Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

I'M HERE

[CALL TO ORDER]

BY CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.

WE HAVE A QUORUM.

GO AHEAD AND TAKE ATTENDANCE REALLY QUICKLY.

ONE SECOND HERE, TOMMY IT'S EAR.

I AM YOUR CHAIR.

JESSICA COHEN.

I'M HERE.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE, VICE CHAIR HERE.

BARBARA MACARTHUR HERE.

DARRYL PUT HERE, OBVIOUSLY GINA RODRIGUEZ HERE.

MICHAEL YVONNE NOLAN HERE.

CARRIE WALLER HERE, KELLY BLOOM HERE AND MARCEL GUTIERREZ GUARDS UP HERE.

ALL RIGHT, MARCEL.

TELL ME ONE MORE TIME, MARCEL, WHICH I MEANT TO CROSS THAT OUT FOR THIS MEETING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

ALL RIGHT.

JUST SOME QUICK HOUSEKEEPING GUYS.

IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY LONG NIGHT TONIGHT.

WE HAVE AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL.

I'M GOING TO BE MAKING A MOTION TO MOVE THAT INTERPRETATION APPEAL TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION KEYS, UH, IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE.

FEEL FREE TO GO OUT INTO THE LOBBY.

UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A RECESS AFTER THE INTERPRETATION APPEALS, SO YOU'LL HAVE TIME.

SEE EVERYONE MOVING AROUND TO COME BACK IN.

I'LL ALSO ASK THE LIAISON TO GO OUT AND LET EVERYONE KNOW WHEN WE'LL BE STARTING THE VARIANCE HEARINGS FOR NOW.

PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.

UH, I'M GOING TO ASK BECAUSE OF THE BUSY NIGHT, UH, AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE WAIT TILL TOMORROW.

BEFORE CONTACTING THE BOARD LIAISON, YOU CAN DO THAT BY EMAIL OR PHONE.

AND THAT'S, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR CASE OR THE FINDINGS IN YOUR CASE, WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK TO THE BOARD, NOT TO ONE ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T STAMPED YOUR PARKING TICKETS, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE CLAM SHELL AND A SIGN IN SHEET OVER THERE.

JUST TAKE YOUR TICKET OVER STAMP AT ONCE.

FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AND WRITE THE NUMBER ON THIS SHEET.

OKAY.

FOR NOW.

UH, EVERYONE, WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT ON ANY OF THE CASES TONIGHT.

I NEED YOU TO PLEASE STAND SO I CAN GIVE YOU YOUR OATH.

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

HAVE A SEAT.

OKAY.

UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ITEM.

WE'RE GOING TO DO MINUTES AND MINUTES.

WHEN WE, BEFORE WE CHANGED THE GENDER DON'T WE HAVE TO VOTE ON CHANGING THE AGENDA.

THAT'S WHAT I GOT CORRECTED ON LAST TIME.

SHE'S NEXT TO YOU.

I'M OVER HERE.

YEAH, I WOULD DO, I WOULD DO IT, BUT YOU'RE STILL DOING IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.

OKAY, PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, ONE SEC, ONE.

ALL RIGHT.

ITEM

[A-1 Staff requests approval April 11, 2022 draft minutes]

ONE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 11TH, 2022 DRAFT MINUTES.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? THE TAG TEAM IS BACK IN AND WE'RE GOING TO DO LITTLE THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME, INSTEAD OF CALLING BY NAMES, UH, FOR THIS, THESE MOTIONS ON THE STAFF MINUTES AND THE POSTPONEMENT, OR SORRY ON STOCK MINUTES, NOT POSTPONEMENTS.

WE'RE JUST GONNA DO A, UH, APPROVAL, UH, BY NOT OR AFFIRMATION.

SO

[00:05:01]

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 11TH, 2022.

ALL IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE.

ANY OPPOSED? ABSTAINING.

OKAY.

MOTION PASSES.

ONE ABSTENTION, BARBARA MACARTHUR, ITEM

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

B ONE, STOPPING APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUR.

YOU READY? JESSICA? YEAH.

OKAY.

I HAVE ITEM D ONE C 16 DASH 2022 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE TEN ONE OH SEVEN.

RESEARCH BOULEVARD, SERVICE ROAD, NORTHBOUND, G C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 1 1 27, 15 LONG BOW TRAIL AND G TO C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 1 2 27, 17 LONG BOW TRAIL.

ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE BEING REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO POSTPONE TILL THE JUNE 13TH MEETING.

AND THEN I HAVE ITEM F THREE C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 4 3 5 0 9 EAST 38TH STREET.

THE NEIGHBORS ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE JUNE 13TH MEETING.

I ALSO HAVE, WELL, THOSE ARE THOSE POSTPONEMENTS.

UH, SO THOSE ARE JUST THE POSTPONEMENTS.

WE HAVE TWO THAT WERE DENIED BY AUSTIN ENERGY.

THEN I HAVE TWO CASES THAT WERE DENIED BY AUSTIN ENERGY ITEM, F1 C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 5 26 0 9, SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET AND ITEM F THREE C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 4 3 5 0 9 EAST 38TH STREET.

THOSE BOTH WERE DENIED BY AUSTIN ENERGY.

WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A POSTPONEMENT? I'M SORRY.

A DENIAL NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT FIRST.

I'LL SECOND.

THAT COOL.

MADAM CHAIR WAS THAT FOR ALL, INCLUDING THE POSTPONEMENTS VICE CHAIR, UH, FOR THE TWO CASES, JUST FOR THE DENIALS, NOT FOR THE POSTPONEMENTS FOR THE DENIALS TO ADD THEM TO THE POSTPONEMENT LISTS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON.

OKAY, PERFECT.

SORRY.

IF I WASN'T CLEAR, THIS IS A EMOTION.

I DO SEE A APPLICANT STANDING.

SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE TO APPEAL ONE OF THOSE OFF.

UH, SO COULD YOU COME UP TO THE MIC AND STICK YOUR NAME? TELL ME WHICH CASE YOU'RE HERE FOR.

I UNDERSTAND I'M HERE FOR F1 AND IT'S JUST A SETBACK VARIANCE.

SO 2,609 SAN PEDRO'S 35 ITEM 35.

OKAY.

UM, IT WAS DENIED BY AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH MEANS WE WON'T APPROVE IT ANYWAYS UNTIL THEY GET APPROVAL FROM AUSTIN ENERGY.

OKAY.

I'LL SEE.

WHAT'S GOING ON.

I DON'T.

I TALKED TO AUSTIN ENERGY TODAY.

JUST TALK TO KAREN AND SHE HAD NO PROBLEM.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND FIND OUT WHY SHE DIDN'T SEND SOMETHING.

WE HAVE, UH, THREE BOARD MEMBERS, ACTUALLY FOUR BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT.

SO WE HAVE THREE ALTERNATE.

SO YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO POSTPONE ANYWAY, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE NEXT MONTH YOU MIGHT HAVE ALL 11 BOARD MEMBERS HERE, RIGHT? ALL 11.

YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT LIKE THAT A LITTLE BETTER.

I LIKE THE ODDS BETTER.

'CAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S A REALLY SIMPLE CASE, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO POSTPONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, RATHER THAN HAVE A DENIAL ON THE, WELL, I THINK YOU'D RATHER, IF YOU GOT POSTPONED AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION, JUST WITH A DENIAL, WE, WE REALLY PREFER THAT TO BE DONE BECAUSE THEY COULD BE IN CONFLICT OR IT COULD PUSH YOUR BUILDING FORWARD, WHICH THEN SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK.

AND THEN I UNDERSTAND YOU MIGHT CHANGE YOUR ACTUAL POSTING LANGUAGE.

NO, IT'S, IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION, BUT THANK YOU, MELISSA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

SO, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ADD THE TWO AUSTIN ENERGY DENIALS TO THE POSTPONEMENT.

AGAIN, WE'LL JUST DO THIS BY SIMPLE AFFIRMATION, UH, ALL IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HANDS.

SORRY.

THIS IS GOING TO BE ADDING.

SEE 15 20 22 0 0 3 5 AND SEE, 15 20 22 0 0 4 3 2.

[00:10:04]

THE POSTPONEMENT VOTE.

