AT THE END OF THE STREET.

THAT'S LITERALLY TWO DOORS DOWN NEXT SLIDE.

UM, THERE ARE OTHER MODERN, UH, HOMES IN, IN EAST AUSTIN THAT DO HAVE THIS KIND OF, UM, BOX APPEARANCE.

UM, WE, I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE IN KIND OF KEEPING, UM, MR. HODGES, UH, DESIGN GOING, UH, BY GETTING A NEW, UH, ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO CARRY ON HIS WORK.

UM, AND SO NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN GO UP.

THIS IS JUST A NEXT SLIDE.

SO WE ARE BASICALLY JUST KIND OF GOING WITH ALL THESE, THESE WERE JUST NEXT SLIDE, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE CREATING A BASEMENT, WE HAVE HAD BORINGS DONE AT THEIR SITE, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, UM, THAT THERE WERE NO ISSUES WITH THE WATER TABLE.

UM, AND WE DO HAVE ENGINEERING GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO BUILD, UM, THE BASEMENT AND GO FROM THERE.

SO, UM, OPEN ANY QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION SEEING NONE? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MADAM.

YES, SIR.

WELL, UM, I REMEMBER WILLIAM HODGE, GOD REST HIS SOUL, UH, WHEN HE USED TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, THE DICE, HE BROUGHT THIS TO US BACK IN 2005.

I WAS THE SECOND ON IT.

UH, THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY SALLY BERKAT, BUT, UH, WE DID GRANT IT IN 2005.

I THINK IT WAS, YEAH, IT WAS 2005 AND A CAVEAT AND BE ABLE TO BE BUILT OR FAR, UH, WILLIAM DID SERVE ON THIS BOARD FOR QUITE A WHILE.

UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE HE STEPPED DOWN AND, AND SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED AWAY.

BUT, UH, UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD.

AND IT SAID, SALLY, ISN'T HERE TO MAKE THE MOTION.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AT THIS TIME AND SEE IF I GET BACK IN THE PORT FOR FAR, THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

AND I DON'T THINK IT HAS.

I'M SORRY, WHO WAS THAT SECOND HAWTHORNE?

[03:05:02]

SORRY, ONE SEC, PLEASE.

APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY.

THAT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

WHO WAS THAT SECOND POPCORN AND BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I WANTED TO MAKE A SMALL FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND CONFIRM SOMETHING WE WE'RE VOTING TO PASS IT WITH THE 0.4 FIR MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS THAT IT NOT BE USED AS AN STR.

UH, PUT MY BROOKLYN, UM, COMMISSIONER MCARTHUR'S QUESTION TOOK CARE OF MINE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I JUST HAVE TO SAY MR. HODGE WAS, GOT REALLY CREATIVE ON THIS ONE AND TO BE COMMENDED FOR HIS DESIGN ON THIS ONE.

UM, AND PLUS IT'S JUST A VARIANCE THAT WAS PASSED AND IT WASN'T BUILT YET.

SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT REALLY SETTING A PRECEDENT.

WE'RE JUST REAFFIRMING A PREVIOUS VARIANT.

YOU DID GREAT RESEARCH BOARD MEMBER PUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE ARE VOTING ON GRANTING A VARIANCE TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 57 50 SQUARE FEET TO 1,129 SQUARE FEET, OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH THE POINT FOR FAR AS TIPS.

PART NUMBER BLOOM.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS A HUGE REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BUT THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR A HOUSE HAVING EXISTED THERE BEFORE, AND THE TWO HOUSES NEXT DOOR STILL CONTINUING TO BE THERE.

UM, OTHERWISE I WOULD LOOK AT A REQUEST LIKE THIS WITH A LOT OF, UM, SKEPTICISM.

UM, ANY OTHER COMMENT? HEY, I'M GOING TO CALL THE VOTE AGAIN.

THIS FINDINGS, UH, REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS, WHAT THEIR PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE MINIMUM LOT SIDE WITH SMALL LAW AMNESTY'S APPLIED IS 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

MORE THAN PRICE.

THIS LOT SIZE IT WAS DESIGNATED FOR USE AND HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS EVIDENCED BY THE UTILITY, UH, LADY BILLS AND RECORDS.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS NOT FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.

IT IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THIS IS A SMALLEST TRACT IN THE VICINITY.

THE HARD SHOP HARDSHIP IS NOT DENTAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S IN THE SMALLEST TRACK IN THE FACILITY AREA CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

ADJACENT PROPERTY WILL NOT APPEAR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT APPEAR THE PURPOSES OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THERE ARE DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK IS IN LINE WITH THE SETBACKS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

NO VARIANCES FROM SETBACKS OR PARKING ARE PROPOSING THAT FACTORS CURRENTLY BEGINNING.