THAT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, UM, SIX, SEVEN MICHAEL.

YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

YEAH.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE HAVE TWO RECONSIDERATION CASES IN THE POSTPONEMENTS AND JUST BECAUSE WE POSTPONE IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL, THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO RECONSIDER AT THE TIME OF JUNE 13TH.

CORRECT.

WE'LL STILL HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE OR POSTPONING.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WILL RECONSIDER IT, BUT THEY'LL, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR RECONSIDERATION, CORRECT? I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENTS? SO MOVED.

OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, BUT YOU'D BY VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER OF ON OWEN.

THIS WILL BE FOUR ITEMS SEEN 15 20 22 0 0 3 5.

SEE 15 20 22 0 0 4 3.

SEE 16 20 22 0 0 0 1 C 15 20 22 0 0 1 1.

SEE 15 20 22 0 0 1 2 AND SEE, 15, 20 AND 22 0 0 4 3.

CAN YOU AGAIN, UH, LET'S DO A PHOTO OF AFFIRMATION ALL IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND.

2, 3, 4, 5.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS MOTION PASSES.

THOSE CASES ARE POSTPONED UNTIL JUNE.

YES.

THANK YOU.

JUNE 15TH, 13TH, 13, 13, JUNE 13TH.

AND SO THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SUSPEND THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND WHAT'S THAT FANCY ROBERT'S RULES THING CISO.

BEFORE I SUSPEND ORDER THEM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

WHO ARE WE MISSING? UH, CARRIE IS NOT ON SCREEN.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT.

CURIOUS, UH, TROUBLE WITH WEBEX.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ALTERS THE ALTERS THE VOTE, UH, BOARD MEMBER WALLER.

UH, COULD YOU QUICKLY STATE FOR THE VOTE RECORD, HOW YOU'D LIKE TO VOTE ON? SHE NEEDS TO BE ON CASH.

SHE HAS TO BE ON CAMERA OR DOESN'T COUNT.

SO WE'RE WITH NINE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT IT'S ENOUGH TO CONDUCT YOUR CASE, BUT ALL THE APPLICANTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT.

WE'RE AT NINE.

LET'S GET INTO THE INTERPRETATION AND GO FROM THERE.

OKAY.

SO

[E-1 C15-2022-0042 Felicia Foster for Valentin Bohorov 2212 Trailside Drive]

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, MAKE A CHANGE TO THE AGENDA ORDER.

AND I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT.

WE MOVE ITEM 20 22 0 0 4 2 2, UH, IN FRONT OF ITEMS C SO THAT WE CAN TAKE IT UP IMMEDIATELY.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT AND AGAIN, UH, JUST PHOTOGRAPH PROBATION ALL IN FAVOR.

RAISE YOUR HAND.

UH, ALL OPPOSED.

YES, SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR THEM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA.

OKAY.

FOR AND INTERPRETATION APPEAL.

BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT OR ISSUES OF STANDING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO

[00:15:01]

RAISE SEEING NONE? UH, IF OBJECTION, DUMPED UP.

OKAY.

SO HERE'S THE FORMAT.

WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A REPORT FROM CITY STAFF FOR FIVE MINUTES.

UH, THEN WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.

THEN WE WILL HAVE COMMENTS BY THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL AND THEN A PRESENTATION BY OPPOSITION, IF THERE'S ANY, AND THEN COMMENT BY THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSING WITH ANY REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY.

FOLLOWING THAT.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE REPORT FROM CITY STUFF CLEARER, PLEASE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

HELLO, MR. LAUREN, HILLARY.

NICE TO SEE.

I WAS WATCHING VIDEOS OF YOU FROM 2011 AND 12, AND DON'T WORRY, MICHAEL AND I WERE IN THEM AS WELL.

THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS, UM, CHAIR, UM, BRENT LLOYD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH DSD.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY A FEW WORDS TO INTRODUCE OUR MAIN PRESENTER WILL BE SUSAN BARR.

UM, BUT FIRST I WANT TO JUST, UM, SPECIFY THAT WE WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME PRESENTING OUR CASE IN FIVE MINUTES.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT INVOLVE OVERLAPPING CODE PROVISIONS FROM DIFFERENT CODES, AS WELL AS PRIOR INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS BOARD.

SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD READILY AGREE TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE APPELLANT.

UM, IF WE'RE GIVEN ONE AS WELL.

SO I WILL JUST SAY BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THAT, UM, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF STAFF'S DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 2212 TRAIL SIDE.

AS I MENTIONED, SUSAN BARR, THE CHIEF BUILDINGS PLANS, EXAMINER ACTING, WE'LL BE PRESENTING THE CASE FOR DSD TO SET THE STAGE A BIT.

UH, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION, WHICH IS BASED ON A PRIOR 2012 DECISION BY THIS BOARD IN ANOTHER CASE, HOWEVER, WE WILL FOLLOW WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE ON THE MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.

AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.

IF YOU HAVE ANY, UM, ANY IDEAS FOR HOW TO CRAFT A BETTER RESULT, THE MAIN ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD IS HOW CEILING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING GROSS FLOOR AREA UNDER SUBCHAPTER F WHICH SOME OF YOU KNOW, AFFECTIONATELY AS, OR, OR NOT AS THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE IN A NUTSHELL STAFF'S POSITION IS THAT CEILING HEIGHT IS MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3.3 0.4 OF SUBCHAPTER F IN TANDEM WITH YOUR DECISION FROM 2012, THOSE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE PRIOR DECISION ARE COPIED OR LINKED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU EARLIER TODAY.

MY APOLOGIES.

IT DID NOT APPEAR IN YOUR INBOX AS SOONER APPELLANT RELIES ON PROVISIONS ON HABITABLE ADDICTS FROM THE 2021 IRC.

WE BELIEVE THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON HOW SUBCHAPTER F F AS APPLIED AND IF ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, WE BELIEVE THEY WOULD PRODUCE RESULTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BULK AND SCALE LIMITATIONS OF SUBCHAPTER F.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO SUSAN BARK.

MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS SUSAN BARR.

I'M THE ACTING CHIEF PLANS EXAMINER AS WELL AS THE MANAGER OF RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW.

ELAINE, DO YOU HAVE MY, UH, PRESENTATION READY? I'M GOING TO PAUSE THE TIMER FOR JUST A MINUTE WHILE WE GET THE PRESENTATION PULLED UP.

I DO BELIEVE THAT 10 MINUTES PER SIDE.

IT'S 10 MINUTES PER SIDE.

WELL, EXCUSE ME, MADAM CHAIR.

YES, THOUGH.

UH, CITY STAFF HAD STATED THAT THEY MAY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND THEY'RE PERFECTLY AMENDABLE TO GRANTING EQUAL TIME TO, I WAS GOING TO WAIT AND ASK THE, UH, APPELLANT IF THEY WERE OKAY WITH THE EXTENSION OF TIME.

I'M SURE THEY WILL BE, BUT YEAH, BECAUSE I DID AN EXTENSION.

YEAH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

GOT THE SAME ONE YOU DO.

LIKE IT'S A SUGGESTED YEP.

THAT'D BE DON DON ALTERNATE .

[00:21:00]

SHE WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH HER.

DID THEY GET IT? OKAY.

UH, APPEAR OKAY WITH IT.

I THINK, UH, LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU ALL 10 MINUTES.

WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH TIME? AND WE'LL GIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF, UH, EXTENSION TO THE VOLUNTEER AS WELL.

OKAY.

ADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, OUR APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY.

ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS SUSAN BARR AND I'M THE ACTING CHIEF PLANS EXAMINER AS WELL AS THE MANAGER OF RESIDENTIAL PLAN REVIEW.

OKAY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE INTENT OF SUBCHAPTER F IS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION REMODELING, AND ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THE STANDARDS ARE TO DESIGN.

I'M SORRY.

THE STANDARDS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF AUSTIN'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 2004, PRIOR TO 2000 AND SUBCHAPTER F WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2006.

SO PRIOR TO 2006, A HOUSE WAS ONLY LIMITED BY A 35 FOOT HEIGHT, 40% BUILDING COVERAGE AND 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER SUBCHAPTER F THEN INTRODUCED A 40% FLORIDA AREA RATIO OR 2300 SQUARE FEET.