IT HAS THE PERPETUAL THAT THERE AS A NUISANCE TO PROPERTIES IN GENERAL, IF NOT, THANK YOU.

LAST TIME.

MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED FOR NO STRS MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ON OLIN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

AND JUST REAL QUICK, KUDOS ON THE RESEARCH.

JUST LIKE VICE CHAIR SAID, I REALLY ENJOYED LOOKING AT THE PAT PACKET OUT.

IT WAS RICHARD SMITH.

[03:10:01]

I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE MY HIGH BISCUITS HIPPIE TEA TO WILLIAM HODGE.

GOODBYE.

CERTAINLY THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING ON WITH THIS PROJECT.

THAT'S A HECK OF A WAY TO GO OUT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

HE HAD STYLE NOW.

UH, I NEED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING WITH LEGAL GUYS.

SO ONE SEC, MS. LOPEZ, WE HAVE A SPEAKER HERE, UH, WHO WAS GOING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF ITEM F THREE, BUT WE VOTED TO MOVE THE, UH, THE AFRICANS PLACE ON THE AGENDA TO THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THEY WERE CUT OFF BY THE TECHNICAL ISSUES IN THE DECEMBER MEETING.

AND THEN POSTPONED AGAIN IN JANUARY.

HE STILL WANTS TO SPEAK.

IS THERE ANY METHOD FOR US TO DO THAT OR SINCE WE'VE ALREADY VOTED, IS IT TOO LATE? I BELIEVE IF IT'S TOO LATE, THE ITEM'S ALREADY BEEN HEARD.

THERE WAS NO TIME CERTAIN FOR THE ITEM AND IT WAS THE WILL OF THE BODY TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA.

SO I APOLOGIZE.

THAT'S IT? WHAT WAS UP THREE? WE CAN MOVE TO RESCIND EVIDENTLY.

WELL, I MEAN, WE USED TO DO THAT ON ZONING AND PLATTING ALL THE TIME.

IT'S IN ROBERT'S RULES, IT'S THE KIND OF LANE IT IS THE CANUCK LANE.

AND IF THE KINDERGARTEN CASE IT WAS SEEN 15 20, 21 0 1 0 1, WE CAN YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE CAN.

AND I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANY LEGAL AVENUE TO REOPEN IT, BUT SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO REOPEN IT.

OTHER LENS YOU APPEAL IT.

THE STATE OF TEXAS.

NO, YOU CAN APPEAL IT BACK TO THE, THE BOARD.

CAN, CAN HE APPEAL IT TO THE BOARD OPPOSITE ELAINE OR ERICA? CAN HE APPEAL IT WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAYS? JUST LIKE THE APPLICANT.

I KIND OF APPEAL.

I BELIEVE THERE'S, IT'S A 10 DAY PERIOD THAT THEY CAN APPEAL.

UM, THERE'S A THREE OR $400 FEE TO APPEAL THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE.

UM, AND THEN YOU JUST NEED TO WRITE A LETTER AS TO STATING WHY YOU FELT THAT THE ERROR, THE BOARD AIRED AND THE DECISION THEY MADE, I'VE BEEN EMAILING BACK AND FORTH MANY TIMES.

I, I CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION.

I APOLOGIZE.

THERE WAS NOTHING MALICIOUS ABOUT IT.

IT WAS JUST LIKE, LIKE SHE SAID, THEY HA THEY HAVE THE CHANCE THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE, I DON'T HAVE THAT.

I'M NOT THE BOARD.

I'M JUST THE LIAISON.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, TAKE IT UP WITH US BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THAT DECISION.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M TELLING YOU, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE LEGALLY WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW, OTHER THAN GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO APPEAL IT.

I DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

I UNDERSTAND.

WILLIAM HUDGE PASSED AWAY ON DECEMBER 31ST AT THE AGE OF 44.

MOVING ON INTO NEW BUSINESS.

SO IT'S INTERESTING THAT THAT CASE WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA LAST, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS BY DESIGN OR BY ACCIDENT.

UM, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE OUR JANUARY MEETING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS SOONER, BUT JUST AFTER ME YEARS, I WAS INFORMED THAT FORMER BOARD MEMBER

[G-1 Remarks in memoriam of former Board of Adjustment member William Hodge]

WOW.

WANTED TO TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT TO MENTION HIM.

HE WAS A FATHER, AN ARCHITECT, A LOVING HUSBAND, AND A FRIEND, SOMEONE WHO I OFTEN CALLED WHEN I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT TINY HOMES.

YOU KNOW, IT, UH, IT TAKES A CERTAIN TYPE OF PERSON TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IT'S NOT JUST A READING OR THE FUNNIEST JOB IN THE WORLD.

UH, BUT HE WAS DEFINITELY GOOD AT IT.

UM, I'M GLAD TO HAVE HAD HIM AND HIS UNIQUE POINT OF VIEW AS A PART OF THIS BODY.

AND, UH, I'D DEFINITELY SAY A PRAYER FOR HIM AND HIS FAMILY.

IS WAY TOO YOUNG WAY TOO YOUNG.

[03:15:01]

THIS PANDEMIC IS JUST KILLING ME.

ITEM G2

[G-2 Discussion of the December 13, 2021 Board activity report]

DISCUSSION OF THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 BOARD ACTIVITY REPORTS, ANY DISCUSSION.

IT'S THE MOST BEAUTIFUL REPORT I'VE EVER SEEN.

ELAINE AND DIANA.

SAME THING, I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE, BY THE WAY, THEY DID NOT MAKE THE BYLAW CHANGE.

THERE'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY'RE USEFUL BECAUSE THE VICE-CHAIR MENTIONED THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO TAKE THIS BRIEF OPPORTUNITY TO YET AGAIN, THANK OUR AWESOME STAFF, LEGAL EBY GUY, WHOSE NAME I CAN NEVER REMEMBER, BUT IT'S SUPER COOL.

UH, WE DEFINITELY COULDN'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOU ALL, SO REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE AND ALTERNATES.

THANK Y'ALL SO MUCH FOR FILLING IN FOR FILLING IN OVER AND OVER AND OVER THE DROP OF A HAT.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MY SCHEDULE WOULD BE THAT FLEXIBLE.

SO THANK Y'ALL TOO.

NO COMMENTS ON G2.

LET'S DO G

[G-3 Discussion and possible action regarding Rules of Procedure]

THREE.

UH, THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO COME UP IN DECEMBER.

THIS WAS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, WHICH WE VOTED ON IN WERE AMENDED.

SO WE'RE GOOD THERE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THE WORD SPREAD TO EVERYONE BY NOW, EVERYONE GOT THE MEMO.

UH, DSD AND CITY MANAGEMENT ARE NO LONGER PURSUING THE MOVE OF THE LAND, USE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO THE PVC.

SO WE ARE AT CITY HALL.

WE WANT OUR FIGHT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID THERE IS A PLACE FOR THINGS.

AND I THINK CITY HALL IS DEFINITELY THE PLACE FOR MEETINGS LIKE THIS.

SO DO YOU FOR

[G-4 Discussion and possible action 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.]

THEY DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY.

UH, THE WAY IT WORKED IS THAT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CONTACTED THE CHAIRS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

LET US KNOW THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE PURSUING IT ANY LONGER.

HOWEVER, THE ITEM THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL WAS INDEFINITELY POSTPONED.

SO IF THIS COMES UP AGAIN, IT CAN BE PICKED BACK UP.

AND THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO REMEMBER BECAUSE I KNOW BOARD MEMBERS HERE TEND TO STAY ON THE BOARD FOR A REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME.

SO 10 YEARS FROM NOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, Y'ALL SHOULD PICK THAT BACK UP.

UH, WRITE A LETTER TO THE REST OF YOU AND TELL YOU TO PICK IT BACK UP, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.

I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO OUR WONDERFUL MADAM CHAIR FOR ALL THE WORKS THAT SHE DID AND KEEPING US HERE AT CITY HALL, WHICH WAS, SHE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO GETTING THAT CSX SUCCESSFUL RESULT WITHOUT HER HARD WORK.

OH, DON'T THANK ME.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE MICHAEL AND MELISSA DIDN'T QUIT ON US.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

AND YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE WOULD HAVE QUIT.

A IS DISCUSSING DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE BLA HYBRID MEETINGS, HYBRID WORKSHOPS.

ITEM G FIVE

[G-5 Discussion regarding future BOA hybrid meetings/hybrid workshops.]

UH, NO REAL NEWS AS YOU GUYS HAVE SUNG OR SALTED NIGHT, IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE CHALLENGING, DEFINITELY FOR ME, UH, TRYING TO JUGGLE EVERYTHING.

AND BEFORE IT WAS ME HAVING TO WATCH EVERYBODY ON THE DAYAS AND THEN TRY TO REMEMBER ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN THAT WE'RE VIRTUAL, BUT NOW IT'S EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

AND I HAVE TO KEEP REMINDING MYSELF TO CHECK, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE SOMEONE HEARS WHAT WE THROW.