WHICHEVER IS SMALLER AND REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO 32 FEET FOR SUBCHAPTER F GFA IS ALL ENCLOSED SPACE, REGARDLESS OF ITS DIMENSIONS THAT IS NOT EXEMPTED UNDER SUBSECTIONS 3.3 0.2 3.3 0.3 OR 3.3 0.4.

AND HERE ARE A COUPLE OF VISUAL

[00:25:01]

EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE SUBCHAPTER F EXEMPTIONS.

THEIR FIRST ONE IS 3.3 0.2, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO PARKING AREA EXEMPTIONS.

THE NEXT IS 3.3 0.3 BASEMENT AREA EXEMPTIONS.

UH, THE NEXT ONE IS 3.3 0.3 PORCH EXEMPTION.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE THE CONTINUATION OF 3.3 0.3, WHICH IS FOUR ATTIC EXEMPTIONS.

NEXT SLIDE AND HABITABLE ATTIC EXEMPTION.

THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER FOR THE ADDICT TO BE EXEMPT.

SO THE ROOF IS NOT FLAT OR MANSARD, IT HAS A SLOPE OF THREE TO 12 OR GREATER IS FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

IT HAS ONLY ONE FLOOR.

IT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FLOORS BELOW.

IT IS THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE PORTION OF THE BUILDING OR SECTION OF THE BUILDING AND ADDS NO ADDITIONAL MASS TO THE STRUCTURE.

AND THE LAST ITEM IS THE ITEM THAT WAS ADJUSTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, CODE INTERPRETATION IN 2011 SLASH 2015.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S 50% OR MORE HAS A CEILING HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET OR LESS NEXT PIECE.

AND THEN ROUNDING OUT THE EXEMPTIONS IS 3.3 0.4, WHICH TALKS ABOUT ENCLOSED AREA WITH HEIGHT OF FIVE FEET OR LESS.

AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE IT'S, UM, THE AREAS MEASURED ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTRA WALLS.

AND THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION UP TO EITHER THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF RAFTERS OR THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP CORD OF THE ROOF TRUST, BUT NOT TO THE COLLEGE, HIGHEST CEILING JOISTS OR ANY TYPE OF FOR DOWN CEILING NEXT.

SO THIS D THIS IS THE VISUAL FROM THE BOE CODE INTERPRETATION FROM 2011 SLASH 2012.

AND WHAT IT DID WAS IT, IT TOOK THAT LAST SECTION AND BROKE IT DOWN INTO CEILING HEIGHTS WITH THAT ARE FIVE FEET AND LESS LIKE THEY DON'T EVEN MATTER.

AND THEN WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A RATIO OF FIVE TO SEVEN AND SEVEN FEET ABOVE.

AND SO AT LEAST 50% HAS TO HAVE THE CEILING HEIGHT OF FIVE TO SEVEN FEET NEXT.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE CEILING HEIGHT RATIO, UM, THINK THIS IS JUST CUTTING WHAT I, WHAT I TALKED ABOUT, UM, THAT C 15, 2011 DASH 0 1 1 0, AND THE BILLING CRITERIA MANUAL SECTION 4.4 0.5 0.24, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CEILING HEIGHT RATIO USING ADDED CALCULATIONS IS MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 3.3 0.4.

AND WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT SUBSECTION 3.3 0.4, AS PARTICULAR TO THAT, THE CEILING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION UP TO EITHER THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF RAFTERS OR THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP CORD OF THE ROOF TRUST, BUT NOT TO THE COLLAR TIES CEILING JOISTS OR ANY TYPE OF FOR DOWN CEILING NEXT.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO SCISSOR TRUSSES, THIS WAS A DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE, UM, UH, 2021.

SO THE TOP AND BOTTOM CORD ARE CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER.

THE DETERMINATION WAS PARTICULAR TO A PROJECT, AND IT ESPECIALLY NOTED THAT FOR HIM DOWN AT CEILING, IN ORDER TO MITIGATE FUTURE USE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR THE ROOF CONFIGURATION SIMILAR TO 20.

AND I APOLOGIZE THAT SHOULD BE 22, 12 TRAIL SIDE.

IT WAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT YOU COULDN'T FIT DOWN THE CEILING SO THAT IT WOULD MITIGATE ANY KIND OF FUTURE USE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

SO IF WE LOOK AT THE IMAGES BELOW THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS A CONVENTIONAL SHED REFRAMING, THAT IS THAT GENERALLY YOU JUST HAVE TWO BYS AND THEY SPAN FROM BEARING POINT TO BEARING POINT, AND YOU CAN SEE IT GIVES YOU A REALLY NICE VOLUME VOLUMINOUS SPACE.

AND THEN IN REGARDS TO THE GRAPHIC THAT IS IN THE CENTER WITH THE OUTLINE IN RED, THAT IS THE TRUST FOR THE PROJECT AT 2212 TRAIL SIDE, AND HAD IT BEEN FRAMED IN A CONVENTIONAL MANNER.

THIS DISCUSSION WOULD ACTUALLY BE MOOT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THIS IS THE SECOND FLOOR PLAN FOR 2212 TRAIL SIDE DRIVE.

AND WHAT WE HAVE IN KIND OF THE AQUA COLOR IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COUNTS TOWARDS FLOOR AREA.

AND IN THE RED, WE HAVE THE AREA THAT'S NOT COUNTED TOWARDS GROSS FLOOR AREA BECAUSE THOSE AREAS DO MEET THE ATTIC EXEMPTION CRITERIA.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE AREA IN RED THAT THEN HAS A DIAGONAL HATCH PATTERN TOP OF IT.

THAT IS THE AREA OF THE HOUSE THAT IS IN QUESTION NEXT YEAR.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS JUST A QUICK GLIMPSE OF THE FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATION.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE AREAS

[00:30:01]

WHERE THE ATTICS ATTIC AREAS OCCUR.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A, A GENERAL LOOK AT THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE ATTIC AREAS NEXT PIECE.

SO THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE BEDROOM FOR FOUR SLASH OFFICE AREA THAT IS IN QUESTION NEXT, PLEASE.

AND THEN THIS JUST GIVES A MORE IN-DEPTH IN REGARDS TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

SO CEILING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION.

AND THIS ALSO IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 2011 VOA CODE INTERPRETATION AND IT'S TO THE, TO BE MEASURED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP QUARTER OF THE ROOF TRUST.

BUT WHAT HAS BEEN MEASURED HERE IS THE BOTTOM OF THE, WELL, IT'S JUST THE CEILING HAS BEEN MEASURED TO THE CEILING, THE FINISHED CEILING NEXT, PLEASE.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE TRUST DIAGRAM FOR THIS AREA OF THE HOUSE.

AND SO WHAT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE RED BOX ABOVE IS T3.

T3 IS THE TOP CORD.

AND SO HEIGHT IS ACTUALLY TO BE MEASURED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP CORD, WHICH IS T3.

AND ALSO, UM, THIS TRUST PRO PROFILE DOES NOT MATCH THE SECTION, THE BILLING SECTION THAT WAS JUST PRINTED IN THE SLIDE BEFORE NEXT SLIDE.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, WE, WE, WE LIKE TO KEEP WELL.

SO THERE THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CODES WITH TWO DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE IRC IS THE TECHNICAL BILLING CODE THAT PERTAINS TO BUILDING SAFETY AND HOW TO BUILD A STRUCTURE.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS A ZONING REGULATION FOR MASS SCALE AND COMPATIBILITY.

THE TECHNICAL BILLING CODE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IRC DO NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET FOR A ZONING EXEMPTION.

KEEPING IN MIND THAT SUB CHAPTER F ZONING REGULATIONS ARE ALL ABOUT ENCLOSED SPACE, REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS A BIDDABLE OR NOT NEXT, PLEASE.

SO RESULT OF APPEAL.

SO IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPROVES THE APPEAL AND RESIDENTIAL REVIEW REQUIRES EXEMPTED ATTIC AT I'M SORRY, HABITABLE ADDICTS TO ONLY MEET THE CRITERIA FOUND IN IRC SECTION ARE 3 26 0.3 AND NOT THE BOA CODE INTERPRETATION.