I DON'T FORGET THEM.

SO THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE ON THAT.

DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT YOU NOTICE THAT APPLICANTS CAN SPEAK NOW VIRTUALLY AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE AS THE PERSON RUNNING THE MEETINGS? THAT'LL BE GOOD TO BE MEAN OR ICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE, UH, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM HERE, LITTLE KAPTIO.

SO I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR PREFERENCE AS TO WHETHER I PARTICIPATE REMOTELY OR IN PERSON, BUT YOU AS THE CHAIR, LIKE, WHAT DO YOU PREFER? WHAT'S EASIER FOR YOU TO MANAGE? I MEAN, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DEFER TO YOUR PREFERENCE THERE.

UH, IT HONESTLY DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.

IT'S JUST GETTING USED TO A NEW FORMAT.

IF YOU WANT TO COME, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME.

THERE'S PLENTY OF SEATS.

UH, IT GETS A LITTLE FUN SOMETIMES.

LIKE YOU HEARD, UH, I THINK WE MISS SOME OF THAT.

OH, UH, THERE, THERE WAS, UH, A PERSON WHO WANTED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THAT ITEM.

AND BECAUSE WE MOVED THE ITEM FORWARD ON THE AGENDA, HE MISSED HIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

SO HE WAS UPSET AND HE WASN'T MIKE.

BUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS IS THAT LIKE HE WANTED TO KNOW WHO WE REPORTED TO WHO OUR SUPERIORS WERE.

THE MEETING DOES START AT FIVE 30, JUST STAY ON THE RECORD, MS. RAMIREZ.

UH, BUT YEAH, SO HE WAS UPSET AND THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WE HAD THAT WAS CUT OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF WHILE THEY WERE SPEAKING.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME PERSON THAT WAS HERE.

[03:20:01]

UM, I WILL NOT, I WILL, I'M TURNING THE PAGE, A BOARD MEMBER PUT, I WAS JUST GOING TO POINT OUT OUR BYLAWS DO REQUIRE THAT OUR CASES BE CALLED IN, IN, IN ORDER THEIR VIOLENT.

BUT, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHAIR'S ABILITY TO MOVE THOSE CASES OVER THE BYLAWS AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THE CHAIR DECIDES THE AGENDA.

SO, BUT FOR THIS, THIS IS WHY I TOOK A VOTE ON IT BECAUSE I WANTED TO BOARD TO BE UNANIMOUS ON IT.

I WOULD HAVE MADE HIM WAIT, IF, IF ANYBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

UH, IT WAS JUST, JUST A MATTER OF BEING CONSIDERATE, CONSIDERING THE INTERNET ISSUES AT CITY HALL, CITY HALL, INTERNET ISSUE THOUGH.

AND THAT WE HAD TO CANCEL IN, UH, IN JANUARY.

SO GUYS, PLEASE REMEMBER, WELL, I GUESS NOW IT'S NOT A BIG A DEAL, BUT WE GOTTA KEEP THAT QUORUM.

CAUSE THESE GUYS CAN'T BUILD UNTIL WE HEAR THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE TO STOP EVERYTHING.

CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE.

SO IT'S ALL ON US.

UH, NOT HAVING A QUORUM LAST MONTH WAS ON US.

WE WERE AT A STAGE FIVE AND YET THEY WEREN'T.

YEAH, YEAH, NO, NO I, NOT A LOT OF ME, BUT UH, WE CAN THANK OUR GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT FOR THAT ONE.

THIS IS ME SMILING AT YOU, BUT NOT RARELY, SIR.

UH, ITEM

[G-6 Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP).]

G SIX.

UH, OH, GOOD NEWS GUYS.

THIS IS FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEW TO, UH, LAST YEAR, WE SUBMITTED A RESOLUTION TO, UH, REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL, UH, RIGHT.

E UH, RESOLUTION TO STAFF STATING THAT WE WANTED A CREATION OF A FUND THAT WOULD ALLOW LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE BOARD, WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THE VERY EXORBITANT $800 FEE.

SO IT'S A $500 FEE PLUS LIKE $300 FOR NOTIFICATIONS.

AND THEN THERE'S LIKE A CREDIT CARD CHARGE.

SO THERE WERE SOME OF US THAT FELT LIKE, UH, SOME CONSTITUENTS WHO MIGHT'VE BEEN RED TAGGED OR, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

WE'RE PROBABLY ENDING UP TEARING DOWN OR HAVING TO CHANGE THINGS BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AFFORD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.

THE LATEST STEP D CAME FROM CITY STAFF, UH, JUST VERY END OF LAST MONTH, JANUARY 20TH.

THERE'S A LINK IN YOUR BACKUP WHERE YOU'VE BEEN SEEING.

I ALSO HAD ELAINE EMAIL, EVERYONE, THE MEMORANDUM THEY'VE ASKED FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, UH, RIGHT NOW THEY'VE SECURED A SOURCE OF FUNDING, WHICH IS GOOD.

THEY'LL ALSO ARE GOING TO BE USING AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE TO MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR OUR LIAISON.

IT'LL JUST BE, DO THEY MEET THE CRITERIA? IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR CAP, THEY SIMPLY FILL OUT THAT THEY'VE MET THE, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

THEY FILL OUT THAT, YES, I AM ELIGIBLE FOR CAP AND IT'S THAT EASY.

ELAINE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

THEY AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR THE FUND.

THE PART THEY'RE HELD UP ON IS THAT THE, UH, COUNCIL DECIDED TO ADD PRO BONO LEGAL, UH, TO THE RESOLUTION.

AND THAT REQUIRES OUTSIDE CONTRACTING.

SO NOT ONLY WILL THEY HAVE A FUND TO ASSIST THEM, UH, IN GETTING A CASE BEFORE US, BUT THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP THEM NAVIGATE IT, WHICH I THINK IS INCREDIBLY AMAZING, VERY LAUDABLE.

SO I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S, THAT THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE WAITING ON.

UH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING BACK IN MAY, POSSIBLY APRIL, THE, THE MEMORANDUM ASKS FOR ME, BUT APRIL MIGHT BE ON THE BOARD.

THEY'RE JUST WAITING ON SEEING WHERE TO GET THE MONEY TO FUND THOSE LEGAL CONTRACTORS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THE UPDATE OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THAT ONE.

THAT WAS AMAZING.

IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

I KNOW, I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S HAPPENING.

I HAVE TO AGREE BECAUSE SINCE THE FEES HAVE BEEN SO HIGH, UM, OUR MIX OF CASES IS VERY DIFFERENT.

YOU KNOW, WE USED TO BE HELPING REAL PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST PEOPLE TEARING DOWN AND BUILDING SOMETHING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FORMERLY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD IT, BUT WE USED TO GET SOMEBODY WITH A CAR PORT THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME OR SOMEBODY THAT JUST WANTED DO YOUR SMALL THINGS.

YOU KNOW, HOMEOWNERS, WE COULD JUST VERY RARELY GET REGULAR HOMEOWNERS ANYMORE.

AND I HOPE THIS MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN THE KIND OF CASES THAT WE DO GET THE MIX OF CASES THAT WE DO.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS.

100%, BUT DISPARITY IS DISCOURAGING.

WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOREVER AND EVERYBODY'S KNOW WHO HAVE ALTERNATES ALMOST EVERYBODY'S HERE, BUT MICHAEL'S HERE.

[G-7 Discussion and possible action to form a BOA Workgroup to review and propose changes to BOA Appeals (including, but not limited to, process and fees)]

[03:25:01]

SO A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO FORM A BILI WORK GROUP TO REVIEW AND PROPOSE CHANGES TO BLA APPEALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROCESS AND FEES.

SO I KNOW THIS WAS SOMETHING, A FORMER CHAIR, LAYTON BURWELL WAS KIND OF SPRING.

WHO, WHO ELSE WAS IT? IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN STILL ADDRESSING THIS FOR NOW? OR SHOULD I TAKE THIS OFF THE AGENDA? I'M LOOKING DOWN AT MY SCREEN.

OH, I WOULD GENDA MADDEN AIR BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ALSO THROUGH THE LEGISLATION AND STUFF, BUT, UH, UH, I THINK, UH, THIS WAS WHEN WE WERE HAVING ISSUES WITH PALLETS, BUT I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE HAVING THAT ISSUE NOW.

PEOPLE ARE WELL NOT BEEN ABLE TO NAVIGATE THE APPEAL PROCESS.

UH, IT WAS ALSO FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S LIKE THE DOME AND THERE THEY TO SPEAK, UH, FILING APPEALS.

IT WAS TO CLARIFY WHO COULD FILE APPEALS.

AND I WENT TO AND IF YOU GO, AND IT'S A LENGTHY DOCUMENT, BUT IF YOU GO AND LOOK THROUGH IT, IT, IT, IT, IT CLEAR ON WHO CAN CANNOT WHEN, HOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CARRY THAT ANY FURTHER, UNLESS MELISSA JUST WANTS TO JUMP ON THAT.