THEN SOME ADDICTS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE AND WOULD NOT EVEN QUALIFY.

ADDICTS WOULD BE LIMITED TO A MUCH SMALLER FLOOR AREA.

ADDICTS WOULD BE PERMITTED AT MUCH LARGER HEIGHTS AND ZONY REVIEWERS WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO REVIEW FOR TWO DIFFERENT CODES NEXT PIECE.

SO AT 2212 TRAILSIDE DRIVE, THE GROSS FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION IS AN OPTION THAT THAT MAY NOT BE VIABLE FOR EVERY ATTIC.

FOR EVERY PROJECT.

THE EXEMPTION IS PARTICULAR TO HABITABLE SPACE AS SUCH, NOT HABITABLE SPACES, NOT TO BE EXEMPT REMOVING THE CEILING AREA REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHED BY A C 15 20 11 0 1 1 0 AND THE BUILDING CRITERIA MANUAL SECTION 4.4 0.5 0.24 WOULD RESULT IN ROOF MASSES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER AND TALLER WHILE THE PROPOSED ATTIC IN THE SUBJECT PROJECT DOES NOT PENETRATE THE TENT.

ELIMINATING THE CEILING HEIGHT RATIO REQUIREMENT WOULD PERMIT MUCH LARGER, FULLY EXEMPTED ADDICTS THAT COULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE TENT NEXT, PLEASE.

AND THAT IS ALL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT ENDED UP BEING 12 AND A HALF MINUTES.

AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON AT THIS TIME? IT WAS VERY THOROUGH.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

WE WILL NOW HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPEALING PARTY OR THEIR LEAD REPRESENTATIVE.

COME ON DOWN TO THE DIRE, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU WILL HAVE 12 AND A HALF MINUTES.

OKAY.

MY NAME IS FELICIA FOSTER.

YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO MAKE SURE HE'S TEED UP WITH IT.

I SAW IT.

THERE HE IS.

OKAY.

YEAH, WE GOT IT TEED UP.

UM, YEAH.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING? I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF PAGES.

THERE YOU GO.

MY NAME IS FELICIA FOSTER PRINCIPAL WITH BARON CUSTOM DESIGN AND I WAS HIRED BY THE OWNER OF 2212 TRAIL SIDE TO DESIGN A CUSTOM HOME.

THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

IN MY 35 YEARS OF WORKING WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME PRESENTING TO THE BOA WE'RE HERE BECAUSE STAFF HAS CHANGED THEIR INTERPRETATION.

AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MINUTE.

AN APPLICATION OF THE HABITABLE ATTIC EXEMPTION WITH REGARDS TO CEILING HEIGHT, AND

[00:35:01]

WAS NO LONGER WILLING TO DISCUSS.

WE RELY ON CONSISTENT REVIEWS AND INTERPRETATIONS BY STAFF.

WE HAVE DONE NUMEROUS PROJECTS SINCE MCMANSION WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2006 THAT UTILIZE THE HABITABLE ATTIC AS AN AFFORDABLE WAY TO INCREASE THE USABILITY FOR THE OWNER, BUT KEEPING FROM CHANGING HOW THE HOUSE LOOKS FROM THE STREET AS OUR CITY GROWS AND PRICES CONTINUE TO PUSH FAMILIES OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FIND WAYS TO MEET, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A GROWING POPULATION.

BY ADDING MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE HOME WHILE MEETING THE CODES, THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIME TO DESIGN AND PERMIT INCREASES THE COST FOR EVERY SINGLE HOME BUILT IN THE CITY.

WE STARTED THE PERMIT SUBMITTAL PROCESS ON THIS ONE BACK IN NOVEMBER, 2021, WE'VE PASSED ALL DEPARTMENTS EXCEPT FOR THIS LAST ZONING ITEM.

THE HABITABLE ATTIC IS PROPOSED AS UTILIZING AN AREA THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE USED FOR STORAGE.

A MECHANICAL ATTIC ADDS NO MASS TO THE STRUCTURE AND AS WELL WITHIN THE MCMANSION TENT AND DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A FAMILY NEEDS A DEDICATED SPACE FOR REMOTE LEARNING, WORKING THE NEW ZOOM ROOM.

IF YOU WILL, WE BELIEVE 2212 TRAIL SIDE AS DESIGNED WITH THE BEDROOM FOR OFFICE HABITABLE AREA WEDGED INTO A SPACE THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE NON HABITABLE MEETS THE GFA EXEMPTION AND THE STAFF APPLICATION OF 3.3 0.4 IS INCORRECT BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS.

ONE, 3.3 0.4 REFERS TO AN EXTERIOR WALL.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXTERIOR WALL.

WE ARE INTERNAL.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEIGHT AND A CEILING HEIGHT.

SO THE PROPOSED HABITABLE ATTIC DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXTERNAL WALLS.

SECTION A OF 3.3 0.4 AND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PROPOSED EXEMPTED SPACE HAS A CEILING HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET, 3.3 0.4 B MEASURED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE HORIZONTAL MEMBER OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE REFERS TO HEIGHT AND NOT CEILING HEIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENCE THERE IN ORDER TO APPLY IN ORDER TO APPLY 3.3 0.4, YOU REALLY HAVE TO MEET BOTH BECAUSE IT IS ONE AND THE OTHER, NOT ONE OR THE OTHER THINK OF EXTERIOR AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT AND INTERIOR, AS IT RELATES TO CEILING HEIGHT, GROSS FLOOR AREA MEANS THE TOTAL.

THIS IS DIRECTLY OUT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS.

3.3 0.4, AN ENCLOSED AREA SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.

IF IT IS FIVE FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION AREA IS MEASURED ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS.

AND HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR, ELEVATION UP TO EITHER THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF RAFTERS OR THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP CORD OF THE ROOF TRUST, BUT NOT THE COLLAR TIE CEILING JOYCE OR ANY TYPE OF FOR DOWN CEILING.

SO BASICALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING IS WE'RE TRYING TO CONTROL MASS.

WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT WHERE THIS SECTION DOESN'T EVEN APPLY TO OUR HOUSE BECAUSE WE ARE INTERNAL WE'RE INSIDE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

WE'RE INSIDE THE MASS OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PATHWAYS TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTIONS.

ONE PARKING, WHICH SUSAN ILLUSTRATED IN HER, UM, PARKING PORCHES, BASEMENTS ADDICTS, 3.3 0.3 AND 3.3 0.4 IS FOR AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT.

THAT'S SPECIFIC TO 3.3 0.4 ADDICTS ARE A DIFFERENT SECTION.

THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE USING IS 3.3 0.3 FOR HABITABLE ATTIC.

SO YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA IN ORDER TO QUALIFY, AND I'M GOING TO BE HIGHLIGHTING THE TWO HEIGHT VERSUS CEILING HEIGHT, AND I'VE DONE IT IN MY PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

THE ROOF ABOVE IT IS NOT FLAT OR MANSARD HAS A SLOPE OF THREE, 12 OR GREATER FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

OKAY.

SO IF I HAVE A ROOF STRUCTURE AND MY ATTIC IS FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN THAT ROOF STRUCTURE, IT QUALIFIES.

IT ONLY HAS ONE FLOOR.

IT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FLOORS BELOW.

IT'S THE HIGHEST HABITABLE PORTION OF THE SECTION OF THE BUILDING AND ADDS NO MASS TO THE STRUCTURE.

AND 50% OF MORE OF THE AREA HAS A CEILING HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET OR LESS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE AREA OF BEDROOM FOR OFFICE HAS A MAX CEILING HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET IN ORDER TO ALLOW HPAC DUCTING TO ACCESS THE ROOM FROM THE MECHANICAL MECHANICAL ABOVE THE CEILING STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED WITH A TRUST IN ORDER TO PROVIDE STABILITY BECAUSE IT IS WEDGED BETWEEN THE FRONT MECHANICAL AREA AND THE BACK OF VAULTED CEILING.

I DON'T HAVE AN EXTERIOR WALL TO PROVIDE

[00:40:01]

EGRESS TO HABITABLE ATTIC.

SO I HAVE SKYLIGHTS.

I HAVE EGRESS SKYLIGHTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS.