I REALLY DON'T WANT TO JUMP ON IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMITMENTS IN MY LIFE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE FEE IS ALSO VERY HIGH FOR IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOUR LEVEL OF DISSATISFACTION WITH THE PROCESS AND BEING ABLE TO I'VE MADE IT A PRETTY HIGH FEE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT COLLECTS, YOU KNOW, $10 PER HOUSEHOLD OR $10 PER PERSON, RIGHT.

THE REASON HE BROUGHT IT UP.

ELAINE, DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT FEE IS OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? WHAT FEE IS THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY.

APPEAL.

HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.

I SAID, DO YOU HAVE IT PREGNANT? I DON'T, BUT I CAN EMAIL IT TO YOUR, I CAN'T GET, I CAN'T GO.

WHY DON'T WE TABLE IT? I I'M JUST SAYING THAT FEE IS REALLY HIGH.

LET ME, LET ME RESEARCH IT ALMOST 3000.

I THINK IT'S LIKE 26, 27, 28, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO FILE.

I MEAN, THAT'S A LOT OF DUES.

UM, AND NOW GRANTED, YOUR LEVEL OF DISSATISFACTION, THAT POINT MUST BE INCREDIBLY HIGH.

DO YOU TAKE YOUR TREASURY DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY? I AM I CONCUR.

AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S ANOTHER COST OF SERVICE ISSUE.

UH, WE CAN GO BACK TO THE OLDEN DAY SPEECH OF WHEN I FIRST BECAME AWARE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO WHAT DID HE WANT TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD IN SERVING ON THAT WORK GROUP TO TRY TO GET THAT FEED DOWN A LITTLE BIT? I, I LITERALLY HAD ENOUGH COMMITMENTS.

I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T HAVE LIKE SIX TO OTHERS, I WOULD.

I JUST CAN'T, I'M JUST SAYING THAT SOMEONE WHO'S SERVED ON YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD ONE.

JUST BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE FEE STRUCTURE, BARBARA, IT'S AWESOME.

I FEEL STRONGLY THAT A WEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD COULD EASILY, YOU KNOW, A PERSON COULD JUST PICK OUT THEIR POCKET BOOK AND THROW $2,000 ON THE TABLE AND WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT DOING IT.

BUT IF YOU'RE WORKING, IF YOU'RE WORKING IN A COMMUNITY WHERE, UM, ANYTHING IN THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AS MUCH MONEY, THERE'S NO OPTION, RIGHT.

IT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

SO I DO CARE A LOT ABOUT FEES BECAUSE I DO CARE.

I WORK WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE AND EAST DEMO.

TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE STAFF MADE THE DECISION THAT THEY HAD FILED IT TOO LATE.

AND IN MONTOPOLIS AND PLACES LIKE THAT, WHERE THEY COULDN'T EVER THINK ABOUT SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY, UH, JUST FYI ALTERNATES Y'ALL CAN PARTICIPATE IN WORK GROUPS IF YOU WANT.

WE DID GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT CONTENT, KELLY, KELLY, BUT YOU LOVE TO DO EVERYTHING.

SORRY, DARRELL, WHAT DO YOU GOT? MY, UM, MY INTEREST IN THE APPEALS AND THE APPEALS PROCESS IS BASED UPON AN EXPERIENCE THAT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE I KNOW A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE THEY FILED AN APPEAL AND IT DID NOT GET FORWARDED

[03:30:01]

SO THEY JUST WEREN'T GOING TO SEND IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

UH, IT WOULD COURT, THEY WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THEY WERE ORDERED TO SEND IT OVER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAPPENING IN THE RECENT PAST, BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN WAS HOW CAN THE BOARD ENSURE THAT IF SOMEBODY DOES FILE AN APPEAL, IT GETS TO US BECAUSE AS A QUASI JUDICIAL, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS TELLING THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE APPEALS.

YOU CAN'T TALK TO ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO EVER REALLY KNOW IF THAT SITUATION OCCURS AGAIN.

SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU'D LIKE TO VOLUNTEER, TO BE PART OF THE WORKROOM, IF, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK ON THE, THE APPEALS PROCESS, AND YES, I WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK ON THAT PROCESS AND FEES.

AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, YOUR ARGUMENT CAME UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND IN A VERY INTENSE WAY.

AND WE REALLY TRIED TO DEFINE TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE A 10 DAY OR THAT WE SHOULD ANY RETRY TO GET A FORMER LEGAL, UM, TO SAY THAT ANY APPEALS THAT WAS PUT FORWARD WAS NOT STAFF'S DECISION, THAT EVERY SINGLE APPEAL SHOULD GET SENT TO US, WHETHER IT'S STAFF FELT IT WAS VALID OR NOT, UM, NOTHING REALLY EVER CAME OF THAT.

AND THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN FORCE AT THIS POINT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THE AVENUE FOR THAT.

I REALLY WISH WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT DONE THEN.

AND THAT HADN'T BEEN WHAT, FIVE YEARS AGO, AT LEAST.

UM, PARDON.

I MEAN, WE HAD THIS FIGHT.

IT MAY BE PART OF, IT MAY BE THAT THEY, THAT, THAT WE JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION THAT AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE ARE THE ONES WHO DETERMINE WHETHER AN APPEAL IS TIMELY, WHETHER SOMEONE HAS STANDING AND WHAT OUR OWN JURISDICTION IS.

AND IF THOSE WHICH WE TRIED, I THINK WHEN WE DID TRY AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT BERKELEY, WE DID TRY TO DO THAT.

AND IT GOT VERY CONTENTIOUS, BUT AT THAT TIME WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYBODY WORKING ON A COMMITTEE THAT WAS FAMILIAR WITH LAW OR ABLE TO RESEARCH IT AS WELL.

BUT WE WERE PRETTY MUCH HAD OUR BACKS AGAINST THE WALL WITH BASICALLY BEING BOTH FROM STAFF LEGAL, NOT JUST ONE VERY, VERY MANY YEARS AGO, UH, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WERE ON IT.

WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT SHOT.

SO I THINK THERE MAY BE A WAY DARYL, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THE DISCUSSION WAS POSSIBLY CHANGE A CHANGE OF BYLAWS, BYLAWS, OR A CHANGE OF RULES OR PROCEDURES, BUT IT HAS TO ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS STAFF.

SO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WE ALWAYS FELT WAS EVEN IF STAFF MADE A DECISION THAT RESOLVED THE APPEAL ISSUE, WE WANT TO BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THAT TOO, BECAUSE IT WILL ALSO IMPACT OUR DECISION GOING FORWARD.

IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS TO COME IN FRONT OF US AGAIN.

AND IF STAFF IS SETTING UP, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SETTING A PRECEDENT OR CHANGING A CHANGING SOMETHING, THEN WE'RE ON THE DYESS AND WE'RE NOT AWARE OF IT.

AND WE'RE MAKING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DECISION.

IT CAN LOOK VERY, YOU KNOW, CONTROVERSIAL.

WELL, A SECOND, DARRYL, THE BOARD MEMBER BLUE, AND YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP FOR A FEW MINUTES.

OR ADD THE MENTALLY I CAN'T.

NO WORRIES.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, YEAH, I CAN BE ON THE WORKING GROUP.

IF YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE.

I WILL PUT, MY HAND IS GIANT.

SORRY, GO AHEAD.

FOR REMEMBER PRE I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS MY INTEREST IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOMEBODY APPEALING A DECISION OF A, UH, OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, AND, AND THE PROCESS FOR THAT, THE FEES THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THAT IN ORDER TO GET IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.

AND, AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T ANY BOTTLENECKS IN THAT PROCESS AND THAT IF AN APPEAL IS FILED, THAT IT GETS TO US FOR US TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION ON TIMELINESS AND STANDING AND THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES.

UH, JUST HANG ON ONE SECOND, VICE CHAIR, UH, REAL QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, MS. LOPEZ.

WE HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT AREN'T HERE TONIGHT.

THEY, IF THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT MEETING TO ADD THEM TO THE WORK GROUP, RIGHT.

OR CAN WE ADD THEM ONCE THE WORK GROUPS, BUT ESTABLISHED.

SO YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD THEM IN THE WORKING GROUP NOW

[03:35:01]

MY UNDERSTANDING IS I CAN'T LEGALLY ADD THEM WITH, WELL, I'D WANT TO KNOW, DO THEY WANT TO DO IT? BUT, UH, YEAH, NO, WE CAN ADD THEM.

THAT'S JUST EVIL.

YES, I DO IT ALL THE TIME.

IF THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP THERE ON THE COMMITTEE, I MEAN, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE PRESENT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO BE ON THE WORKING GROUP.

I'M SURE YOU CAN ADD MEMBERS TO THE WORKING GROUP AFTER, UNLESS YOU NEED A CERTAIN NUMBER TO ESTABLISH THE WORKING GROUP MEETING TO DO THAT.

I WOULD, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO WAIT UNTIL THE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN, OKAY.

THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

THE BOARD TAKES VICE CHAIR.

I THINK TOM, ADAM, VICE-CHAIR GOT INTO HER POSITION AS A MEDICINE.

EXACTLY.

I WASN'T THERE.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

OH YEAH.

YOU CAN GET ADDED WHILE YOU'RE NOT THERE.

UM, I WILL, I WILL SAY THAT, UM, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE, UM, FORWARDING OF EVERYTHING TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES STAFF GETS QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T VERY FORMAL THAT, UM, AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GET PERMITS AND, AND THAT DELAY, I REMEMBER THE CASE THAT NEVER CAME BEFORE US, THAT THEN WENT BEFORE US.

SO I WAS THERE.

UM, BUT THEY GET MORE KNOW MORE THAN TWO, MORE THAN 20, MORE THAN PROBABLY 200 IN THE COURSE OF A MONTH.

SO IT'S A, SOMEHOW THERE'S GOTTA BE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT THAT WAS A VERY WEIRD ONE.

VERY WEIRD.

UM, JUST QUICK QUESTION, HAVE ANY OF Y'ALL THE BOARD MEMBER, MACARTHUR BOARD MEMBER, PRUITT, OR BOARD MEMBER BLOOM HAVE ANY OF Y'ALL SERVED ON A WORKING GROUP BEFORE? YEAH.

NONE OF THIS BOOK, UM, OR DIFFERENT BOARD, JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF SOMEONE CAN LIKE, KIND OF HELP TAKE THE REINS AND GUIDE THINGS, OR IF I NEED TO JUMP IN HERE AND BE PART OF THE WORKING GROUP RETIRED, MAYBE.

DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GAIN, IT'S NOT WORKING? IS IT DARREN? YOU'RE GETTING LIKE HEALTHY.

CONGRATULATIONS, CHAD.

I THINK THEY'RE FINE ON THEIR OWN.

I MEAN, I'M SURE MOST OF THEM, YOU KNOW, CAN PICK THAT OUT AND THEN IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF SOMEBODY ELSE'S ADDED NEXT TIME.

CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BRAHM.

AND I'M SURE THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S RESOLVED QUICKLY.

THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND WORK.

AND THIS IS FOR LEGAL CAUSE I WAS ON ANOTHER BOARD NOW.

IT WASN'T QUALIFIED JUDICIAL, LIKE WHAT OF ADJUSTMENT? BUT WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T ON THE BOARD ON ONE OF OUR WORKING GROUPS, BECAUSE THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT AND WE INVITED THEM TO BE ON THE WORKING GROUP.

AND THAT WAS ALLOWED.

I KNOW YOU CAN DO THAT FOR LIKE PC AND ZAP TOO.

I DON'T KNOW.

I WOULD SHE'S RIGHT NOW.

THAT GETS A LITTLE CUSTOMER.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THAT IS A LITTLE ODD.

I KNOW, BUT I MEAN, SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT HAVE A BACKGROUND IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE USEFUL.

CAUSE I KNOW THAT WE DID IT WHEN I WAS ON, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL.

INTO THE WORKING GROUP? OKAY.

MY VALENTINE IS, UM, QUIET NOW, BUT I'M MAKING A GESTURES.

UM, OH MY A FRIEND OF MINE.

NO, NO.

WE GOT TO WAIT ON THE ANSWER FROM LEGAL SHE'S SHE'S WALKING UP TO THE, TO THE PODIUM.

SO HAIR CLUB AS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.

IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY IN THE BYLAWS.

UM, BUT W WOULD YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHO YOU WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE ON THAT? OH NO.

SHE SAID IT THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP, THEY MEET SOMEONE OR THEY KNOW SOMEONE BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE DID IT.

ON SOUTH CENTRAL, WE WERE WORKING ON SOME THINGS ON THE WATERFRONT AND WE WERE ABLE TO BRING IN A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE GOT INTO THE WORKING GROUP, WE'RE LIKE, GOSH, WE NEED SOME INFORMATION ON THIS.

WELL, I KNOW THIS PERSON AND WE WERE ABLE TO BRING THEM INTO THE WORKING GROUP.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING TO HELP OUT, UM, THAT THIS WORKING GROUP, IF, IF, ONCE THEY GET INTO THINGS AND THEY KNOW SOMEONE THAT CAN BE OF HELP, CAN THEY BRING THEM

[03:40:01]

I CAN, UH, I CAN DO SOME FURTHER RESEARCH ON THAT, BUT IT WOULD, MIGHT BE A LITTLE HELPFUL IF, IF I HAD SOME PARAMETERS ON WHO CAUSE THE ANSWER MIGHT DEPEND ON EXACTLY WHO YOU'RE, YOU'RE THINKING, WHETHER THEY'RE MEMBERS OF OTHER BOARDS OR PARAMETER, IS THAT PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE IN THE AREA THAT WE'RE STUDYING COMPLETELY NON-GOVERNMENT NON-CITY STUFF ON JUST RANDOM JOB OFF THE STREET.