IF YOU NEED TO GET OUT IN CASE OF A FIRE, IN ORDER TO SPAN THOSE SKYLIGHTS, I HAVE TO DO A ROOF TRUST TO CARRY THAT WE DID THE ROOF TRUST.

WE KEPT IT AT SEVEN FOOT.

WE MEET ALL OF THE QUALIFICATIONS WITHIN THAT BOX.

THIS IS THE SECTION OF THAT IS ALSO THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE HOUSE.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING ABOVE AN ATTIC ABOVE A SECOND FLOOR.

WE'RE NOT ADDING MASS.

WE'RE WORKING.

THIS IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, NOT A THIRD FLOOR OR NOT ABOVE PLATE.

THE HABITABLE ATTIC IS ALL WITHIN THE ROOF AREA OF THE SECTION.

YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE SEC, THE SECOND DRAWING UP THERE, THE SKYLIGHTS ARE OPERABLE AND THE ATTIC IS WITHIN IT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE THE STAIR TOWER ABOVE IT.

CEILING HEIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADOPTED 2021 IRC, THE R 2 0 2 IN IRC DEFINED CEILING HEIGHT.

THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF CEILING HEIGHT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

UM, THE CEILING HEIGHT IS DEFINED AT THE CLEAR VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR TO THE FINISHED CEILING.

SO WHEN I AM DESIGNING AND I HAVE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT'S DIRECTING CEILING HEIGHT, I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR A DEFINITION OF CEILING HEIGHT.

AND BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND BY THE 2021 IRC, THAT CODE STANCE OR THAT DEFINITION STANDS.

SO HERE WE HAVE A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

WE HAVE 3.3 0.4 THAT'S FOR AREAS OF FIVE FEET MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL.

AND THEN WE HAVE 3.3 0.3 THAT'S IT'S FOCUSED ON HABITABLE ADDICTS, 3.3 0.4 FOCUSES ON HEIGHT, 3.3 0.3 FOCUSES ON CEILING HEIGHT.

SO IT'S, IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING AND THINGS HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.

UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THIS IS A SECTION 3.3 0.4, AS IT'S WRITTEN DIRECTLY FROM SUBCHAPTER F AND YOU CAN SEE SECTION A SAYS, AREAS MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE AT THE EXTERIOR WALL.

AND HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR UP TO EITHER THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF RAFTERS OR THE BOTTOM, BUT WE DON'T EVEN GET TO BE, WE HAVEN'T PASSED A YET.

SO THAT'S WHY 3.3 0.4 DOESN'T APPLY IT'S FOR AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE A GABLE END THAT YOU HAVE A TALL WALL, THEN YOU'RE TRYING TO EXEMPT YOUR HABITABLE ATTIC AREA.

THIS PROJECT IS NOT EVEN TRYING TO CLAIM THAT ONE.

IT'S GOING IT'S ALL FULLY UNDER 3.3 0.3.

SO 25, 1 21, WHICH I ALREADY, I ALREADY READ THE GROSS FLOOR AREAS.

ANYTHING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF SIX FEET, 3.3 0.4 IS ANYTHING FIVE FEET.

SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR CODE 3.3 0.4 FURTHER ELABORATES, HOW TO MEASURE THAT HEIGHT TO NOT SO PEOPLE AREN'T ARTIFICIALLY, UM, FURRING DOWN A CEILING BECAUSE IT'S MEASURED ON THE OUTSIDE WALL.

SO IT'S MEASURED TO THE UNDERNEATH OF THOSE ROOF RAFTERS UNDERNEATH OF THE ROOF TRUSS.

THERE'S NO MENTION ON 3.3 0.4 CEILING HEIGHT, 3.3 0.4 ALSO, UM, DEALS WITH AREAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE FIVE FEET OR MORE.

THEY NEED TO BE CALCULATED IN GROSS FLOOR AREA.

UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO HERE'S ANOTHER, UM, FLOOR PLAN.

SUSAN HAD A GOOD GRAPHIC.

SHE SHOWED WHERE OUR SEVEN, WHERE OUR ATTIC EXEMPTED ADDICTS, WHERE THIS IS ACTUALLY SHOWING WHERE OUR SEVEN FOOT CEILINGS ARE.

AND IT'S ALL OF THE AREA.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE MY THREE SKYLIGHTS ARE OVER THE BEDROOM FOR OFFICE AND THAT THERE'S NO EXTERIOR WALLS.

SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO SPAN IT WITH A ROOF TRUST.

AND IT'S ACTUALLY A GIRDER TRUST.

IT'S GOING TO GO FROM FRONT TO BACK HABITABLE ATTIC, AREA, BEDROOM FOUR, UM, SECTION IT'S IN AN AREA THAT IF I DIDN'T MAKE IT HABITABLE, IT WOULD STILL QUALIFY AS AN EXEMPTED SPACE.

SO I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE EXEMPTED UNDER GROSS FLOOR AREA BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET 3.3 0.4.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN AGAIN, I SKIPPED ONE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

UM, SO TO THE BOA INTERPRETATION, I HAVE GONE OVER THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE LIKE SUSAN REFERENCES IN HER LETTER, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.

UM, I'VE DONE

[00:45:01]

TO THIS DATE ABOUT 22,000 HOUSES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

AND I HAVE READ THE CODE FORWARD AND BACKWARDS.

I ACTUALLY HAVE TABBED PAGES FOR EVERY SINGLE CODE DATING BACK TO 1991, WHICH IS A PAIN TO MOVE AROUND.

WHEN YOU CHANGE OFFICES, WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOA INTERPRETATION, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS RIGHT, BUT IT WAS WRONG.

I FEEL LIKE THE BOE INTERPRETATION SAID, HEY, THIS MOUNT MANEL PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO COUNT IT THIS WAY, THAT MOUNT BRUNEL PROJECT, GUESS WHAT THEY HAD THAT WE DON'T HAVE NEXT YEAR, A WALL THEY'RE LIKE YOU CAN'T ARTIFICIALLY GO IN THERE AND PUT A FLOOR AND NOW EXEMPT YOUR ATTIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT SECOND FLOOR MASS.

YOU HAVE THAT MASS IN THERE.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

WE'RE, WE'RE PLATING OUR ROOF FROM THE LOWER LEVEL, FROM THE FIRST FLOOR UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR.

WE'RE NOT ADDING A FLOOR AREA AND ADDING MASS WE'RE SIX FEET FROM THE TENT.

WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO PENETRATING THE TENT.

AND WE ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO ADD THE MASS ON THAT SIDE BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORS.

WE'VE GOT NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE.

SO PART OF MY PRESENTATION HERE IS I HAVE AN EMAIL FROM SUSAN.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF US THAT, YOU KNOW, SEND EMAILS TO CODE REVIEWERS AND SEND EMAILS TO EACH OTHER LIKE, HEY, HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH THIS? WHAT WAS SAID, WHAT WAS DONE? UM, AND I HAVE ATTACHED SUSAN'S EMAIL THAT SAID, WE REFER TO CEILING HEIGHT AND I'LL READ IT.

AND SUSAN BAR'S OWN WORDS FROM AN EMAIL APRIL 15TH.

SHE VERY CLEARLY MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CEILING HEIGHT AND HEIGHT AND FURTHER ELABORATES.

A CEILING HEIGHT IS NOT MEASURED TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE TOP QUARTER OF THE TRUST, BUT IN FACT, MEASURE TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE BOTTOM QUARTER OF THE TRUST, WHICH IS ACTUALLY DEFINED CEILING HEIGHT, SUSAN BAR'S EMAIL WAS SPECIFIC TO CASE 20 21 0 1 9 24 PR REGARDING HOW TO APPROPRIATELY MEASURE CEILING HEIGHT UNDER A ROOF TRUST STRUCTURE MEASURE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TOP QUARTER MEASURE TO THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS MY 12 AND A HALF MINUTES OR NOT MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT.

SO NEXT PAGE, I'M JUST GOING TO WRAP IT UP.

YEAH.

SO ATTACHED TO THE LETTER.

UM, AND THE THIRD SECTION THERE, IT SAYS IN REGARDS TO MEASURING FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ATTIC EXEMPTION, THE BCM CLEARLY CALLS OUT CEILING HEIGHT FOR ATTIC EXEMPTION THOUGH, THE BOA DETERMINES JUST SAYS HEIGHT WITH BCM, NOTING CEILING HEIGHT.

WE GO WITH CEILING HEIGHT.

THE KEEP IN MIND FOR HIM DOWN FROM THE ROOF STRUCTURE WOULD NOT MEET CODE.

THAT'S WHAT WE FOLLOWED.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

IS CARRIE WALLER STILL ON THE PHONE? JUST JOINED CHAIR.

THERE WE GO.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S RIGHT.

HOPING TO SEE.

SO LET'S, LET'S LIKE CARRIE, GET LOGGED IN AND THEN I'M GONNA OKAY.

AND TELL HER KELLY'S CAT IS MAKING ME LAUGH.

I'M HERE.

HI.

WE HAVE TO SEE YOUR FACE.

WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE.

RIGHT? STARTING MY VIDEO.

SUPER.

SO DID YOU HEAR THE PRESENTATIONS CARRY? I DID.

I'VE BEEN ABLE TO HEAR AND SEE EVERYTHING.

OKAY.

BUT THIS WEBEX HAS BEEN FREEZING ON ME.

UM, AND NOW IT'S SPINNING.

SO I'M HOPING THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE ANOTHER CRASH.

I APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

TRUMAN FEELS REALLY BAD FOR YOU.

OH, THANKS.

NO TRUMAN BREAKS TONIGHT.

HUH? CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN WOULD, WOULD COME AND GIVE YOU SOME, SOME ATTENTION JUST FOR THAT.

HE'S A HUNDRED POUNDS NOW, WHILE I'M WAITING FOR YOUR VIDEO, IT'S STILL SPINNING.

WELL, AT LEAST I KNOW YOU'RE THERE AND THAT YOU, YOU HEARD EVERYTHING AND YOU SAW EVERYTHING.

YES.

SO ONCE WE KIND OF GET GOING HERE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE US ON FOR RIGHT NOW.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS BY CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL? OKAY.

COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

[00:50:01]

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, UH, STATE, WHETHER YOU ARE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED, PLEASE.

UM, HOW DO, UH, MY NAME IS ADAM TELE ANTI-ITCH AND I AM FOR, UM, THIS APPEALS PROCESS OR THIS CASE.

UM, I'M THE ONE THAT DESIGNED THE CASE IN QUESTION WITH ER, SUSAN'S EMAIL THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER.

UM, WE WITH HASH WORKS, DESIGNED SMALL LITTLE HOMES.

WE ONLY DO A FEW.

WE'VE ONLY DONE LIKE 20 PROJECTS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.

UM, BUT I THINK IT'S SUPER IMPORTANT WITH THIS ONE.

I FEEL LIKE THE BOA, A RULING ON HABITABLE ADDICTS, UM, GOT IT KIND OF RIGHT, BUT NOT ALL THE WAY RIGHT.

FROM 2012.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHY I WANT TO BE HERE IS THAT I FEEL LIKE FELICIA'S PROJECT SATISFIES THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO UNDERSTANDING THE NUANCE OF THIS.

AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME.

SUSAN BARR RESPECT THE HECK OUT OF HER AND HER PREDECESSOR, DANIEL WORD.

UM, IT'S COMPLICATED.

BUT WHEN YOU GET TO 3.3, ONE, 3.1, THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT SAYS GFA MEANS ALL ENCLOSED AREAS.

THAT'S NOT EXEMPTED UNDER SUBSECTIONS 3.3 0.2, 3.3 0.3 OR 3.3 0.4.

SO THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS.

3.3 0.4 IS THERE TO MODIFY GFA.

SO THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION UNDER THE LDC, UH, IN OUR LDC 25, 1 21 FOR DEFINITIONS OF GFA, IT SAYS SIX FEET.

IT SAYS LET'S MODIFY THIS TO FIVE FEET AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T FOR IT DOWN.

AND IT SAYS THE WORD HEIGHT.

AND IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS SUBSECTION, AND IT SAYS ONLY THIS SUBSECTION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE OTHER SUBSECTIONS.

THEY ATTIC EXEMPTION IS A SEPARATE SUBSECTION AND IT USES AN IRC DEFINED TERM CEILING HEIGHT, WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS WITH THE IRC IS WAY BEFORE 2021 HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOREVER.

IT'S TWO SEPARATE EXERCISES AND THE 2012, UH, BOA DETERMINATION SHOULDN'T HAVE EXCLUDED ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE FEET.

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS.

UNDER 3.3 0.3, IT SAYS AVERAGE HEIGHT DETERMINED BY CEILING HEIGHT.

SO FINISHED FLOOR TO YOUR FINISHED CEILING.

THAT'S IT? YOU DON'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE FEET BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS CALCULATION.

IT IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY JUST WHAT I WANT TO GET EVERYONE TO FOCUS ON IS THE SPECIFIC WORDS AND THE INTENT AND WHY THEY'RE EVEN THERE THREE POINTS, 3.4 WAS REALLY JUST A MODIFIED AUSTIN'S GFA DEFINITION DOWN FROM SIX TO FIVE FEET AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T ARTIFICIALLY FOR IT DOWN, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID THAT.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTERS FOR AGAINST SEEING NONE NEXT? WE WOULD HAVE REBUTTAL, BUT, WELL, ACTUALLY THERE IS NOTHING TO ROBOT BECAUSE THE OPPOSITION RIGHT REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY, UM, THE OPTION TO REBUT IS THERE.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE IT A REBUTTAL AGAINST, THANK YOU.

IT'S IT SAYS REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY THREE MINUTES, ONE SEC.

YEAH.

IT'S NOT STUFF THAT'S APPEALING PARTY COMMENTS BY CITIZENS AND SUPPORTIVE OFFICE.

AND THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

UH, WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY INTERPRETATION APPEALS AND THIS IS MY FIRST HIS CHAIR.

SO MAYBE A LITTLE BUMPY, BUT WE'LL GET THERE A BOTTLE BY THE PARTY IS THREE MINUTES PEELING PARTY NUMB.

SO, UH, SO I, I WAS CORRECT.

IT WOULD BE Y'ALL IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A, HAVE A REBUTTAL, DO YOU? SURE.

SURE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS.

UM, ONE, UH, SUSAN MENTIONED IRC AND HABITABLE ADDICTS, AND I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD.

SO THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADOPTED 2021 IRC LAST SEPTEMBER.

AND THIS IS THE FIRST CODE BOOK DATING ALL THE WAY BACK TO ACTUALLY QUEBEC, WHICH IS WAY BACK THERE.

UM, THAT HAS A SECTION ON HABITABLE ATTIC, AND SHE REFERRED TO THE SECTION REGARDING STORIES.

THAT'S ONLY ONE SECTION UNDER HABITABLE ATTIC.

THERE'S TWO OTHER SECTIONS ON OUR HABITABLE ATTIC.

ONE DETERMINES A MINIMUM CEILING

[00:55:01]

HEIGHT, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE DETERMINES EGRESS.

SO WE'VE GOT EGRESS, WE'VE GOT CEILING HEIGHT THAT IS DIRECTED BY CODE.

SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXEMPTING SQUARE FOOTAGE UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I'M STILL BOUND BY IRC BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO INSPECT UNDER.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD UNDER.

SO I STILL HAVE TO MEET THE PROVISIONS OF A HABITABLE ATTIC UNDER IRC.

UM, ONE MORE SECTION.

UM, ONE MORE THING IS THE BOA INTERPRETATION.

AND I KIND OF WENT THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT A OF THE BOA INTERPRETATION FROM 2012, IT SAYS THREE THINGS.

ONE MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 3.3 0.4 COMMA, 50% OR MORE EXEMPTED PORTION MUST HAVE A HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET, BUT MORE THAN LESS THAN SEVEN FEET, BUT MORE THAN FIVE FEET.

I THINK THAT THEY, I THINK THAT'S A TYPO BECAUSE 3.3 0.4, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 50% OR MORE.

SO IT'S SAYING MEASURING THE HEIGHT AND THEN 50%.

UM, AND THEN ALSO B IT SAYS THE EXEMPTED PORTION OF AN ATTIC MUST BE LIMITED TO ROOMS FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPACES FOR USE FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING, COOKING, ALL BATHROOMS, TOILETS, CIRCULATION.

SO I'M REQUIRED TO MEET THE CODE ACCORDING TO BOA.

AND I CAN'T MEET STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AND STILL MEET THE CODE BECAUSE THEY'RE TELLING ME THAT MY CEILING HAS TO BE MEASURED FROM TO THE VERY TOP.

AND SO IF I HAVE TO, FOR THAT CEILING DOWN, OR THAT CEILING HAS TO COME DOWN, THEN IT'S NO LONGER HABITABLE SPACE.

THAT'S MY POINT.

THAT'S ALL.

ALRIGHT, THANKS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD.

AND IF YOU SAY IT'S THIS WHERE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET'S, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET CARRIE WALLER CONNECTED AND PUSHES ON A SCREEN-SHARE, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING HER VIDEO.

SHE CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THAT'S HER.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF HER VIDEO IS WORKING, BUT HOPEFULLY SHE CAN GET THAT FIGURED OUT ON HER END.

I CAN'T SEE HER SETTINGS, CARRIE, HOW I WOULD LOOK IN.

NOPE.

WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOUR FACE WHEN YOU, MY NAME MIGHT ASK MS. BARRA QUESTION, UH, WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON BOARD MEMBER WALLER, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.

YEAH.

YOU JUST CAN'T SEE YOU.

OKAY.

YEAH.

MY, UH, MY HOP, MY HOMES INTERNET IS OUT, SO I'VE CALLED INTO THE MEETING ON MY PHONE.

OKAY.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN COUNT YOUR VOTE UNLESS WE CAN SEE YOU.

AND I REALLY DON'T MIND START THE QUESTIONS UNTIL WE CAN SEE HER VIDEO BECAUSE I DON'T WANT HER TO, UH, SHE'S GOING TO BE PART OF MY BOAT.

THERE WE GO.

THERE YOU GO.

THAT'LL DO ALL RIGHT.

THAT WORKS.

YOU'RE NOT A CAT.

I'M NOT HI, CARRIE.

I'M GOING TO NEED TO RECALL THE ROLE SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT, UH, CARRIES ON THERE.

SO START THE TOP AGAIN.

UH, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME ANNOUNCED HERE, TOMMY EIGHTS, EAR JESSICA COHEN, I'M HERE, LISSA HAWTHORNE, BARBARA MACARTHUR HERE.

DARYL PUT YOUR AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL VON OLIN, CARRIE WALLER, KELLY BLOOM HERE AND MARCEL GARZA YOU'RE.

AND THAT, THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR THE, COULD YOU, COULD YOU LOOK INTO FINDING OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL PROPER ARE, IF THERE IS ANY DEFINED PROCEDURE FOR WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S HAVING VIDEO TROUBLE, UH, HOW WE SHOULD HANDLE, LIKE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO RECALL THE ROLE EVERY TIME? OR CAN WE JUST DO THAT ONE PERSON ONCE THEY'VE OVERCOME THE TECHNICAL ISSUES? BECAUSE JUST EASIER TO RECALL THE RULES PRESERVE THE RECORD.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S TAKING A LOT OF TIME FROM THE MEETING IT'S ALREADY LONG.

OKAY.

LET'S START WITH QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ON THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL.

I THINK VICE-CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

I ALREADY SAW YOUR HAND SHOOT UP.

YOU WANT TO START WELL? AND I WANTED TO ASK MS. BARN

[01:00:01]

BEING THAT WE HAD A REBUTTAL FROM ONE SIDE, IF THERE WAS ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, I HAD A QUESTION ON, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL ME AFTER ALL OF THAT BEING THAT YOU WERE POISED AND THEY WERE POISED AT THE SAME TIME.

THANK YOU.

UH, SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF ITEMS FIRST AT THE 2011 BOA CODE INTERPRETATION.

IT BORROWED ITEMS FROM 3.3 0.4, IN REGARDS TO HOW HIGH IT IS TO BE MEASURED.

IT, IT DIDN'T BORROW ALL OF THE ITEMS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO EXTERIOR WALLS.

IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECT AT 2212 TRAIL SIDE, THE FRAMING ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE ACTUALLY STARTS WITH A GABLE RAFTER FRAMED STRUCTURE, AND THEN IT TRANSITIONS TO THE TRUST WHICH ADDS MASS TO THE SPACE AND THEN TRANS POSITIONS BACK TO A GABLE RAFTER CONSTRUCTION.

IN REGARDS TO MY EMAIL, IT CONTAINS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REGARDING NOT FURRING DOWN A CEILING SO THAT DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE USED IN FUTURE SITUATIONS, SUCH AS 22, 12 TRAIL SIDE.

UM, THE, THE IMMIGRANTS ARE 3 26 0.3.

THE ONLY NEW ITEM WAS IN REGARDS TO WHEN AN ATTIC IS CONSIDERED A STORY.

ALL OTHER ITEMS WITHIN THAT CODE SECTION HAVE BEEN IN THE IRC FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

SUBCHAPTER F ATTIC EXEMPTION IS JUST ABOUT WHETHER THE SPACE CAN BE EXEMPTED OR NOT.

IF IT CAN'T BE EXEMPT, THEN THE HOUSE JUST NEEDS TO GET A LITTLE SMALLER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT SPACE.

AND THEN IF THE SPACE DOESN'T MEET THE EXTENDED DEFINITION OF HABITABLE SPACE IN THE BOA CODE INTERPRETATION, THEN IT'S JUST SPACE THAT CAN'T BE EXEMPT.

AND THAT'S IT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO INVALIDATE IRC REQUIREMENTS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CITY STAFF A QUESTION.

UM, I READ EVERYTHING YOU WROTE AND YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THIS STARTING A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD IMPACT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CAUSED THINGS TO EXTEND BEYOND THE MCMANSION, UM, DIAGRAM.

SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT MORE EXPLICITLY? YES.

SO IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO MODIFY THE BOA CODE INTERPRETATION FROM 2011 AND TAKE ITEMS OF THE 2021 IRC, THEN FIRST OF ALL, OUR 3 26 0.3 IS SPECIFIC TO ONE.

AN ATTIC IS CONCERNED A STORY.

AND SO IF YOU HAVE THESE ADDICTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED A STORY NOW FROM THE 2000, FROM THE 2021 IRC, THEN, THEN YOU'RE DONE LIKE YOU CAN'T EXEMPT THAT SPACE AT ALL.

EVEN THOUGH CURRENT CODE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO EXEMPT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT WILL THEN ALSO MAKE ATTIC AREAS SMALLER THAT CAN BE EXEMPT.

IT WOULD ALSO MAKE, COULD POSSIBLY MAKE ADDICTS TALLER.

AND I, I THINK THAT IS, UH, COVERS IT BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.

SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT EVERYTHING GO WITH GOING FORWARD WOULD BE REVIEWED IN A DIFFERENT WAY? IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO REVISE THE VOA CODE INTERPRETATION FROM 2011, THEN DEPENDING ON HOW THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GO ABOUT CHANGING THAT LANGUAGE WOULD THEN CHANGE AND CAUSE A NEW DIRECTION FOR HOW PROJECTS ARE REVIEWED BOARD MEMBER BY NOLAN, UM, COMMISSIONER MACARTHUR.

AND I WAS ACTUALLY ON THE BOARD WHEN WE WRESTLED THIS PIG IN THE ALLEY, WE ALL GOT DIRT ON US.

IT WAS, YOU WERE WITH US TOO.

SO BOTH MELISSA AND I ARE FAMILIAR WITH HOW MUCH AGONY IT WAS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND I, WE, WE RECOGNIZED VERY WELL AT THAT TIME THAT IT WASN'T PERFECT, BUT IT WAS THE BEST WE COULD DO AT THE TIME.

THINGS WERE GETTING OUT OF MY HAND WITH MCMANSIONS AND, AND ALL THINGS.

UH, MY FEELING ABOUT THIS, UH, INTERPRETATION, AND I'M GOING TO THROW MY STANCE OUT THERE.

WE STILL HAVE TO VOTE IS THAT I WILL STILL SUPPORT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, BUT THIS CASE IN CASES LIKE THIS, I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY,

[01:05:03]

IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS BASICALLY A REMODEL OF AN ENCLOSED AREA IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, UH, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON NEW CONSTRUCTION, THAT WHOLE TRUST AND EVERYTHING.

THAT'S ALL NEW, AN ENTIRE TRUST.

THAT'S A SINGLE STORY HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

WELL THEN IN THIS CASE, THEN IT'S PRETTY MUCH A CUT AND DRY SITUATION.

I FEEL TO SOME OF THESE WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS, IF, IF THOSE EXISTING TRUSTS IS BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT, UM, THE PRESENTATION AND I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT SECTION WAS ALREADY FRAMED OUT, THE ROOF WAS ALREADY THERE.

THEY WERE GOING TO INSTALL THE, UH, WINDOWS IN THE ROOF, WHICH BASICALLY I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY INSTALLING WINDOWS ON THE ROOF.

IT WOULD ACTUALLY, YOU INSTALL WINDOWS AND WALLS.

I'VE NEVER USED SKYLIGHTS AND ROOFS, BUT IN ALL MY YEARS, 30, SOME CLOSE TO 40 SOME YEARS OF IN CONSTRUCTION, I'VE NEVER INSTALLED A WORKING GATE WINDOW IN THE ROOF.

SO TO ME THAT, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY, THAT'S SPLITTING HAIRS, IF THIS WASN'T AN ENCLOSED AREA, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SERVED FOR THE APPLICANTS TO COME AND REQUEST A VARIANCE.

BECAUSE WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION ON A CODE INTERPRETATION, WE ARE WRITING CODE WE'RE CHANGING CODE, AND I AM VERY HESITANT TO OPEN THE BARN DOORS AND LET THE HORSES RUN FREE.

UM, BY HAVING PEOPLE COME IN AND REQUEST A VARIANCE.

AND WE'VE, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE REQUEST VARIANCES FOR ADDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FAR, IF IT'S NOT OUTLANDISH THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND SOME GET GRANTED SOME DON'T, IT DEPENDS ON, ON HOW WELL THEIR PRESENTATION IS.

IF THIS SITUATION WAS ONE WHERE THAT ROOF WAS ALREADY THERE, THE TRUST WAS ALREADY THERE.

EVERYTHING WAS EXISTING.

AND IT WAS ENCLOSED AS IS.

I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANTS COME BACK AND REQUEST A VARIANCE, HAVING BEEN INFORMED THAT THAT WHOLE SECTION RIGHT THERE IS GOING TO BE ALL NEW SECTION THAN CLEARLY TO ME.

UH, I THINK EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A PERFECT, UH, BOA INTERPRETATION BACK IN 2012, I THINK IT'S THE BEST THAT WE'VE GOT.

AND I'M VERY RETICENT AT, AT, UH, CHANGING IT AT THIS POINT UNTIL, UNTIL, UH, CITY, UH, THE CODE'S REWRITTEN AND IT'S ADDRESSED IN A BETTER MANNER.

ONCE WE MAKE THAT DECISION, WE'RE BASICALLY TELLING ANY, ANY BUILDER, ANY DEVELOPER, ANYBODY THAT THEY, THEY CAN ADD ON TO THIS AREA AND GET EXEMPTION FOR IT.

AND I JUST, I, I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I HOPE THAT CLARIFIED WHAT YOU WERE, WHAT YOU WERE, UH, YOUR QUESTION UM, I WOULD ALSO BE, UH, SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION IN THIS MATTER.

I WAS HERE FOR THE FIRST CASE AND, UH, THE DANIEL WORD MEMO, THE LONG DISCUSSIONS, THE, UM, QUITE AGONIZING EXPERIENCE.

UH, AND I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT IS PRETTY CLEAR.

AND WHILE WE'VE ADOPTED THE IRC AND THE IRC IS A TECHNICAL CODE, THIS IS ABOUT MASS AND COMPATIBILITY.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SECOND FLOOR AREA, IT'S THIS SPACE OVER TO THE SIDE, AND IT HAS A MECHANICAL ATTIC DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND PUTTING A PIECE OF SHEET ROCK THERE.

DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.

SO I, UM, AM SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION, THE BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.

UM, YEAH, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S A BIT OF A CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION THAT BECAUSE THE SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT OF THE FINISHED CEILING IS SO SIGNIFICANT TO WHETHER YOU GET THE EXEMPTION OR NOT, THAT YOU CAN DESIGN SO THAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE THAT, OR YOU COULD DESIGN, SO YOU DON'T ACHIEVE THAT.

AND SINCE IT ISN'T A BUILT STRUCTURE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CURRENT BUILDING ART, EXCUSE ME, FINISH CEILING HEIGHT DOES SEEM SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY IN WHICH CASE THERE MAY BE A DESIGN SOLUTION HERE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE CHANGING THE PREVIOUS, UM, INTERPRETATION.

SO,

[01:10:01]

I MEAN, IN A NUTSHELL, I, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING ART OF I I'M IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, BUT I ACTUALLY WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF LOOKING AT IT AS A POTENTIAL VARIANCE IF, UM, THERE WERE OTHER, OBVIOUSLY OTHER CONDITIONS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN PLAY BOARD MEMBER GARZA, I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, UM, THE STAFF, HOW OFTEN, UM, ARE, IS THIS INTERPRETATION, THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION BEING CITED, UM, IN CASES THAT YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTALLY JUST ANY CODE INTERPRETED, M SORRY, ANY PROJECT THAT HAS AN ATTIC EXEMPTION IN IT FOLLOWS THE 2011 VOA CODE INTERPRETATION.

IS IT TYPICALLY A CONTENTIOUS KIND OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OR IS IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHOLE PROCESS IT'S NOT USUALLY CONTENTIOUS? UM, THERE'S DEFINITELY CAN BE SOME BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE, THE PLANS EXAMINER TO GET TO AN UNDERSTANDING IN REGARDS TO HOW THE 2011 CODE INTERPRETATION IS TO BE MET.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

MAYBE MR. LLOYD MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS BETTER.

UM, I ADMIT I'M A LITTLE HESITANT AT THIS TIME TO MODIFY, UH, THE BOS ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WEEDING THROUGH AND RESEARCHING, AND THAT THIS MIGHT BE MORE PROBLEM FOR CODES AND ORDINANCES THAN ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE THIS IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE RULES AND THE BUILDING CRITERIA MANUAL AND THE 2021 IRC, RIGHT.

MY WORK IN THE CORRECTLY.

YEAH.

I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.

IF YOU HAVE, UH, AN IDEA FOR HOW THE INTERPRETATION COULD BE IMPROVED, THAT CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO YOU.

I DON'T SEE A CLEAR SOLUTION.

THIS IS A DIFFICULT PIECE OF CODE.

UM, AND DEFINITELY THE PROCESS OF PURSUING CODE AMENDMENTS OR CODE CHANGES IS AVAILABLE.

I WILL ADD IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME JUST FOR 30 SECONDS OR SO THAT, UM, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE, IT'S, IT'S NOT A MODEL OF CLARITY AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT ARE JUST NOT CLEAR WHERE WE HAVE TO LOOK BY ANALOGY TO OTHER PROVISIONS AND TRY TO MAKE THE BEST OF IT.

AND I THINK ONE POINT THAT SUSAN MADE IS THAT WE DIDN'T JUST APPLY HOOK LINE AND SINKER ALL OF 3.3 0.4, THE PRIOR BOARD IN 2011 OR 12, UM, SELECTIVELY ADAPTED A PROVISION FROM 3.3 0.4 FOR PURPOSES OF CEILING HEIGHT.

THAT MADE SENSE IN CONTEXT.

UM, I ALSO JUST WANT TO ADD, AND I THINK SUSAN MAY HAVE SAID THIS, THAT IT'S NOT CORRECT, THAT YOU CAN'T MEET BOTH THE IRC REQUIREMENTS AND THE MCMANSION REQUIREMENTS.

YOU JUST WON'T BE EXEMPT ALL THE TIME.

THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE DEFAULT RULES ARE UNDER MCMANSION AND TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXCEPTION.

SO THERE ISN'T A DIRECT CONFLICT.

UH, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET