[00:00:05]
[CALL TO ORDER]
ON MARCH 13TH, 2023.I HEREBY CALL THE SPEEDING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
AM I MISSING ON? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND ONE SEC.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.
HOW MANY DOES THAT GIVE US? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
AND THEN ARE YOU COUNTING ME? I DIDN'T, KELLY, CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
KELLY, CAN YOU HEAR THE DIAS? OKAY.
SO IT'S JUST ME, JESSICA, AND THINK YOU NEED TO CALL JANELLE PAUL, WHO? OUR NEW BOARD MEMBER.
KELLY, CAN YOU HEAR US? CAN YOU I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
SORRY FOR THE AUDIO QUALITY FOR THE, YES.
SHE'S TAKING THE OATH AND SHE'S HAD HER TRAINING.
CITY CLERK HAS SAID SHE'S READY TO SEARCH.
JANELLE WHAT? HERE AND WHICH DISTRICT? COOL.
SO DARRELL'S NOT PRESENT, IS THAT? NO.
JANELLE, HOW DO YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? V E A Z A N T.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO CALL YOUR NAME AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO STAY HERE.
WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST BOARD MEMBER JANELLE VANZANT.
THAT GIVES US 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
UH, LANE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? I'M NOT SURE.
I'LL JUST GO OVER THE BASICS REAL QUICK, Y'ALL.
UH, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER.
PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION OUTSIDE TO THE LOBBY.
UH, WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, DO NOT SPEAK TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY, JUST TO THE BOARD.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR CASE, PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL ELAINE TOMORROW.
UM, WE MAY NEED TO TAKE A BREAK TONIGHT, I'M NOT SURE, BUT IF WE DO, THAT'S USUALLY ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK FOR 10 MINUTES OR SO.
IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN YOUR PARKING TICKET VALIDATED, THERE'S A LITTLE STAMPED DEVICE AND A LOG OVER HERE, UH, WHERE YOU WALKED IN.
JUST TAKE YOUR LITTLE PARKING TICKET, STAMP IT, WRITE YOUR NUMBER DOWN, AND THAT'LL VALIDATE YOU FOR YOUR PARKING.
FOR ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, CAN I GET YOU TO PLEASE STAND? I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO TAKE AN 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? THANKS SO MUCH.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023.MOTION TO APPROVE MEANING BY SECOND, MELISSA HAWTHORNE.
UH, ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS? NOPE.
UH, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM
[00:05:01]
FEBRUARY 13TH, MADE BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE.AM I, DO YOU SEE ME, JESSICA? AM I, YEAH, I, I ABSTAIN.
WHERE DID YOU COME FROM? I'M HERE.
AND I ALSO DIDN'T GET CALLED ROLL.
YOU WERE, IT WAS SHOWING YOU AS OFF DI EARLIER.
UH, SO AUGUSTINE RODRIGUEZ, ARE YOU HERE?
I WAS, I WAS NOT HERE YESTERDAY.
SO ARE WE 10 TONIGHT? YEAH, WE'RE 10 TONIGHT.
THAT MIGHT BE A CONSIDERATION FOR THE APPLICANT.
YEAH, I'M GO, I WAS GONNA MAKE THAT OFFER IN JUST A SECOND.
[2. Discussion of staff and applicant requests for postponement and withdrawal of public hearing cases posted on the agenda.]
ITEM TWO, DISCUSSION OF STAFF AND APPLICANT REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF PUBLIC HEARING CASES POSTED ON THE AGENDA.ELAINE, OR DO WE HAVE ANY POSTPONEMENTS OR, SO WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING IS THAT THERE ARE ONLY 10 BOARD MEMBERS TONIGHT.
A FULL BOARD IS 11 ONE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
THERE'S, THERE'S ONE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
IT'S, UM, ITEM NINE, THE RECONSIDERATION THERE AND CONTINUING TALKS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CREEK.
SO THAT IS, THEY'VE REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT IN, BUT IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO WAIT, UH, TILL NEXT MONTH WHEN WE HAVE A FULL BOARD, UH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT.
ANYONE, BECAUSE THEY, THEY WOULD STILL NEED NINE VOTES.
SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY, THAT'S NINE VOTES.
SO IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN YOUR WHEELHOUSE, THAT'S IT.
THERE'S IS A LITTLE MORE WIGGLE ROOM.
ELAINE, COULD YOU TELL ME WHEN ITEM NINE WAS REQUESTING TO POSTPONE TO PLEASE? YES, MA'AM.
THEY'RE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL APRIL 10TH.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
DON'T YOU MS. MICHAEL ALREADY? YEP.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM NINE TO APRIL 10TH, MADE BY MELISSA HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BROOKE BAILEY.
ITEM NINE IS POSTPONED TILL APRIL 10TH.
[3. C15-2023-0010 Jay Hargrave for Harthan, LLC 600 Harthan Street]
MOVING ON, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO ITEM THREE C 15 20 23 0, 0 1, 10 J HARGRAVE FOR HARTH, LLC, 600 HARTH STREET.UH, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.
LET US GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
AND WOULD YOU WANNA CHANGE SLIDES? JUST, YEAH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, WHICH IS A PARKING CAROUSEL NAME, PLEASE.
WE'RE APPROVED FOR TWO OF THESE AT
[00:10:01]
600 HARK IN ORDER TO, UM, ACCOMMODATE OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF 14.AND THIS HELPS US TO PRESERVE SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY.
IF WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE THIS, WE'D HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE ORIGINAL ESTATE BUILDING THAT WE REFER TO AS THE VICTORIAN.
BUT AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION, WE'VE DECIDED THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
IT HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO HEARTH STREET, THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, AS WELL AS CONCERNS FOR NOISE, FIRE SUPPRESSION, AND MECHANICAL FAILURE, ESPECIALLY DUE TO A POWER OUTAGE.
THIS ILLUSTRATION, UH, SHOWS THE CAROUSEL IN RED WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IN BLUE, THE TOP OF THE CAROUSEL IS 41 FEET ABOVE THE ENTRY FLOOR LEVEL OF THE MAIN HOUSE, AND IS SEVEN FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THIS IS A HISTORIC BUILDING, HISTORIC PHOTO OF THE BUILDING, UM, BEFORE THE ADDITION WAS DONE.
YOU CAN SEE THE VICTORIAN BEHIND IT WITH THE TURRET.
PART OF OUR SOLUTION IS TO CONTRACT WITH, UH, REMOTE, UH, PARKING PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS NUMBER ONE.
THEY'RE AT THE END OF WALL STREET AND FOURTH BEHIND BETTER HALF TWO AND THREE ARE PROPERTIES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED OPPORTUNITIES WITH.
AND THEN YOU SEE 600 HEARTH TO THE RIGHT.
JUST A FEW SLIDES SHOWING THE CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT.
NEXT, THIS SLIDE IS TAKEN AT THE ALLEY TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT SHOWS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO THE REAR.
THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SLIDE.
NEXT, THIS SHOWS THE TWO CAROUSELS OF PARKING TO THE REAR, SAME VIEW.
NEXT, THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S DINING ROOM THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING BUILDING NEXT.
AND THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PARKING CAROUSEL.
SO THERE'S TWO OPENINGS AT THE BOTTOM.
NEXT, THIS IS PART OF OUR SOLUTION IN TERMS OF ACCOMMODATING THE 14 SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
WE CAN PARK SEVEN ON THE STREET AND SEVEN IN THE ALLEY IN ADDITION TO THE 15 THAT WE HAVE IN AGREEMENT WITH OVER AT WALSH AND FOURTH STREET.
IF YOU LOOK UP TO THE TOP RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE WINDOW, BUT THERE'S, UH, BUILDING C, WHICH IS THE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED FOR THE CAROUSEL.
AND THEN THERE'S BUILDING B, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE OFF STREET PARKING, UH, IF THE CAROUSEL WAS NOT BUILT.
LET'S GO TO THE LAST SLIDE 15.
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME A CONTACT, JUST HIT THE QR CODE.
THERE'S ALSO A VIDEO OF THE CAROUSEL ON THERE, AND I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO SHEILA LYON.
SHE IS AANA ZONING COMMISSION CHAIR.
SHOULD BE GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
I AM SHEILA LYON, ALANA ZONING COMMITTEE'S CHAIR.
I'M HERE TO SHARE OUR SUPPORT FOR THE REQUESTED PARKING VARIANCE AT 600 HEARTH STREET.
IF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CONDITIONS ARE WRITTEN INTO THE VARIANCE, NUMBER ONE, THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN UNIT HOTEL AND THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONS IN THE FUTURE.
NUMBER TWO, THE HOTEL PARKING POLICY WILL BE VALE PARKING ONLY.
THE HOTEL VALE STAFF WILL ONLY PARK ALL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTEL AND CONTRACT SPACES AND IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL AND IN THE ALLEY ON HAREN VALLEY AND SAN STAFF.
PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS NORTH OF WEST SIXTH STREET.
NUMBER THREE, ALL OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE PRESERVED AND RENOVATED.
NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THIS HOTEL PROJECT ONLY.
IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE HOTEL ARE IN A GRIEVANT WITH THESE CONDITIONS.
THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS MET TWICE WITH THE ZONING COMMITTEE, AND THAT HAS ALSO MET WITH THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE
[00:15:01]
IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.THE PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT DOES GIVE A THREEFOLD HARDSHIP.
NUMBER ONE, THE BUILDING FACING HEARTH AND BY BY THE LHD GUIDELINES.
NUMBER TWO, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSES TO PRESERVE ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS TO MAINTAIN LOCAL HISTORIC CHARACTER.
AND NUMBER THREE, THE EXISTING SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR CONDOS WITH ONLY TWO PARKING SPACES.
THESE HARDSHIPS ARE UNIQUE TO THE SITE AND WILL NOT SET A PRECEDENT.
I WANNA APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE AND APPROVING REQUESTED VARIANCES THAT WILL, WILL NOT PRECEDENT AND ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE REQUESTED PARKING VARIANCE WITH A FORM MENTIONED CONDITION.
HAPPY THE BUZZER'S GONE OFF, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? ANY OPPOSITION ON THE PHONE? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU CONFIRM, UH, THAT EVERYTHING MS. LYONS SAID IS CORRECT? THAT, UH, LIKE IF I WERE TO CONDITION THIS ON, UH, VALLEY ONLY, NO STAFF PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE USE IS A HOTEL, CORRECT? UH, YEAH.
BASICALLY IT'S LAID OUT IN THE LETTER FROM AANA.
AND WE CAN'T CONDITION ON USE, RIGHT? WHAT'S THE CONDITIONS TO THAT? THE USE WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN A HOTEL? WELL, I THINK WE CAN CONDITION ON, I DON'T THINK WE CAN USE, BUT WE CAN CONDITION ON THIS OWNER, I THINK SO THAT IF IT TRANSFERS, NO.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU STATE THE CONDITION, UH, THAT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE VARI? THE VARIANCE WOULD BE TIED TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING A HOTEL FOR THIS HOTEL, THIS HOTEL, THIS HOTEL ONLY LIKE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE HOTEL OR THE, WELL, IT JUST SAYS, IT SAYS THE VARIANCES WOULD TIE IT TO THE PERMIT.
SO IF THEY'RE REQUESTING ANY DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMIT, IF, IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE USE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW PERMIT.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND TYING IT TO THE SPECIFIC PERMIT.
BUT IF IT WAS THIS SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP GROUP, NO NECESSARILY THIS OWNERSHIP, THE HOTEL, JUST HOTEL, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT, YOU WOULD JUST TIE IT TO THE PERMIT.
AND THEN I JUST HAVE A QUICK PRO YES.
AND I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN TWO BUILDING EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BUILD THAT CAROUSEL.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? THIS IS IN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THIS, THIS IS AN APARTMENT BUILDING FROM THE TWENTIES.
THE, UM, BUILDING ALONG HARTON IS, UH, A PROTECTED, IT'S PART OF THE HISTORIC, HISTORIC, BUT THE, THE THREE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEHIND IT ARE NOT PROTECTED, BUT THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT.
SO ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO DO THE CAROUSEL TO DO JUST SURFACE PARKING.
IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, REMOVING ANOTHER BUILDING.
THE VICTORIAN BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, SORRY, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SO, UH, THE CAROUSEL TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY TO THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE ALLEY DOES, ISN'T THE HEIGHT EXCEEDING WHAT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD REQUIRE? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
THE 41 FEET IS FROM THE ENTRY OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
COMPATIBILITY IS NO LONGER TURN.
SO 41 FEET WOULD BE FROM THE PROPERTY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE COMPATIBILITY WOULD BE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE.
SO IT'S 25 FEET AND YOU GO THE NEXT TIER.
COULD I RELY ON SOMEONE TO HELP ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YEAH, HE KNOWS THE DRILL.
I'M, I'M HERE REPRESENTING, UM, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, MAUREEN MATOYA.
UM, AND THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, UH, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS APPROVED IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
AND THEN ALSO I THINK THE ADDED CAVEAT IS HER PROPERTY IS OWNED MF FOUR.
UM, SO NOT ALL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS APPLY ANYMORE.
BUT SHE, WHAT'S THE USE OF IT? IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY USE, BUT THEN IF IT'S SINGLE FAMILY USE, THEN COMPATIBILITY DOES, UH, THAT'S CHANGED IN ON DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
CHANGE THE WHAT? OH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE RULE?
[00:20:02]
THE CURRENT SITE PLANS APPROVED UNDER CURRENT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.UM, AND IF THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN IN THE FUTURE, NOT ALL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD APPLY.
BASED OFF OF HER HAVING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN A MULTI-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY.
THERE ARE CAVEATS NOW IN THE CODE THAT WEREN'T THERE.
BEFORE I GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE PLAN FOR STAFF PARKING? I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PLANS FOR FOR GUESTS, BUT WE HAVE, UH, SEVERAL LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT SEEM TO BE REFERENCING THE PARKING SITUATION.
SPECIFICALLY THE STAFF PARKING SITUATION.
WE WOULD USE THE REMOTE LOT FOR STAFF PARKING FOR THE STAFF THAT CHOSE TO DRIVE.
SO EVEN IF WHAT, WHAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IN PLACE? YEAH, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE REPORT, THE BACKUP IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LONG-TERM.
AND THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE BECAUSE WE REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA THAT WOULD, UM, WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOTE PARKING THROUGH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THERE WERE NONE THAT WERE WILLING TO, TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE AREA.
SO, YOU KNOW, OUR OTHER OPTIONS WERE TO EITHER CONSTRUCT THE CAROUSEL OR REACH OUT TO BOARD AND SEE IF WE COULD FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION OR, YOU KNOW, LIQUIDATE THE PROPERTY.
SO CAN YOU COMMIT TO, IF YOU FOR SOME REASON HAVE A SHORTFALL OF REMOTE REMOTE PARKING FOR STAFF THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT YOUR EMPLOYEES USING TRANSIT OR OTHER MODES TO GET TO AND FROM WORK? YEAH, I CAN COMMIT TO THAT.
I WANNA ADD ON TO THAT THOUGH.
CAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T, UM, THEY, IF THEY COME BY CAR OR THEY CARPOOL, UM, OR YOU KNOW, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE, AS OF NOW YOU'RE SHOWING US THESE PARKING LOTS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE CONTRACTS ON.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WE DO.
AND HOW LONG ARE THOSE CONTRACTS FOR? THE, UH, THE ONE THAT WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON IS FOR THREE YEARS.
FOR THREE YEARS AND THAT, YEAH, SO CUZ I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM THERE AND, AND I ACTUALLY KNOW HARTON VERY WELL USED TO BE MANY, MANY YEARS AGO ON THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF OANA.
SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARKING ISSUES IN THAT AREA.
SO I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS WORRISOME.
NOW, I DON'T WANT YOU TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BETTER PARKING PLAN THAN WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING US.
UM, WE HAVE TRIED, WE STARTED THE TEA PLAN PROCESS.
WE HAD A CONTRACT OR AN LOI WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, UM, FOR WESTSIDE VILLAGE.
THEY DECIDED TO PUT THEIR PROJECT ON THE SHELF FOR THREE PLUS YEARS.
UM, I TALKED WITH MM AND L THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT READY TO COMMIT TO ANYTHING, RIGHT? UH, I S D IS NOT ABLE TO COMMIT TO ANYTHING.
THE PHOENIX CAN'T COMMIT TO ANYTHING.
SO ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFSITE PARKING THERE, THERE'S NOTHING AVAILABLE.
SO WE, WE COULDN'T, NO MATTER WHAT, EVEN WITHOUT REGARDS TO A TIMEFRAME, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND ANYBODY TO COME TO THE TABLE TO MAKE THAT AGREEMENT.
SO WE WERE STUCK WITH EITHER GOING TO YOU GUYS WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND SEEKING, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT BECOMES PART OF OUR OPERATIONAL PROCESS IS TO CONSTANTLY BE REACHING OUT TO AJ OR, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA TO LOOK FOR PARKING AGREEMENTS.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE GONNA RELY ON ONE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THIS AGREEMENT.
IT'S A CONSTANT PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH PARKING AS WE CAN.
BUT EVEN BEYOND THE REQUIRED 14.
SO IT'S REALLY, WE'RE, THAT'S OUR HARDSHIP.
WE CAN'T PARK THIS SITE WITHOUT REMOVING BUILDINGS OR WITHOUT THE CAROUSEL.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO EITHER ONE OF THOSE FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
AND WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A REASONABLE SOLUTION IN PLACE, BUT WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T TAKE IT THROUGH THE STANDARD PROCESS.
YEAH, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A TEMPORARY SOLUTION.
AND THEN ONCE AND ONCE THIS UP, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT THEY ARE WITH ALL OF THE, THE I I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, AND I, THE LAST THING I WOULD WANT TO DO IS LIQUIDATE THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE COULDN'T MAKE IT MAKE SENSE FROM A, UM, FISCAL STANDPOINT.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ADJACENT COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOR THAT IS INTERESTED IN BUYING IT, WHICH THAT IS NOT BY ANY MEANS.
MY FIRST, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M NOT AGAINST WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I THINK THE NEIGHBORS LIKE IT, BUT
[00:25:01]
I JUST, I WORRY ABOUT THIS THREE YEAR, ONE LOT OF PARKING.I MEAN, I CAN A LOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR, FAMILIAR WITH AREA.
HAVE I GO TO, YOU KNOW, I GO TO CLARK'S AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T DRIVE, I I TAKE RIDE SHARE BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND SO I I APPRECIATE IT COMPLETELY.
UH, DID YOU, DID I HEAR YOU SAY YOU'RE RELYING ON THE ORDER ORDINANCE A COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE FROM DECEMBER, LAST DECEMBER? NO, I THINK THAT WAS RELATED TO MY QUESTION ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND THE HEIGHT OF THE KEONG AND THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE ALLEY IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY, THOUGH IT IS USED RESIDENTIAL AND THERE ARE CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPLICABLE.
WELL THE REASON I'M RAISING IT THAT THAT DECEMBER ORDINANCE IS IN LITIGATION AS BEING A VIOLATION OF THE ACUNA CASE.
IS IT SO CERTAINLY MAKES IT INTERESTING, DOESN'T IT? WELL, I MEAN, I, TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR VIEW ON THIS CASE, HIS VIEW AS THAT VIEW OF THAT.
UM, THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION IS, CUZ WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE, THE SLIDE WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE GARAGE, THAT ALLEY IS PRETTY NARROW.
AND IF YOU WERE A HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, GRANTED YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE IN THIS HISTORIC AREA, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE TYPICAL THAT YOU WOULD SEE SOMETHING THAT TALL.
UM, BECAUSE THE COMPATIBILITY TIERED HOW HIGH YOU COULD GO.
BUT THIS, THIS, THIS IS A SMALLER FRONTAGE AND A SMALLER LOT.
IT'S JUST, IT'D JUST BE UNUSUAL TO SEE SOMETHING THAT HIGH OVER THE FENCE.
I THOUGHT THE APPLICANT THOUGH MENTIONED THAT, THAT THE, THEY MENTIONED THE, THE DECEMBER ORDINANCE, UH, THAT WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM, FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, MR. LAVINSKY.
BUT IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION, MR, MY QUESTION IS
SO, UH, BOBBY LEVINSKY, AGAIN, I'M REPRESENTING THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, MAUREEN MATOYA, WHO'S, I GOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A MULTI-FAMILY OWN PROPERTY.
THE ONLY REASON I REFERENCE THE DECEMBER ORDINANCE IS WE REALLY DON'T WANNA HAVE TO RELY ON COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO I MEAN I THINK THAT THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE CONCERNED WITH, UM, THAT THE QUESTION AND WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE THIS SOLVES A MAJOR ISSUE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND IT IS A COMPATIBLE USE COMPARATIVELY TO, UM, WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES THERE COULD BE.
I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY TAKE A MOMENT AND ADDRESS BOARD MEMBER PRUITT AS JOINED THE DIAS SO THAT HE'LL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE WELCOME BOARD MEMBER PRUITT.
AND CAN AND CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PLEASE? DAR? YES.
OH, AND, UH, 6:10 PM MARCH 23RD.
UH, OTHER QUESTION? WELL QUESTION LUKI.
CHAIRPERSON, WERE YOU DONE? YEAH.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? BOARD MEMBER SMITH? WELL, YEAH, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER.
WAS IT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU ARE OR NOT RELYING ON THAT, THAT ORDINANCE, AGAIN, I'M NOT THE APPLICANT.
I'M A RAPE REPRESENTING THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AND THEY ARE NOT RELYING ON THE DECEMBER ORDINANCE.
THE ONLY REASON I WAS ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WAS BECAUSE IT WAS RELATED TO, UH, COMMISSIONER WALEY HAWTHORNE'S QUESTION.
UM, THEY'RE NOT RELYING ON THE DECEMBER ORDINANCE, THEY'RE UNDER CURRENT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, BUT THAT IS A LIKELY OUTCOME IF THIS VARIANCE GET GETS DENIED THAT SOMETHING COULD BE SUBMITTED UNDER THE NEW COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS WAITED OUT A FEW MONTHS AND IT'LL HAPPEN ANYWAYS.
SO I GUESS THE, WHAT I THINK THE, MY TRANSLATION OF WHAT HE SAID IS THE PREFERRED OUTCOME IS FOR THE CAROUSEL TO NOT BE BUILT, WHICH IS MY CONCERN WAS THAT COMPATIBILITY WOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO BE BUILT ANYWAY IF COMPATIBILITY HELD THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE IT WAS ALTERED IN DECEMBER.
AND SO HE'S SAYING THAT MY TRANSLATION OF WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT HE'S THERE REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBOR AND
[00:30:01]
THEY WOULD PREFER IT NOT TO HAVE THE PARKING CAROUSEL REGARDLESS OF WHETHER COMPATIBILITY OR NOT COMPATIBILITY.CUZ THE OUTCOME NEED BETTER AS, AS THE PROPERTY WOULD BE THE HOUSES, THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE NOW AND USED FOR THE HOTEL AND SOME CARE IN LOVE PUT INTO THE HOTEL.
THAT'S JUST MY TRANSLATION OF ALL THAT.
EVERYBODY ELSE COULD, COULD, UH, CHIME IN OR, OR MR. LEWINSKY IF I DID NOT GET THAT CORRECTLY.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO, TO, UH, YOU STATED IT BEAUTIFULLY.
SO MR. LEVINSKY, DID YOU GET, DID YOU GET NOTICE OF THIS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST OR WHAT, HOW DID THIS ALL COME ABOUT FOR YOU? UH, THE NEIGHBOR HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE, UH, THE APPLICANT.
UM, THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK ON SOLUTIONS AND THIS IS THE RE UM, RESULTING SOLUTION IS, UH, THIS PARKING VARIANCE ACTUALLY RESOLVES A LOT OF THE, THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE ARISE, INCLUDING THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY ANOTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBER.
SO, UM, THIS IS THE BEST OUTCOME I THINK THAT ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED COULD, COULD ACHIEVE.
NOW DO YOU KNOW, ARE THERE, SO THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE OBJECTED OR NOT? DO YOU KNOW? I AM NOT PERSONALLY AWARE OF ANYTHING.
I KNOW THAT THE OANA ZONING COMMITTEE JUST SPOKE IN FAVOR OF IT.
I'M JUST REALLY CURIOUS ON, ON THE PRICING OF THE CAROUSELS.
UM, HOW MUCH? THERE'S TWO OF THEM, IT LOOKS LIKE.
DO WHAT, WHAT DID THE PRICING COME OUT TO? IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT, UH, 700,000 ALL IN.
WELL, THERE, THERE ARE LESS THAN THAT.
BUT THEN WE HAVE FOUNDATION, ALL THE, ALL THE ELEMENTS, ALL THE OTHER STUFF BUILDING.
SO IT'S QUITE, IT'S, IT'S ON, ON THE EXPENSIVE SLIDE.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS WITH THE, THE VALET, UH, IT'S ERICA'S WALKING AWAY.
ARE WE ABLE TO PIN IT DOWN TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE OANA HAD MENTIONED INITIALLY? THE A VALET? YES.
HE AGREES TO IT AND HE SAYS IT ON THE RECORD, THEN WE CAN TIE THAT TO HIS AGREEMENT.
I I, I LIKED THIS, UH, THE VALLEY PARKING THAT HE'S GOING TO DO THE OFFSITE PARKING FOR STUFF AND VALET PARKING FOR THAT'S NOT TIED TO THE YES.
IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T TIE THAT AS A CONDITION.
WHERE, WHERE'S VALET PARKING GOING TO BE? PARKING.
WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO PARK AT THE REMOTE PARK.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO STAGE PARKING IN THE ALLEY, BUT WE PREFER NOT TO USE THE ALLEY FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
AND THEN ANY SPOTS WE COULD GRAB ON HEARTH, WE WOULD, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING A LOT OF THAT GETS TAKEN BY, UM, STAFF OF THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE MORNING.
I THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T PARK THERE.
CAN YOU STATE WHAT CONDITION YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT ON? IF YOU GET THE LAKE BACK, THERE'S A, A BUTTER FROM AANA.
YEAH, SO THE CONDITION WOULD BE THAT IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE THAT ANY PARKING WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE THROUGH VALE AT A REMOTE SITE.
NOT ON THE STREET, NOT ON UH, BUS SIX OR NO, THEY HAVE A FEW, THEY'LL HAVE A FEW PARKING SPACES IN HAR HARLAND THAT ARE CONTRACT, CORRECT.
THAT ARE YOU GONNA HAVE BE PERMITTED THE CURRENTLY THERE'S NO, THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED.
THEY'RE JUST, CUZ YOU HAVE THE PRIVATE PERMITS FOR HARTLAND.
I KNOW YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PERMITS.
NOT BETWEEN BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING.
RIGHT? WHAT'S THAT? OKAY, SO, SO, SO THE VARIANCE WILL HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO THE PROPERTY ON SITE.
SO IF, IF, ARE YOU TRYING TO RESTRICT THEM FROM PARKING ON THE PROPERTY? NO.
FOR WHAT? NO, TRYING TO GUARANTEE THAT THEY DO TRULY VALET AND THAT PEOPLE AREN'T PARKING ON THE STREET.
BECAUSE DOES, CAUSE THERE IS A HOTEL JUST OFF OF SOUTH LAMAR, BEHIND P TERRY'S, YOU KNOW THAT LITTLE HOTEL BACK THERE AND I THINK IT'S VALET ONLY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANY PARKING, BUT UM, BUT THEY DIDN'T COME TO US SO THEY MUST HAVE SOME PARKING, BUT, UM, SO, SO, BUT YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE VALET ONLY? YES.
SO THAT'S A MO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE RIGHT, OF COURSE DON'T WANT OUR GUESTS TO SHOW UP WITH A CAR AT ALL, BUT IT'S ANOTHER PEOPLE DRIVE IN FROM HOUSTON, THEY'RE SHOWING UP WITH A CAR.
SO YEAH, SO, BUT YOU NEED TO ALSO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NO SELF PARK WHEN THEY PULL UP.
IS IS THAT NOT CLEAR IN THE IANA CONDITIONS OR? NO, THE HOTEL HAS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN.
CAN WE TIE IT TO THE EMAIL? YEAH.
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS LANGUAGE LEGAL FOR THE VARIANT
[00:35:01]
THAT IS SO CAN CAN, CAN SOMEONE GIVE THAT EMAIL TO ERICA? ONE, ONE SEC.SHE'S, SHE ALREADY LOOKED AT IT.
SHE'S GONNA, UH, ERICA LOPEZ AS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
I'M PROBABLY GONNA NEED SOME TIME TO FINESSE WHAT THE, WHAT RESULT THE BOARD WOULD WANT.
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT, CAN WE, CAN WE TABLE IT FOR A LITTLE BIT? IS THAT WHAT YOU NEED OR DO YOU NEED ALAR CLARIFICATION? DO WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK? YEAH, I WOULD NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
SO DO WE NEED AVE SESSION? NO, NO, THAT'S NOT LIKE PERSONALLY I AM MORE INCLINED TO GRANT THE PARKING VARIANCE EVEN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION IF WE CAN ENSURE THAT THERE IS SOME WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT THE STREET WON'T BE PARKED ON THAT, THAT EVERYBODY'S COMPLAINING ABOUT.
SO IS THERE ANY WAY TO TIE INT IN DON'T, IT'S ONLY ONE SECTION OF THE STREET.
MOST OF THAT STREET IS RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING, BUT THEN IT SPILLS OVER ONTO THE OTHER STREETS WHERE OTHER PEOPLE LIVE IS THE BIG ISSUE.
THEY'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT HART THEN THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT RIGHT.
A STREET OVER TWO STREETS OVER WEST SIXTH.
UM, THAT ARE LIKE HIGHLAND OAKLAND.
LIKE WITH THAT CONDITION, HOW DO WE TIE THOSE CONDI MAKE THOSE CONDITIONS? SO IF IT'S A STREET THAT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THE PROPERTY, THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ABLE TO, TO DO.
SO WE, WE CAN'T HAVE A CONDITION ON THAT.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PROPERTY.
THE FOR THAT'S REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THE FOUR, THAT'S NOT IN THE FOUR CONDITIONS.
THE FOUR CONDITIONS STATE THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN A 15 UNIT HOTEL AND THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONS IN THE FUTURE.
THE HOTEL POLICY WILL BE A VALET PARKING ONLY.
THE HOTEL VALET STAFF WILL ONLY PARK ALL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED, ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTEL AND CONTRACT SPACES AND IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL ON HARTON VALET AND STAFF PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS NORTH OF WEST SIXTH STREET, WHICH MEANS ALL THE OTHER ONES.
BUT WE CAN'T REALLY DICTATE THAT CUZ THOSE ARE PUBLIC STREETS.
SO THREE IS THE MAIN ONE THAT WE, WE CAN'T DO, UM, FOUR THE VARIANCES FOR THIS HOTEL PROJECT ONLY.
SO I'M THINKING WE CAN DO ONE, TWO, AND FOUR BUT NOT, UM, WAIT ONE PARTS OF TUBE AND THEN THREE AND FOUR BECAUSE WE CANNOT SAY WHERE STAFF CAN PARK SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO CONDITION THE VARIANCE ON WHERE STAFF PARKS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND YOUR MOTION
SO DID YOU LIKE THAT? THAT WAS PRETTY SLICK.
I WOULD HAVE TO FIND THE, UH, CON THE STUFF, BUT YES, I MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN LEGALLY APPLY TO THIS FRANCE, WHICH, WHICH ARE IN THE OHANA LETTER.
AND UM, IT WOULD BE MY GLASSES ONE.
THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN A 15 YEAR HOTEL.
TWO, THE HOTEL POLICY WILL BE VALET PARKING ONLY AND HOTEL VALET STAFF WILL ONLY PARK ALL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HO HOTEL AND CONTRACT SPACES.
AND IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL ON HARTH, UH, WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE OUT THE VALET AND STAFF PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS NORTH OF WEST SIXTH.
WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT CONDITION THE VARIANCE ON THAT.
YOU GUYS WILL HAVE TO SELF-POLICE.
UM, ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE PRES PRESERVED AND RENOVATED.
AND THE VARIANCE IS FOR THIS HOTEL PROJECT ONLY TIED TO THE PERMIT.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD, MELISSA? PERFECT.
DID YOU CATCH ALL THAT STEVE HOTEL USE? NO ADDITIONS.
YEAH, IT'S JUST IN THE LETTER I READ, I READ IT VERBATIM EXCEPT FOR THIS STEP.
THE VICE CHAIR ALREADY DIDN'T, DID YOU TOUCH ALL THAT? SORRY.
BOARD OF MEMBER BAILEY, WHAT WAS NUMBER FOUR? EXISTING.
AND, AND LITERALLY IT'S, IT'S VERBATIM FOR THE LETTER.
I DON'T ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE PRESERVED AND RENOVATED, WHICH IS NUMBER THREE.
HOW IS THAT RELATED TO THE PARKING? IT'S A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE.
IT'S A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE.
IT'S IN, WE DON'T HAVE TO TIE TO PARKING.
WHAT HAPPENS IS IF WE DON'T GIVE THIS VARIANCE, THEY'LL TEAR DOWN ONE OF THE BUILDINGS.
SO WE'RE SAYING INSTEAD OF TEARING DOWN THE BUILDING FOR PARKING, THEY'RE GONNA PRESERVE ALL THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THEY'RE GONNA AND YES.
AND PRESERVE THE BUILDINGS FOR AS A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE.
ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE PRESERVED AND RENOVATED.
AND THEN I NEED TO, IS EVERYTHING THERE LEGAL? WE'RE GOOD? YES.
THE APPROVED ZONING IS COMMERCIAL AND APPROVED USES FOR 15 ROOM HOTEL.
EXISTING PARKING REGULATIONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE
[00:40:01]
IF HISTORIC DISTRICT CHARACTER AND BUILDING ARCHITECTURES TO BE MAINTAINED.ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT PROOF PLAN ALLOWS FOR A PARKING CAROUSEL, WHICH WE DO NOT BELIEVE IS BEST FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANTLY NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND STREET VARIANCE WILL BETTER PRESERVE THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND FUTURE COMMERCIAL HARDSHIP SITE CONSTRAINTS COUPLED WITH THE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC QUALITY AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE 14 SPACES ON SITE AND OFFSITE OPTIONS ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
STRICT ADHERENCE TO PARKING WILL OFFSITE OPTIONS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ON UNDER CONTRACT, SO, CORRECT.
THEY MAY NOT BE BUT MAY NOT BE, THEY NOT BE WITHIN THE DISTANCE.
THEY DON'T, NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
STRICT ADHERENCE TO PARKING REGULATIONS WOULD COMPLETELY ENCUMBER THE PROPERTY OR DEMAND OFFSITE SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T WILL MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST.
OUR SITE IS A UNIQUE LAYOUT AND CHARACTER AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A CORNER LOT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NEARBY.
COMMERCIAL SITES ARE EITHER PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED WITH ONSITE PARKING OR WILL UNDERGO A MORE SIGNIFICANT MULTI LOT AND MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT PROVIDING GREATER SET OF OPTIONS AREA CHARACTER.
THE SOLUTION WILL BE BETTER FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA THEN YOU.
UTILIZATION OF THE CURRENT APPROVED PARKING SOLUTION, WHICH ALLOWS FOR PARKING CAROUSEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
UM, ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PATRONS TO OUR HOTEL WILL ARRIVE VIA RIDE SHARE OR AUTONOMOUS DRIVERS
UM, YOU WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WILL ARRIVE? I NO, IT'S A REQUIREMENT DURING THE RESERVATION PROCESS.
FROM WHERE? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE DRIVING FROM HOUSTON, YOU CAN'T, THEY'LL END UP PARKING ON THE OTHER STREETS.
SO I MEAN IT IS A, THAT WOULD BE, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE A GUIDELINE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY REQUIRE THAT, THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN PARKING OR LOADING OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC.
HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEAL WITH LOADING AND UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT'S, UH, SERVICED FROM SIXTH STREET, SO, OKAY.
THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL BETTER ALLOW FOR LOADING OF VEHICLES OFF STREET AND WILL IMPROVE THE FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THE STREETS FROM THE CURRENT APPROVED PARKING PLAN.
ONE ADA PARKING SPOT WILL BE PROVIDED AND SEVEN STREET PARKING SPACES EXIST CONTIGUOUS TO THE SITE THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO.
UM, APPROVAL OF VARIANCE WILL MITIGATE TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUES FOR THE RESIDENCE.
SO ON HAR HARK AND ELIMINATES ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVED PARKING CAROUSEL AND THE CURRENT APPROVED USES, A HOTEL CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COA PROCESS THAT WOULD TR TRIGGER REVIS PARKING SOLUTION.
CAN I USE YOUR NOTES? UM, THERE'S A HAND UP RICHARD, UH, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
YEAH, I JUST, UM, TRYING TO ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION HERE.
I MEAN THE, THE, UH, THE REQUEST IS TO GET TO BASICALLY BE REDUCED FROM 14 SPACES TO, TO ONE ADA SPACE.
UM, SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE, I MEAN WE CAN ADD ALL THESE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCIES, BUT I, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM, WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAROUSEL.
WE ARE, WE ARE DOING, SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT A CAROUSEL.
UM, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH ANY BUILDINGS ON THE PROJECT.
THAT'S ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE.
AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING TO BUILD THE CAROUSEL AND UNLESS, BUT WE CAN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
WELL, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT, I DON'T SEE IT.
THAT'S NOT THE NOTICE THAT WE'RE THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE WE HAVE BEFORE US.
HOW, HOW DO YOU FIGURE IT'S ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES? YEAH, BUT THE VARIANCE WE'RE GIVING THEM IS FROM 14 SPACES TO ONE SPACE.
THAT'S THE VARIANCE, RIGHT? YES.
SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I GUESS I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GONNA ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ONE OFF STREET VERSUS 14? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I MEAN WITH THE HARDSHIP, IF THE HARDSHIP RIGHT, WE CAN GRANT THEM NO SPACES IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR.
JUST WELL, HOW WE CAN, HOW WE CAN DO IT IS PART OF HOW WE'RE CONDITIONING THESE GOING DOWN TO ONE SPACE IS THAT THEY DON'T DEMOLISH ANYTHING ON SITE, WHICH IN ITSELF WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM BUILDING A PARKING CAROUSEL.
WE ARE, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THIS IS A BETTER SOLUTION THAN PARKING'S CAROUSEL BECAUSE IT WILL PRESERVE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON SITE AND IT WON'T IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS AS MUCH BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THEY'RE, UM, GOING TO HAVE OFFSITE PARKING.
SO WE'RE SAYING THERE'S NO, WE'RE NOT APPROVING A CAROUSEL.
NO, WE'RE NOT APPROVING A CAROUSEL.
[00:45:01]
OKAY.AND IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT NO CAROUSEL IS ALLOWED, I'LL TAKE IT.
WHY NOT? FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE IF THIS VARIANCE IS A, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE WORD IT.
IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THEN NO, NO PARKING CARE SALE IS ALLOWED TO BE PERMITTED OR BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY.
NO, CAROUSEL BUILDS ARE PERMANENT PARKING, PARKING CAROUSEL,
WAIT, UH, BOARD MEMBER PR I HAD A RELATED QUESTION.
UM, IF THEY ALREADY HAVE AN APPROVED PARKING PLAN THAT INCLUDES THIS PARKING CAROUSEL, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A HARDSHIP AND A VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY AGREES IT'S NOT THE BEST SOLUTION.
THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR A VARIANCE GIVEN THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE A PARKING PLAN THAT'S APPROVED.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO, I I THINK WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SACRIFICING BUILDINGS THAT ARE A HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO REPLACE IT WITH THE CAROUSEL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
THAT THAT'S THE HARDSHIP FOR ME.
I'M, I'M, I DON'T WANNA SEE THE BUILDINGS GET DESTROYED.
I THINK, I THINK MY QUESTION IS MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION IS SHOULDN'T THAT APPROVE PARKING PLAN GO AWAY BEFORE THEY COME TO US AND SAY, WE NOW HAVE THIS HARDSHIP BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO WHAT THE REGULATIONS SAY WE NEED TO DO FOR PARKING ON THIS, ON THIS SITE.
VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER? A QUESTION? I THINK, I THINK I MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THIS.
SO, SO YOU HAVE THE CAROUSEL, WHICH IF THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS CHANGE FROM DECEMBER ROLES, THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING THE CAROUSELS IN A NEW BUILDING.
AND IT IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THESE ARE CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WITH THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AND YOU KNOW, THE WORD RECESSION, THE WAR CONSTRUCTION, PRICING, EVERYTHING, THE PROJECT, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE CURRENT ECONOMY THAT WE'RE IN THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ADJACENT THAT, UH, I I THINK IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THERE WAS A PROJECT THAT YOU MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE IN THE LAST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS THAT'S ACTUALLY JUST RIGHT AROUND HERE.
AND SO IT COULD HAD PARKING, THEY COULD AT LEAST THEY COULD PURSUE AN OFFSITE PARKING PLAN AND HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR THREE YEARS.
BUT THAT HAS TO BE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET AS YOU WOULD WALK IT IF YOU WERE ARON IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE.
AND SO IT LOOKS TO ME THAT THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT, AT DOWN WALSH OVER AT FOURTH IS PROBABLY EXCEEDS THE THOU THE THOUSAND FEET.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE PROJECT ON HOLD.
YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE, YOU COULD BUILD IT, BUT YOU, YOU WOULD NOT BE HONORING THE NATURE OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT'S LIKE YOU PUT ALL THESE TOGETHER AND THAT'S THEIR HARDSHIP IS WHAT IF, SO WHAT IF COMPATIBILITY IS APPEALED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY TAKE THE BUILDING DOWN, WHICH NOBODY WANTS THEM TO TAKE DOWN AND NOBODY WANTS THE MECHANICAL LOUD THING NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE.
UM, AND THEN THEY CAN'T REALLY USE THE PARKING THEY'VE LEASED ADMINISTRATIVELY CUZ IT'S TOO FAR.
SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE COMPONENTS THAT A ACTUALLY ALL TOGETHER, I THINK REALLY MAKE THE HARDSHIP IN JUST TRYING TO KEEP A BUILDING AND NOT HAVE IT TORN DOWN AND TURNED INTO ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE.
NOT THAT IT WON'T END UP GETTING PAINTED WHITE, BUT YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT GETS TORN DOWN AROUND MY HOUSE TURNS INTO A WHITE FREEZER BOX.
SO DID, DID, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THAT QUICK.
QUICKLY, UH, WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF LIKE A PEA GRAVEL PARKING LOT EXPLORER? NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
CAN'T DO A PEAK GRAVEL PARKING LOT AND THEY'D STILL HAVE TO TEAR DOWN A BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A PEAK GRAVEL PARKING LOT.
DID YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND WHEN HE SHOWED
[00:50:01]
US WHAT HE'D HAVE TO DO FOR ONSITE PARKING, IT WAS CHERRY PEAK GRAVEL, IT'S PEAK GRAVEL.THEY'D STILL HAVE TO TEAR DOWN A BUILDING AND PEAK GRAVEL.
ARE YOU TRYING TO USE PEAK GRAVEL? I SEE IT'S NOT AN APPROVED FOR YOUR CHAIN DRIVE.
SO WE HAVE A
UH, THE PROJECT, UH, PROJECT USE REMAINS A HOTEL WITH NO ADDITIONS.
NONE OF THE BUILDINGS ARE DEMOLISHED.
UH, WE CAN'T DO THE VALET PARKING.
NO, ACTUALLY I DID IT, UM, VERBATIM.
SO IT REALLY IS, I WAS, I WOULD SAY TIED TO THE LETTER.
TIED TO THE WAN, THE ONLY THING THAT'S LEFT OUT IS, UM, THE VALET AND STAFF PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE RESIDE STREETS NORTHWEST SIXTH, WHICH IS THE END OF NUMBER TWO.
THE SECOND SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO OR THIRD SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO, THE REST IS VERBATIM.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST WAY.
I DO HAVE ONE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
ANOTHER ONE, UH, WELL CAUSE WE HAVE THE NOTE PARKING CAROUSEL BUILT.
UH, MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS THAT IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITION THAT ARE MADE THAT THEY ONLY BE FOR HANDICAP ACCESS BECAUSE THAT'S ADA US THAT STREET IS REALLY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT HARTH, WE HAVE TWO, IT COMES DOWN TO SIXTH STREET AT A PRETTY, BUT THAT'S, THAT WOULDN'T FALL INTO VARIANCE.
THAT WOULD FALL UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.
BUT YOUR VARIANCE SAYS NO ADDITIONS.
I DON'T THINK WE COULD STOP AN AN ADA REQUIREMENT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY NO ADDITIONS? NO ADDITIONAL PARKING.
THEY, THEY, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITION TO THE PARKING, NO ADDITIONS TO THE STRUCTURES.
IT'S A VERY HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
AND YOU WERE SAYING SOME OF 'EM AREN'T AS PROTECTED AS THE OTHERS.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, I I KNOW THAT BUILT THOSE BUILDINGS VERY WELL AND THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL.
SO, UM, AND SO BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE ADDITION THAT THEY COULDN'T DO? ADA.
OH, SO THEY, THAT, THAT BY HAVING THE PARKING CONDITION ON NO ADDITIONS, THAT THEY NEEDED TO MAKE AN ACCESSIBILITY UPGRADE.
SO NO ADDITIONS EXCEPT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL, FEDERAL LAW.
THAT ONE AND THE OTHER AMENDMENT WAS, THAT WAS MY WAY OF BEING KIND.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT JUST SO WE CAN GET CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO WRITE ON THE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE STRUCTURE EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.
DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? LEGALLY, FEDERAL, OR, WELL, IT'S, IT'S NUMBER ONE, FEDERAL R STATE.
THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN A 15 UNIT HOTEL AND THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONS EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.
NUMBER TWO, THE HOTEL POLICY WILL BE AT VALET PARKING ONLY.
THE HOTEL VALET STAFF WILL ONLY PARK ALL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTEL IN CONTRACT SPACES AND IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL ON HARTLAND.
NUMBER THREE, ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE PRESERVED AND RENOVATED AS THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED.
NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE HOTEL PROJECT ONLY, WHICH I GUESS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS IF YOU ADDED A RESTAURANT THAT WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THIS WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF NO PARKING CAROUSEL BUILT OR PERMITTED AND NO ADDITIONS EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.
NO ADDITIONS EXCEPT FOR NO ADDITIONS.
SO THAT'S PART OF NUMBER ONE DOESN'T HAVE THE SPECIFICATION ABOUT IT AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL STANDARD.
AND WE JUST EDITED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
BUT IT'S STILL PART OF NUMBER ONE.
YOU, WE DON'T HAVE TO ADD A FIFTH ONE.
SO SHE WANTS ALL OF THESE ALL FORMS. OKAY.
NUMBER FOUR, KEEP EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING.
[00:55:01]
YES.SO THAT'S NINE TO ONE ABSTAIN.
DID YOU AUGUSTINA, DID YOU GET HEARD? YOU SAID YES, RIGHT? AUGUSTINA? I SAID YES.
I JUST WASN'T, I, IT IT'S HARDER ON THE WEBEX.
I DIDN'T WANNA GIVE Y'ALL GERMS, SO I SAID CONGRATULATIONS HERE.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND WHILE I PLAY CATCH UP.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT WHEN IT'S DONE.
CARRIE WALLER HAS NOT SHIFT OUT.
[4. C15-2023-0013 Carly Emery 205 Adam L Chapa Street]
ITEM FOUR C 15 20 23 0 13.CARLY EMERY, 2 0 5 ADAM L CHAPA STREET.
I LIKE THE APPLICANT'S NAME IS CARLY EMERY AND SHE'S ON VIRTUALLY.
OKAY, MS. EMERY, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? HI, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? OKAY, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
HANG ON ONE SECOND WHILE WE GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
IF YOU ARE WATCHING ON E T X N, THERE'S GOING TO BE A SHORT DELAY BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE AND WHAT WE SEE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE READY, JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE AND IT WILL ADVANCE.
UH, GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
YOUR PRESENTATION IS PULLED UP.
MY NAME IS CARLY EMORY AND I AM THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 2 0 5 ADAM EL CHAPPA STREET.
I AM HERE TO REQUEST A DECREASE IN THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET AND A DECREASE TO THE REAR SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET, OR SORRY, 10 FEET TO FIVE FEET.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT MY HOUSE IS CURRENTLY BUILT THIS WAY BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AND SOLD TO ME AS SUCH.
UM, BUT IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT CURRENT MEASUREMENTS OF THE HOUSE ARE INDEED VIOLATION OF SETBACK STANDARDS.
UM, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THAT IS JUST A PHOTO OF MY HOUSE FOR REFERENCE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS, UM, DUE TO MY EXTREMELY SMALL LOT SIZE OF ONLY 2,700 SQUARE FEET, I'M IN A SUBSTANDARD LOT THAT ALSO FALLS UNDER THE SMALL LOT AMNESTY FOR THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
UM, THIS LOT IS ALSO A CORNER LOT THAT'S BUSTS UP NEXT TO AN ALLEYWAY.
AND MY HARDSHIP IS THAT IF I FOLLOW TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR MY LOT, IT WOULD MAKE MY RESIDENTS ONLY PERMISSIBLE TO BE 10 FEET IN DEPTH OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNINHABITABLE FOR ANY FLOOR PLAN.
UM, AS YOU SEE FROM THIS MAP, UM, THE PREVIOUS SELLER, WHO WAS ALSO THE DEVELOPER OF THIS HOUSE, LINED UP SETBACK MEASUREMENTS TO REFLECT THOSE OF MY DIRECT ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, UM, AS IF MY LOT WAS STILL CONSIDERED PART OF THE LARGER LOT SEVEN.
BUT BACK IN 2006 IT WAS SUB SUB-DIVIDED AS ITS OWN LOT WHICH I PROVIDED IN MY APPLICATION PACKAGE.
UM, FOR THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION LETTER, IT SEEMS THAT THE FRONT SETBACK OF MY HOUSE HAS BEEN SET AT 15 FEET SINCE 2007.
AT LEAST THAT'S THE LAST GOOGLE IMAGE THAT I HAVE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, BUT THE REAR SETBACK WAS ADDED BY AN ADDITION FROM THIS PREVIOUS OWNER.
[01:00:01]
I AM NOW CURRENTLY TRYING TO REMEDY.UM, ON THIS SLIDE, I ALSO INCLUDED ALL OF THE PERMITS THAT THE PREVIOUS SELLER APPLIED FOR BEFORE SHE SOLD THE HOUSE TO ME.
UM, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THESE ARE JUST FLOOR PLANS WHERE YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHAT WAS EXISTING VERSUS THE NEW ADDITION.
UM, I DO HAVE A SOLID IRON PRIVACY FENCE AROUND MY PROPERTY LINE, SO THE HOUSE DOES NOT ENCROACH ON ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I'VE ALSO INCLUDED, IF YOU CLICK ON NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
I'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE CURRENT FLOOR PLAN.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE REAR OF MY HOUSE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION, DOES CONTAIN MY KITCHEN LAUNDRY ROOM AND TWO BATHROOMS. SO, UM, QUITE A BIT OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PLUMBING ALONG THE BACK REAR.
I HAVE, UM, AGAIN, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT SHOW WHERE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WAS TO WHAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER ADDED ON.
BUT AGAIN, AT THE TIME OF MY PURCHASE, I WAS NOT MADE AWARE THAT THE HOUSE WAS IN ANY KIND OF VIOLATION OF PERMITS ZONING ISSUE, NOR WAS I TOLD THAT IN ADDITION WAS PUT ON.
UM, THE TWO PICTURES SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN ARE THE AREAS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION, AGAIN WITH THE FRONT SETBACK AND THE REAR SETBACK.
UM, IF YOU CLICK NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
I THINK YOU WERE ON THE CORRECT SLIDE, BUT IT WENT BACK.
UM, SO I AM HERE TO ASK FOR THIS VARIANCE AS THE FIRST STEP TO ENSURE THAT I CAN GO THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WITH THIS HOUSE IS UP TO CORRECT PERMITTING IN CODE.
THIS VARIANCE IS IMPERATIVE FOR ME TO MAINTAIN THE HOME AS IS IF THIS IS NOT GRANTED, LIKE I MENTIONED, BE BEFORE A HOUSE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE BUILT ON IT AND I WOULD BE LEFT WITH JUST A VERY SMALL LOT OF UNUSABLE LAND.
UM, I'VE INCLUDED EVERYTHING THAT I'VE JUST MEN MENTIONED IN THAT PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON ANYTHING ELSE THE BOARD NEEDS AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I'M GONNA START REAL QUICK.
CAN SOMEONE, LIKE, ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE DISCLOSED SOMEWHERE? LIKE WELL, IT'S, IT'S ALSO DUE DILIGENCE.
THEY, THEY OB THEY DIDN'T, THEY MUST NOT HAVE DONE A SITE PLAN OR CHECKED THAT THEY WERE WITHIN ENCODE.
I MEAN THE HOUSE I THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT DURING THE SALES PROCESS.
IF, LIKE MELISSA SAID, DUE DILIGENCE WOULD'VE BEEN DONE.
AND I HAVE SERVED THE PREVIOUS SORRY MA'AM, THAT THAT WASN'T REALLY A QUESTION.
IT'S OKAY FOR, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBER PRUITT? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IS THIS, I, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAS TRIGGERED THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF PERMITS ARE YOU LOOKING TO GET THAT WERE DENIED? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UH, YES, GREAT QUESTION.
I AM ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UM, LIKE I SAID, WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE, NONE OF THIS WAS DISCLOSED AND THE CITY DID NOT APPROACH ME UNTIL FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE SALE OF THE HOME THAT IT WAS INDEED IN VIOLATION.
UM, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THAT'S WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE WITH, WITH ITS CURRENT SETBACKS.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO REMEDY THE SETBACK ISSUE BEFORE I CAN GO AHEAD AND SEND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR CORRECT PERMITTING.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT PERMITTING ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO THOUGH? I MEAN, ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THIS LOT? NOPE.
I'M JUST LOOKING TO KEEP MY HOUSE AS IS.
IT WAS, UH, MADE AWARE TO ME AFTER THE SALE THAT THERE WAS NO CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION SHE PUT ON THE PREVIOUS SELLER PUT ON.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE THE DRAWINGS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED ARE DATED IN MAY OF 2022 AND IT SHOWS I HAD AN ARCHITECT TO REDRAW THEM.
WELL, THE, THE HASHED PART THERE SAYS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THAT'S WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SHE GOT NOTICED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, GERALD.
[01:05:01]
OH, UM, BOARD MEMBER PRUIT ASKED THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, SO I'M GOOD.LOOKING AT THE DIOCESE OH YEAH.
SO YOU BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, UM, FROM A PREVIOUS OWNER.
DID THEY HAVE APPROVED PLANS, HAD THAT ADDITION BEEN APPROVED AT ALL OR DID THEY COMPLETELY BUILD IT UN PERMITTED.
THEY DID NOT PERMIT THE ADDITION.
THEY DID EVERYTHING THROUGH EXPRESS PERMITTING AS A REMODEL, WHICH WAS INCORRECT ON HER PART.
AND THEY, THE PERMITS THE CITY, OR SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT LAST ONE.
AND THE CITY FINALED THE PERMITS WITH THE ADDITION.
I I WOULD IMAGINE WITH THE ADDITION THERE, BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSED PERMIT, PERHAPS ELAINE CAN BETTER HELP ME HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE AS I SAW THE WORD THAT SHOWED THE PERMITS WERE APPROVED, BUT I'M WONDERING HOW THEY COULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NEVER INSPECTED.
THE QUESTION IS, IS IF THE ADDITION WENT, WHEN DID THE ADDITION ACTUALLY HAPPENED? WAS IT WHILE THESE PERMITS IN 2020 WERE OPEN OR? THAT IS MY ASSUMPTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T PURCHASE THE HOME UNTIL, UM, OCTOBER, 2021.
MADAM VICE CHAIR, UM, THIS IS THE LIAISON FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ELAINE, UM, I'M LOOKING THROUGH PERMIT HISTORY AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE INSPECTORS.
UM, IT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2020 AS AN EXPRESS PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL UPDATE.
JUST LARGE CALLED PLUMBING AND MACON ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPDATE, PLUMBING, HVAC INSULATION, INTERIOR COSMETIC UPGRADES, BUT NOTHING FOR AN ADDITION.
SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE ADDITION WAS DONE SOMETIME AFTER THAT PERMIT WAS FINALED TO CURRENTLY, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW.
THERE'S NO WAY TO SAY, I'M SORRY.
THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY SAY UNLESS THERE'S NO GARS AND, AND THERE WERE NO TREES AND YOU COULD SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON BACK THERE.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BIG IRON FENCE.
THAT TWO NON, NON-COMBUSTIBLE TWO.
BUT IF, IF MIKE WAS HERE, HE WOULD TELL THE HOMEOWNER THAT THEY HAVE A CASE AGAINST THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER
THAT WASN'T A QUESTION INVOLVED WITH THAT.
WE'RE WE'RE, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU WANNA HELP US? YEAH, BUT WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE DEBATING, WE'RE DEBATING BEFORE THE, THE ACTUAL BUSINESS OF THE MOTION THING HAPPENS.
SO I KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A CONVERSATIONAL, BUT IT IT'S, IT'S TIME FOR US TO TALK AND, AND IF WE NEED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, WE WILL.
I, I NORMALLY DON'T, I DIDN'T WANNA HURT HER FEELINGS.
I KNOW, BUT YOU DID IT VERY WELL.
IT WAS VERY WELL FOR, I WAS TRYING TO BE NICE ABOUT HER TOO.
DID YOU CALL US THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES.
AND UH, THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, DID YOU GET ANYTHING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR ANY OF YOUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS? NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
SO I WAS GONNA SAY, NORMALLY I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN FOLKS ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, BUT I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE IN AND OF ITSELF.
AND, UH, I'M INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I JUST WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT IF SHE HAD TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
YOU CAN IF I PROPOSE A, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BOTH POST PHONE IF YOU'D LIKE.
WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE THOUGH.
SO, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
UH, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARZA.
SO IN RELATION TO ZONING REGULATIONS, PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE, CUZ BASED ON THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UM, THIS IS
[01:10:01]
A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND IT IS LIMITED BY CURTEOUS COVER IN SIZE.AND THE HOUSE IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE HOUSE DIRECTLY, UH, ADJACENT, CLOSER TO THE SCHOOL, AS WELL AS THE HOUSES ALONG ADAM CHAPPA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET ALSO HAVE THEIR STRUCTURES PULLED UP AT LEAST, UM, AT LEAST TO THE SAME 15 FEET.
SO IN TERMS OF LIKE SETBACK, AVERAGING THEIR VERY SIMILAR FRONTAGES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
UH, IN TERMS OF THE REAR SETBACK, IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC ROAD AND HAS BEEN MODIFIED WITH A SOLID NON-COMBUSTIBLE FENCE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT, THAT, THAT WILL HELP WITH THE FIRE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AS IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
IT IS A EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, IT IS ADJACENT TO THE ALLEYWAY AND IT'S THERE
SORRY, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT.
IS THAT WHILE IT FOLLOWS THE SAME SETBACK AS THE FRONT HOUSE, THE FRONT HOUSE ACTUALLY, UM, FACES THIRD STREET.
SO WHILE THEY'RE VISUALLY IN ALIGNMENT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE CODE.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE HOUSE IS EXISTING.
IT'S A VERY CUTE LITTLE BUNGALOW, AND IT FITS ALONG WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND THE SOLID VENTS, UH, HELPS, UH, LEAD TO, HELPS ALLEVIATE ANY FIRE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARZA.
I HAVE TO SAY I'M EXTREMELY RELUCTANT.
I MEAN, AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, WE USUALLY DENY THESE 90% OF THE TIME.
UM, THIS HOMEOWNER SHOULD HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND LET THIS BE A LESSON THAT YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE YOU BUY A HOUSE.
IT'S A LARGE INVESTMENT, BUT, UM, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE.
I'LL JUST SECOND WHAT BROOKE SAID BECAUSE SHE PHRASED IT SO WELL, BUT YES.
UH, JEANETTE VANN OR JANELLE VANK.
YOU DO, UH, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE? YES.
I SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE AT 11 AND NINE.
UH, WE STILL HAVE A VACANCY FOR, UH, DISTRICT FOUR.
SO EIGHT IS THE SUPER MAJORITY TONIGHT.
NO, YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE FOR THAT SEAT.
DO WE HAVE A YEAH, THAT'S, THAT IS, SO ARE WE REQUIRING OUR, THAT'S WHY MARCEL'S HERE.
YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE NUMBER IF YOU FILL IT.
IT'S ONLY IF THERE'S TIME HERE.
RIGHT? GET BACK TO ME ON THAT ONE.
YOU, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE MARCEL HERE FOR THAT SEAT.
[01:15:01]
JUST GOING OFF WHAT I WAS TOLD BY LEGAL, JUST SAYING.I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT ONE.
I'M JUST SAYING I'M NOT A DOCTOR.
I JUST PLAY ONE ON TV C 15 20 23 0 0 14.
[5. C15-2023-0014 Gary and Melissa Prust 1204 Crestwood Road]
GARY AND MELISSA PRES, 12 0 4 CRESTWOOD ROAD.WE'LL GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP, THEN STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I AM THE HOMEOWNER OF, UH, 1204 CRESTWOOD ROAD, AND IT IS MY HOMESTEAD, UH, WITH MELISSA.
MY WIFE AND I DID MAKE A PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK SOMETHING HAPPENED IN TECHNO WORLD AND IT JUST DIDN'T GET THROUGH WHERE IT NEEDED TO GO.
BUT, UH, THE APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED, WE FEEL IS PRETTY INCLUSIVE AND HAS ABOUT 20 SOMETHING INCLUDED ITEMS WITH IT.
UM, BUT WHAT THIS APPLICATION CONCERNS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR AND HAVE INSTALLED AND IT'S BEING FINISHED TOMORROW, AN IN-GROUND POOL IN OUR BACKYARD.
NOW IN OUR BACKYARD AT OUR RESIDENCE, WE HAVE NUMEROUS PROTECTED HERITAGE TREES AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE PLACE ON THE LOT, UM, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACKYARD WHERE A POOL COULD BE INSTALLED WITHOUT DISTURBING OR SEEKING TO REMOVE ANY TREES.
UM, BUT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF OUR LOT WHERE IT IS ON THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE, THERE'S ABOUT A TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE WHERE GRADES DOWNWARD TO THE EAST.
AS A RESULT, THE POOL WHERE IT IS ON THAT GRADE SITS ABOUT EIGHT INCHES ABOVE GROUND ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEN OVER 18 INCHES, EXCUSE ME, EIGHT INCHES ABOVE GROUND ON THE WEST SIDE AND ABOUT 18 INCHES OUTTA THE GROUND ON THE OTHER SIDE.
NOW, FOR THE POOL COPING, WE HAD SOME OPTIONS WE COULD SEEK TO POUR A CONCRETE SLAB.
WE DECIDED NOT TO, CUZ WE'RE AWARE PERMEABLE COVERAGE ISSUES, AND WE WANT TO DO OUR PART TO HELP WITH THE WATER TABLE.
AND SO IN ORDER TO HAVE A, A POOL DECKING AND NOT HAVE DIRTY FEET ALL THE TIME, UH, WE'RE SEEKING TO INSTALL, UH, WOOD DECKING AROUND ON THREE SIDES OF THE POOL.
IT HELPS WITH PERMEABLE COVERAGE AND, UM, IS ALSO, IS A SAFETY ISSUE AS, AS WE FEEL WE DON'T HAVE KIDS, BUT WE ARE THE FUN AUNT AND UNCLE.
AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE KIDS AND SUMMER PARTIES RUNNING AROUND THERE AND THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT LEDGE ON ONE SIDE AND AN 18 FOOT LEDGE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT'S STICKING OUT, OUR CONCERN IS THAT IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD.
SO WE HAVE INCLUDED A DESIGN CONCEPT WITH OUR APPLICATION.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT, UM, ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHERE IT'S THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING TOWARD THE HOUSE.
I MADE A COUPLE NOTES THERE THAT PRESENTLY THERE IS A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
WE ARE GETTING THAT REMOVED IN PART FOR, TO ASSIST WITH PERMEABLE COVERAGE.
UM, BUT ALSO YOU CAN SEE I'VE MADE A NOTE THAT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE YARD THAT IT SLOPES DOWN IN, IN THAT DIRECTION, WE BELIEVE THAT'S OUR HARDSHIP, IS IF I, IF WE COULD HAVE BUILT THAT POOL SO IT'S COMPLETELY GROUND LEVEL, WE WOULD'VE DONE IT, BUT IT JUST WASN'T CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY COULD DO IT LIKE THAT.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY EXPLORED ALL THE, UH, TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF INSTALLING IT.
AND INSTEAD OF DIGGING PILLARS, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD HURT CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OR ANY TREES, UH, WE'VE DECIDED TO USE GROUND LEVEL DECKING BLOCKS TO NOT DISTURB, UH, MANY OF OUR, I THINK FOUR OR FIVE PROTECTED HERITAGE TREES ON THE LOT.
UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE POOL IS SEVEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, THERE'S REQUIRED SETBACK OF FIVE FEET.
WE'RE ASKING TO BUILD THE DECK ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE FENCE.
WE HAVE INCLUDED, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF US.
THEY'RE AWARE OF THE, OF OUR REQUEST AND THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT, UM, ESPECIALLY THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SIDE WHERE WE'RE SEEKING THE DECK TO BE BUILT.
[01:20:04]
AND ALSO IN ITEM NUMBER 16, THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE'VE INCLUDED OF MY WIFE STANDING NEXT TO WHERE THAT POOL LEDGE IS.UM, AND AGAIN, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IT PRESENTS A SAFETY HAZARD.
UM, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE ASKING VARIANTS TO CHANGE THE SETBACK JUST FOR 41 FEET, WHERE THE DECK PART IS NOT FOR THE ENTIRE LOT, BUT FOR 41 FEET FROM WHERE THE POOL IS, UH, DOWN TO WHERE THE PROPOSED DECK WOULD END, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE HOUSE, UM, TO MODIFY THE SETBACK TO ZERO.
SO WE CAN BUILD THE DECK ALL THE WAY TO THAT PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE FENCE IS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, LET GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I'D LIKE TO START, IF I COULD REAL QUICK, COULD YOU PULL UP, UH, FROM THE BACKUP ITEM FIVE 16? IT'S THE VERY LAST ONE AND THAT'LL YEAH, THAT'LL BE IN, UH, THE ADVANCED PACKET MARCH THREE.
MADAM CHAIR, HE ONLY HAS, UM, CTM ONLY HAS ACCESS TO THE PRESENTATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO AND IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY ITEM FIVE 17 AND, UM, PART TWO OF THE BACKUP.
IT'S THE FIRST PAGE AND PART TWO AND THE SECOND PAGE.
IT'S NOT 18 FEET, IT'S 18 INCHES BY THE WAY.
I DO, I, I CAREFUL BECAUSE LET'S, LET'S START WITH VIRTUAL FIRST.
UM, YEAH, I'M INTERESTED IN WHY THE ASK IS FOR THE ENTIRE FIVE FEET, LIKE YEAH.
SO THAT YOU'D ACTUALLY END UP WITH ZERO FEET, UM, BETWEEN THE DECKING AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
LIKE WHY NOT A FOUR FOOT DECK OR A FIVE FOOT DECK? WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SEVEN FEET? WE'RE BASICALLY ASKING FOR THE MAXIMUM VARIANCE.
SO, UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT AND, UH, WE PUT SOME TIME AND THOUGHT INTO THAT OF LIKE HOW FAR WE WOULD BUILD BACK, BUT IT WOULD PRESENT POTENTIALLY SOME WELL OF OUR CONCERNED OF THE SAME SAFETY ISSUES BECAUSE IF THERE'S A TWO FOOT DROP OFF OVER ON THAT SIDE OVER THERE AND IT'S JUST THE DECK'S JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER, IF YOU ASK FOR A FOUR FOOT, THEN YOU'RE JUST THAT MUCH CLOSER TO THE FENCE.
UM, AND I, I'M WORRIED THAT SOMEONE COULD FALL, TWIST AND ANKLE TWIST AND KNEE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IT'S SAFER TO BUILD IT ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE LINE BECAUSE THERE'S LESS CHANCE OF SOMEONE FALLING OFF THERE.
BUT YOU COULD BUILD A RAILING OR A LEDGE OR LIKE A BENCH.
I, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME DESIGN OPTIONS TO AVOID ASKING FOR THE MAXIMUM VARIANCE.
AND SO I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, AGAIN, OUR CONCERN BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT SPACE THERE AND YOU WANT TO HAVE DECKING AROUND YOUR POOL, SO IT'S SANITARY AND IT, IT'S CLEAN.
YOU DON'T GET DIRT IN YOUR WATER ALL THE TIME.
UM, DECKING ON THAT SIDE, WHENEVER IT'S SEVEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, 18 INCHES ABOVE GROUND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OUR CONCERN IS THAT IT'S BECOMES SAFETY.
IF WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, NIECES AND NEPHEWS KIND OF RUNNING AROUND THERE, OR IF IT'S A, A SUMMER PARTY AND SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, UM, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO, TO FALL OFF.
AND AGAIN, JUST THE WAY THE TOPOGRAPHY IS, IF I COULD HAVE BUILT IT TO THE GROUND, I WOULD'VE DONE IT THAT WAY.
UM, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE, THE WAY THE LOT IS SHAPED JUST DIDN'T PERMIT THAT.
IS IT? SORRY, ONE MORE QUESTION.
SO IF YOU WERE ABLE TO BUILD IT FLAT TO THE GROUND, YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE TOPOGRAPHY ISSUE, WOULD YOU NOT STILL BE ASKING FOR A DECK? UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT WERE ON THE GROUND, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE, I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED THE DIRTY FEET A COUPLE OF TIMES.
I'M SORRY, YOU MENTIONED DIRTY FEET A COUPLE OF TIMES, WHICH WOULD BE TO WHETHER YOU HAD THE DROP OFF OR NOT.
WELL, AND THERE, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, SOME OTHER SOLUTION THAT COULD HAVE COME UP WITH WHETHER IT BE SAWD ON THAT SIDE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE JUST IF IT WERE GROUND, A COMPLETELY GROUND LEVEL POOL.
BUT IN ALL, IN ALL, WHAT WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR IS JUST A LOW CLEARANCE DECK THAT COMES ABOUT 18 INCHES OFF THE GROUND.
IF I COULD MAKE IT LOWER, I PROBABLY WOULD, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S SAFE ON THAT SIDE OF THE POOL.
[01:25:01]
I HEARD YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT THE DECK AND I WAS KIND OF LOOKING, IS THERE A TRELLIS? AND SO, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.SO YES, THERE IS A, A PLAN TO INCLUDE A, A TRELLIS ON TOP OF THE DECK THERE.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S PRIMARILY TO ASSIST IN HAVING SOME GREENERY GROW ALONG THAT SIDE, UH, TO ASSIST WITH, WITH SHADE.
AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, IT'S CAN BE JUST PLEASANT TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACES.
BOARD MEMBER BAILEY, OR DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? VICE CHAIR? NO.
YOU DESIGNED THIS POOL IN THIS PLACE WITH THIS CLEARANCE FROM THE FENCE.
YOU DESIGNED IT, YOU HAD IT BUILT, AND, AND, AND YOU CAN HAVE A DECK THAT MEETS CODE WITH A RAIL OR YOU CAN BRING THE SOD UP EVEN THERE IF YOU WANNA DO SOMETHING SLOPING, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING.
YOU HAVE OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN DO WITHIN CODE.
AND SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE HARDSHIP.
I DON'T SEE ANY HARDSHIP HERE WHATSOEVER.
IT'S SELF-CREATED, IT'S A DESIRE, BUT I'M, I'M NOT SEEING THE HARDSHIP, SO MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME.
SO AS, AS FAR AS THE, AND IT'S NOT ENOUGH OF A SLOPE, RIGHT? AND I, I HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AND YOU KNOW, ANTHONY AND SYLVAN IS WHO HE CONTRACTED WITH TO, TO BUILD OUR POOL.
I DON'T THINK I WAS AWARE UNTIL WE WERE WELL INTO THE PROCESS THAT I WAS GONNA STICK OUT OF THE GROUND LIKE THAT.
NOW THE TOP AGAIN, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT IS THAT IT STARTS ON ONE END OVER HERE, I GUESS I WOULD SAY OVER HERE ON THE WEST SIDE AND DROPS OVER THIS WAY ON TWO FEET.
THE EAST SIDE, ABOUT TWO FEET, TWO FEET FROM ONE SIDE OF THE LOT TO THE OTHER.
UM, AND SO WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF MAYBE IF ANYONE HAD AN 18 FOOT, YOU KNOW, OBJECT STICKING OUT OF THE GROUND SOMEWHERE, WE WOULD PROBABLY MOVE THAT OUT OF OUR YARD OR GET IT OUT OF THE WAY.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S OUR CONCERN.
THE HARDSHIP BEING THAT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT, JUST THAT NATURAL SLOPE IS PRETTY STEEP OVER THERE FOR A RESIDENTIAL LOT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT VARIANCE.
WE FEEL IT MEETS THE HARDSHIP.
NO, I THINK I, UH, I THINK I'M IN THE SAME POSITION.
UM, BUT NOT SO MUCH FOCUSING ON THE HARDSHIP GIVEN WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE POOL.
BUT I THINK THE ISSUE IS YOU COULD BUILD A POOL SLIGHTLY SMALLER, UH, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU THE, THE DECK AROUND THERE.
YOU COULD ACTUALLY TAKE THAT, UH, THE LENGTH OF THE POOL A LITTLE SMALLER AND KIND OF MOVE IT, UH, AWAY FROM THAT BOUNDARY LINE AWAY FROM THAT FENCE.
UH, AND YOU, AND, AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET YOU, UH, ENOUGH ROOM TO WHERE YOU COULD PUT A PRETTY GOOD SIZE DECK AROUND THAT UH, UH, EAST SIDE THERE AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS.
AND SO THERE, THE, THE POOL'S BUILT.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE I HAVE A HARDSHIP, UH, I THINK THE HARDSHIP IS I CAN'T BUILD THE SIZE OF THE POOL THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE RULES.
AND SO I JUST, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S A HARDSHIP HERE EITHER.
AND SIR, IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT, WAS THAT A QUESTION? CAUSE THAT WASN'T A QUESTION.
JUST COMMENT, DEBATE, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SO, UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DECK AND I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DECK ONLY, NOT THE TRELLIS, BECAUSE I LIVE ON SLOPE AND IT'S, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AND THERE ARE AREAS OF MY YARD THAT ARE NOT USABLE, COMFORTABLY USABLE BECAUSE I HAVE HAVE A GRADE CHANGE.
AND WHETHER I'M THE FUN ANSWER OR NOT, UM, I AM, I AM, UH, NOT GETTING ANY YOUNGER AND IT'S A LITTLE EASIER ON THE AREA THAT'S A LITTLE FLATTER.
SO I AM ONLY MAKING A MOTION FOR THE DECK.
UM, I DO, DO YOU THINK IT'S UNUSUAL
[01:30:01]
PLACEMENT FOR A POOL AND THE POOL WITH THE LOCATION OF THE TREE? UH, THERE IS A BIG TREE IN THE FRONT YARD THERE.SO I THINK THAT IT'S JUST OVERALL JUST A LITTLE STRANGE CUZ THE POOL'S IN THE FRONT YARD, Y'ALL AND, UH, THERE'S A BIG TREE THERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A ROOT ZONE ISSUE AND WHY THEY COULDN'T DIG THAT POOL DOWN.
SO I'M GONNA TRY TO PULL SOME FINDINGS TOGETHER AND WE'LL JUST SEE HOW IT GOES IF ANYBODY HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT THEY'D LIKE TO THROW IN.
AND I WOULD SAY I REALLY MISS BOARD MEMBER MON OLIN TONIGHT.
SO YOUR PATIENCE, PLEASE DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER EATS BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, BOARD MEMBER SMITH, WE'RE NOT CARRYING YOU.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.
HAVING, UH, BEFORE WE VOTE, HAVING RAISED CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE THINGS SAFER CUZ THEY'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HURT THEMSELVES.
AND WHEN I READ THIS, WHEN I SAW THIS, I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY CLEVER, GOOD WAY TO MINIMIZE THAT POSSIBILITY.
SO, UH, YEAH, I, I, YOU KNOW, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THOSE WHO SAY IT'S SORT OF A SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIP IN A WAY.
UH, BUT THERE IS THE SLOPE ISSUE AND I, I LIKE, I LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS A, AS A FATHER AND A GRANDFATHER, I LIKE THIS SOLUTION HERE.
THE POOL'S NOT IN THE FRONT YARD.
UM, THEY HAVE ALI ACCESS TO THE GARAGE.
I SAW THE FENCE BEHIND IT BEING REAL HIGH AND I WAS LIKE, GOOD NEST.
AND, UH, SO I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE, THE FENCE HARDSHIP COMING NEXT, AND SO I WAS LAUGHING IN MY, IN MY HEAD.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I I I I ONLY LISTEN TO THE VARIANCE CASES.
I DON'T, I DON'T, UH, PARTICIPATE IN THEM.
I'M GONNA TRY TO DO SOME FINDINGS OF FACT.
IF YOU DON'T, UH, IF THERE AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS, UH, I'M GONNA TRY.
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE JUST THE DECK, NOT THE TRELLIS.
RIGHT? NOT THE TRELLIS CAKE AND ICING.
MAYBE SOME CAKE, UH, ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE.
AS WITH THE POOL PLACEMENT WITH THE LARGE, UH, WHAT TO APPEARS TO BE A HERITAGE TREE, OR AT LEAST IT IS A, A PROTECTED TREE THAT WAS SALVAGED.
AND, UH, IN THERE, UH, THE ELEVATION OF THE POOL IS NOT A GRADE AND A WOOD DECK THAT ALLOWS FOR UMS. SOME RAINWATER IS STILL PENETRATED, BUT YET PROVIDE A SAFE LEVEL, UM, EXPERIENCE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS A REASONABLE USE.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AS A LO SLOPE, AS A LOT SLOPES FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
AND WITH THE TREE PLACEMENT AND THE POOL CONFIGURATION, UH, IT, IT IS PRETTY TYPICAL TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LEVEL GROUND ADJACENT TO A, A SWIMMING POOL.
HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO VARY IN WHICH THOUGH PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS LOT IS A LITTLE MORE DRASTIC THAN THAN LOTS ADJACENT AND TIME WENT IN TO SAVE THE TREE ON THE LOT.
SO THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY THE POOL IS PLACED WHERE IT IS.
AS WELL AS THERE ARE LETTERS FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AS THE DECK WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT.
IT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS OVER THE FENCE AND WILL ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY, UM, WHICH IT'S LOCATED THE END.
[01:35:01]
OKAY.I KNOW Y'ALL ALWAYS THINK I'M GONNA KEEP GOING, SO I, I HAVE TO GIVE MY LITTLE SIGNAL.
THE END
WE'LL PRACTICE ON THAT MICROPHONE.
I MEAN, I I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SOME RELIEF, BUT NOT, I THINK SEVEN FEET IS TOO BIG OF A ASK FOR THIS OTHER BUSINESS SOLUTION AS POSSIBLE.
BROOKE BAILEY? NO, I JUST THINK IT'S TOO MUCH.
AND THEY CAN BUILD WITHIN CODE THREE.
YOUR VARIANCE DID NOT PASS, BUT WE GOT AN ALTERNATE HERE.
SO IT'S EITHER DENIED, IT'S DENIED LETTERS.
BUT THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS ARGUING BEFORE SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE ALTERNATE HAS TO BE NOT THE VACANCY.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING BRIEFLY, UH, ABOUT WHETHER THE NINE AND THE EIGHT, UH, COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE MORE FOR US? SO ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THE VACANCY IS GONNA CONTROL, SO THAT'S EIGHT.
BUT IF THERE'S, IF OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, IF WE, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND THEN POSTPONE THE CASE UNTIL THE BOARD HAS BEEN FULLY, UM, UNTIL EVERYONE HAS BEEN APPOINTED, THEN WE CAN DO THAT.
SO AS IT STANDS IT WITH IN, IS IT A DIDN'T LIKE IT? IS, IS IT THIS APPROVED? BUT WAIT, NO.
MADAM CHAIR, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU HAVE VOTING RIGHT NOW? 11.
SO THE VACANCY DOES NOT TAKE IT DOWN.
IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE FOR THE 11TH SEAT, IT CAN'T, THE, THE, THE VACANCY CONTROLS.
SO THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE 11 PEOPLE VOTING.
NO, CAUSE IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF STUPID BYLAW.
SO AT LEAST 11, 11 AUTHORIZED SEATS ON THE BOARD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED.
ONLY 10 HAVE BEEN APPOINTED THE VACANCY CONTROLS.
EXCEPT THAT THE, THE ALTERNATE WAS APPOINTED, BUT NOT WHO'S AN APPOINTED SEAT.
SO, SO THE VACANCY CONTROLS, BUT IF, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO RESCIND THEIR MOTION AND THEN POSTPONE THE CASE UNTIL ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THIS FOR YEARS.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH MANY ELECTION CYCLES.
MELISSA'S BEEN THROUGH MORE WHERE WE'VE HAD VACANCIES, AND THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE APPOINTED ALTERNATES IS TO FILL IN FOR THOSE VACANCIES.
OTHERWISE THERE'S NO POINT IN HAVING ALTERNATES AT ALL.
MAYBE STEPH, I'M I'M INCLINED TO AGREE.
I MEAN, IT, IT SAYS IF ALL 11 AUTHORIZED SEATS ON THE BOARD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AND THEY'VE BOTH BEEN APPOINTED NO VACANCIES AND NO MEMBERS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO RECUSE HIM OR HERSELF.
SO I I'M, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL LEGALLY APPOINTED THE, THERE'S NO, FOR DISTRICT FOUR, THE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO CURRENT APPOINTMENT FOR DISTRICT FOUR.
THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
NO, I, I'M, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE, BUT I'M, I'M READING AND THAT'S NEVER, I, I THINK IF, IF YEAH, I VOTE TO RESCIND THE VOTE BECAUSE THAT'S,
[01:40:01]
WE NEED TO DELVE INTO THAT.I I MAKE A MOTION TO, TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION, UM, TO TABLE TO THE APRIL 10TH AGENDA.
POSTPONE TO THE APRIL 10TH AGENDA CAN THEN HAS BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.
RIGHT? I THINK THAT HAS TO BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.
UM, MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND OUR PREVIOUS ACTION.
CAN YOU DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
GOT A QUESTION THAT WHAT ABOUT OUR PREVIOUS CASES IF RIGHT.
WE'VE BEEN VOTING ALL NIGHT SO IT YOU CAN GO HOME, BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING ONE, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE MY, AS AN ALTERNATE SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL THRESHOLD TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
SO YOU CAN, WE CAN STILL HAVE 11 VOTING, BUT THE YES, YES.
THE NINE OR EIGHT IS DETERMINED BY HOW MANY WE FULFILL WHAT? YES.
LIKE HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED? AT LEAST THAT'S HOW IT READS TO ME TOO.
I THINK YOU APPOINTED, THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION.
I JUST, CAN WE VOTE ON THE RECENT MOTION AND THEN CAN WE VOTE ON A POSTPONEMENT? AND THEN I NEED TO WALK AWAY FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
THIS IS A MOTION TO RESCIND MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT TO OUR APRIL TO OUR NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE APRIL 10TH.
UH, I DIDN'T VOTE ON THE, WE DIDN'T GET TO SIXTH YET.
DO I NEED A SUPER MAJORITY TO OUR ASSIGN? IT'S A, IT'S A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, SO, SO JUST, JUST, JUST A SIX.
SO, AUGUSTINE RODRIGUEZ, SORRY.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT I'M VOTING ON? TO POSTPONE, THIS IS A MOTION TO RESCIND.
WE ONLY HAVE FIVE VOTES SO FAR.
SORRY, I I REALLY NEED TO WALK AWAY, SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT THROUGH THESE MINUTES.
SO, AUGUSTINA THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT THE LEGALITY IS OF OUR VOTES.
AND THEN WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL, WHAT WAS IT? 10TH, 10TH, SECOND.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
WE'RE GONNA POSTPONE THIS TILL APRIL 10TH.
WE CAN GET SOME MORE CLARIFICATION, MADAM CHAIR.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
IT IS 7:44 PM TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED.
GONNA CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
UH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO WATCH CLOSELY DENIED.
AND IF IT LOOKS LIKE ANY OF THE VOTES ARE GOING TO BE PARTICULARLY CLOSE, WE'LL JUST POSTPONE TILL NEXT MONTH UNTIL WE HAVE CLARIFICATION FROM LEGAL ON HOW THE, UH, UNAPPOINTED, UH, SEAT AFFECTS THE VOTING THRESHOLD AND THE SUPER MAJORITY.
[6. C15-2023-0015 Jennifer Smith for Luke Thompson 1007 Chicon Street]
I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX C 15 20 2315.[01:45:03]
JENNIFER SMITH FOR LUKE THOMPSON 1007 STREET.UH, IS THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE? SHE'S ON VIRTUALLY, YES.
AND WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION.
SO MS. SMITH, THERE WILL BE, UH, APPROXIMATELY 32ND DELANEY IF YOU'RE WATCHING AT HOME VIA ATX N OR ONLINE.
FROM WHAT YOU SEE AND WHAT WE SEE, FEEL FREE TO SAY ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE WHEN YOU'RE READY.
UH, ARE YOU THERE, MS. SMITH? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY NOW? THERE WE GO.
WE'RE PULLING UP YOUR PRESENTATION.
DID YOU HEAR EVERYTHING I SAID ABOUT THE DELAY? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT TOOK SO LONG TO
WE'VE GOT YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, UH, JUST TELL HIM NEXT SLIDE AND HE'LL PROGRESS TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS JENNIFER SMITH AND I'M THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, LUKE THOMPSON, WHO IS ALSO PRESENT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
AND WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT A VARIANCE ON ADDRESS, UH, 10 0 7 CHAUN STREET IN AUSTIN.
AND THEN THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UH, THE, WE'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 1424 SUBSECTION DMG.
AND THIS IS AGAIN, UNDER URBAN HOME REGULATION OF THE CODE.
AND UNDER SECTION V, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO WIDEN THE DRIVEWAY ENTRY TO 18, UH, AND FEET AND FIVE INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED 12 FEET.
AND THE MAIN REASON WHY WE'RE NEEDING TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE WE'RE UNABLE TO FIT A, UH, SIDE BY SIDE TWO CAR, UH, OFF STREETE REQUIRED PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CODE.
UH, DUE TO THE NARROW LOT, THE ONLY WAY TO FIT THIS TWO CARS IS SIDE BY SIDE AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THIS IN THE FUTURE SLIDE AS WELL.
AND WE ALSO HAVE THE HARDSHIP OF HAVING THESE TWO BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE TREES ON THE SIDE.
UM, AS WELL AS, AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE PHOTO, THIS, UH, HIGH SLOPE ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
THE HOUSE YOU SEE ON THERE IS NOT THE HOUSE ON SITE.
THAT HOUSE IS ACTUALLY A 1903 COLLEGE ROW, ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON OUR SITE.
UNDER SECTION G, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT PORCH THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CODE FROM, UH, TWO FOUR FEET, SIX INCHES BY EIGHT FOOT THREE INCHES, AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT DEPTH AND 50% OF THE BUILDING FACADE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT AN EIGHT FOOT THREE FOOT, UH, EIGHT FOOT BY THREE INCHES ON THE WIDTH.
UH, AGAIN, THE BIGGEST HURDLE WE HAVE HERE IS THE HERITAGE TREE THAT'S ON SITE.
WE'VE WORKED WITH, UM, THE TREE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO GET DIFFERENT DESIGNS IN PLACE, A CANDLE DELIVER PORCH, A WRAPAROUND PORCH, AND THEY'RE UNABLE TO WORK WITH US ON THE IMPACTS OF THE TREE ON SITE.
OH, I THINK YOU GUYS WERE ON THE SLIDE AHEAD, BUT, OKAY.
SO THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, HOPEFULLY YOU'RE SEEING THE, THE AERIAL HERE THAT WE HAVE.
SO SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT ARE THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
IT'S A SMALL LOT UNDER, AND IT FALLS UNDER SMALL LOT ATMOSPHERE.
IT'S 4,689 SQUARE FEET AND THE, AND THEN IT'S ALSO A CORNER LOT ON THE CORNER OF, UH, COLLEGE ROW AND CHICO STREET.
THE LOT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ALLEY ACCESS, SO THERE'S NO WAY TO, YOU KNOW, ACCESS THE LOT FROM ANY OTHER ANGLE AND THE TWO LARGE TREES AND THE ELEVATION ON THE HOUSE AS WELL.
HERE YOU CAN REALLY SEE, UH, THE ELEVATION FROM THE STREET, JUST HOW THERE'S STAIRS LEADING UP.
THERE'S A HUGE SLOPE, THE BEAUTIFUL OAK TREE THAT'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
AND THEN THAT HERITAGE PINE TREE ON THE LEFT, AGAIN, THAT HOUSE YOU SEE ON THERE IS NOT PART OF OUR LOT.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVEWAY TO THE RIGHT WHERE THAT HERITAGE POST OAK IS, THERE USED TO BE A ONE CAR GARAGE THERE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED PER, UH, AN CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO MINIMIZE IMPACT OF THAT TREE, WHICH WOULD'VE ACTUALLY ALLOWED FOR THE OWNER TO HAVE A BIGGER HOUSE IF WE HAD HAD KEPT THAT GARAGE THERE.
OKAY, SO THIS JUST GOES INTO FURTHER CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT, SHOWING WHERE THE TWO, UH, LARGE TREES ARE AND HOW THOSE IMPACT THE, UH, FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE.
[01:50:01]
UM, THIS HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR IN THE MAKING OF REDESIGNING AND REDESIGNING THIS HOME AND THIS SORT OF THE, UH, BEST LAYOUT POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS AND NOT HAVE TO GRADE, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN FOUR FEET AND PROTECTING THOSE TREES, UH, DUE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEVATION CHANGES AND THOSE LARGE, UH, OAK TREES ON THERE.HERE YOU CAN SEE, UH, EVEN MORE, UH, SO THE CONSTRAINTS.
SO THERE'S NO ALLEY ACCESS HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IF WE WERE BUILDING IT UNDER THE BASE ASON, WHICH IS SS THREE, THE SETBACK WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY, SIGNIFICANTLY PUSHING IN THE, UH, THE SETBACK OF THE HOUSE, MAKING IT A VERY, VERY NARROW, UH, HOME.
UH, AND THE IMPACT TO THAT TREE WOULD BE GREATER.
HERE WE HAVE THE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, HOUSE AS WELL, BUT WE'RE SHOWING HOW THE TANDEM PARKING IS NOT ABLE TO FIT DUE TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE WOULD REALLY NEED TO DO A SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE OR PARKING, UH, CARPORT IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, FIT THOSE TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, CONSTRAINTS TO THE PORCH ON THAT HERITAGE TREE THAT'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE OAK, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FRONT PORCH FALLS INTO THAT QUARTER ROOT ZONE, UH, WITH A GREEN, UH, FOX THERE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET TO THE LAST SLIDE.
SO IF YOU CAN GO TO THE VERY LAST SLIDE.
UH, HERE, WE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN REALLY SHOW CONSISTENCY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHAR CHARACTERISTICS.
APPROVING THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY ANY MEANS.
MANY OF THE HOUSES IN THIS AREA HAVE A TWO CAR SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE OR A 20 FOOT GARAGE.
IF WE WERE BUILDING UNDER SS THREE REGULATIONS, MS. SMITH, WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT YES, MS. SMITH FOR AT FIVE MINUTES.
IF YOU COULD JUST WRAP IT UP IN ONE SENTENCE, PLEASE.
SO, UH, APPROVING THE VARIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS IN, UH, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OTHER HOUSES HAVE THE CHARACTERISTIC WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER YOUR APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY.
SO WHY IS THE, SINCE IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, ACCORDING TO YOUR PHOTOS, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHY IS THE BUILDING ALREADY BETTER CONSTRUCTION AND WHY WAS THE VARIANCE NOT REQUESTED BEFORE OR EARLIER IN THE PROCESS? OKAY, YEAH, SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THAT SLIDE.
THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION THAT YOU SEE ON THERE IS NOT ON OUR LOT.
THE CONSTRUCTION YOU SEE ON THAT PHOTO IS FROM LOT 1903, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THAT LAST SLIDE, WHICH IS, YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS VERY ITTY BITTY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT 19, UH, 1903.
THAT ALSO SHOWS YOU HOW NARROW THAT LAW IS.
WELL MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU BUILDING TO FRONT CHACON AND NOT COLLEGE ROW? WAS THAT AN OPTION? UM, I'LL LET THE OWNER LUKE THOMPSON ANSWER THAT CUZ IT WAS PART OF THE CONSIDERATE DESIGN, BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY, IT'S THE WAY IT HAS TO HAPPEN.
LUKE, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF AT SIX.
YEAH, I LUKE YOU'LL NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FIRST, PLEASE.
UM, AND, AND TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WE, WE, WE WOULD'VE HAD AN ENTRANCE FROM, UH, COLLEGE ROW.
BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE, UH, TO THE PRESENTATION, I GUESS IN PAGE, UH, SLIDE TWO, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, CODRE, UH, FROM CHICO TO CODRE IS ABOUT, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT GRADE CHANGE.
AND IF WE WERE TO TRY AND MAKE A GR UH, A DRIVEWAY COMING OFF OF COLLEGE ROVE ON THE, ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE LOT, UH, WE WOULD'VE HAD TO GRADE INTO THE HERITAGE PINE TREE.
AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE UNABLE TO GRADE MORE THAN FOUR INCHES INTO THE PINE TREE.
UM, AND WE WOULD'VE HAD TO GRADE IN A, A, A GOOD DEAL MORE THAN THAT TO GET A DRIVEWAY, UH, FROM, UH, OFF OF COLLEGE ROW.
AND SO WE'RE, YOU'RE BASICALLY UNABLE TO GRADE FROM COLLEGE ROW.
UM, YOU'RE UNABLE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, GRADE IN, IN THE, UM, UH, UH, HERITAGE, UH, THE CRV OF THE, UH, THE POST OAK.
AND WE'VE GOT A BUS STOP THERE AS WELL.
SO THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE SPOT THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE, UM, UH, UH, ACCESS TO THE HOUSE, UH, FOR CARS, FOR VEHICLES.
UH, AND THAT'S COMING OFF OF CHICON.
[01:55:01]
OKAY.YEAH, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A SIGN UP FRONT THAT SHOWS TWO HOMES.
DID YOU DIVIDE THIS LOT? IS THAT WHY IT'S SO NARROW? NO, IT WAS, UM, IT WAS, IT WAS TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
UH, WHEN I BOUGHT, I, I BOUGHT THE FIR, THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE I ACTUALLY BOUGHT.
UH, 1007 TWO TUCSON, WHICH WAS A CORNER.
AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER LOT NEXT DOOR THAT I, I I BOUGHT AFTER THAT.
AND, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN SO MUCH LONGER WITH THE DESIGN PROCESS.
SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S ON COLLEGE ROW.
DOES THAT COME OUT ON COLLEGE ROAD COR? CORRECT, YES.
AND THAT'S FRONT ENTRY AND WE WOULD'VE DONE THE FRONT ENTRY, BUT AGAIN, WE COULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GRADE INTO THE PINE TREE.
JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON, ON THAT.
SO THE, UH, THE WIDENING OF THE DRIVEWAY, UH, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER? UM, WE'RE STILL, WE'RE STILL WITHIN OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, UH, LIMITATIONS WITH THE WIDENING OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT'S HOW WE WENT TO PERMITTING WITH IT.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT CAME UP, UM, UH, UH, WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN 18 AND A HALF FOOT DRIVEWAY AND NOT A 12 FOOT.
UH, WE'RE, WE'RE WELL UNDER OUR IMPERVIOUS.
I WOULDN'T, I, I'M NOT WELL UNDER, BUT WE ARE UNDER OUR PERVIOUS COVER, UM, WITH THAT AND WE ACTUALLY TOOK THE, UH, TOOK, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE, UM, UH, JENNIFER STATED THAT WE, WE'D REMOVED THE ONE CAR GARAGE THAT WAS BASICALLY SITTING ON TOP OF THAT POST OAK TREE.
UH, AND WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE ALL THE CONCRETE WHERE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS THAT WELL INSIDE THE QUARTER CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THE POST OAK TREE WITH HAND TOOLS, UH, AND MOVE EVERYTHING BASICALLY OUT OF THAT POST OAKS HALF C R Z.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MICHAEL AND BZ OVER AT BARTLETT, UM, TREE TO, TO CARE FOR THAT TREE THE BEST.
JUST QUICKLY, SO I THINK YOU'RE SHOWING YOU'RE GONNA DO CONCRETE STRIPS ON THE DRIVE INSTEAD OF A SOLID DRIVEWAY, YOU'RE GONNA DO STRIPS? YEAH.
YES, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE COULD, UM, UH, WE COULD DO THE WHOLE THING CONCRETE.
I THINK WE'RE STILL UNDER OUR, UH, IMPERVIOUS.
UM, LIKE I'M JUST LOOKING AT YOUR SITE PLAN.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT YOUR SITE PLAN.
YEAH, AND IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT IF IT GETS APPROVED ON THERE, THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE THIS DESIGN'S ALREADY PRETTY MUCH APPROVED.
WE HAD A MASTER COM REPORT, JUST THESE TWO COMMENTS.
SO IF WE WERE TO GET THE VARIANCE, THIS WHOLE THING JUST SMOOTH PLAN REVIEWED FAIRLY QUICKLY, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO GET FROM THE VARIANCE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT MANEUVER A CAR UNDER STRIPS.
SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT WE GET APPROVED.
BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE WITH, UH, IN PREVIOUS COVER.
IF YOU, UM, I HAD A QUESTION, I GUESS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF, IF I GO TO THE, UH, THE WEBSITE THAT'S SHOWN ON THAT, UH, ON THAT SIGN THERE, THAT COLLEGE ROW PARK PROJECT AND I CLICK ON, UH, THE 1007, UH, CHACAN STREET, THIS SHOWS THE GARAGES AT, UH, LEVEL LEVEL WITH THE STREET.
WAS THAT YOUR, THE INTENT OF YOUR DESIGN AT THIS POINT? THE, THE GARAGES ARE ABOUT, UM, I BELIEVE THEY'RE ABOUT 18 INCHES HIGHER, UH, THAN THE STREET, BUT THEY'RE, THEY ARE FAIRLY LEVELED THE STREET.
WE HAD TO, UH, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, THE ABILITY TO PULL IN, UH, YOU KNOW, ON THE GRADE THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT GRADE CHANGE WITH THE STREET LEVEL IN, IN THE TOP OF THE LOT.
SO THE GARAGE ESSENTIALLY SITS, UM, BELOW, WELL BELOW WHERE THE, THE HOUSES, UM, UH, FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS.
UH, AND SO YOU, YOU CAN ACTUALLY PULL IN TO THE, UH, UH, INTO YOUR GARAGE OR YOUR CARPORT WITHOUT BOTTOMING OUT.
SO IT IS, AND MAYBE THE, UH, THE RENDERING ISN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE OF, OF THE ELEVATION, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IF YOU'RE STAYING ON THE STREET LEVEL, IT'S NOT THAT MUCH HIGHER OFF OFF OF THE STREET TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT, UH, EFFICIENTLY WITHOUT BOTTOMING OUT.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR FRONT PORCH YET YOUR PORCH IS BEHIND THE GARAGE IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FRONT PORCH ISSUE.
NOW I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR FRONT PORCH BEING FOUR FEET, SIX INCHES.
AND NOT HALF THE LIKE THE HOUSE YET.
[02:00:01]
ANY FRONT PORCH.SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING A LITTLE BIT ON THE DRAWING.
CAUSE THE PORCH IS ON THE, YOU SEE ON THE, ON THE, UH, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER EIGHT OR NUMBER NINE, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR SLIDE PRINT, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE, UH, BUT NUMBER NINE ACTUALLY HAS IT CIRCLED THERE.
SO I THINK IT BE A LOT EASIER TO LOOK AT THE PORT PROPOSED PORCH IN THE C R Z.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE NUMBER NINE, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE PORTS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND GREEN AND IT'S NOT ON, IT'S NOT ONK STREET.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITY PLAN REVIEW, UH, DESIGNATES AS FRONT YARD BECAUSE IT'S THE NARROWER SIDE OF THE STREET.
SO BY DEFINITION THE FRONT YARD, THE PORCH HAS TO BE ON COLLEGE ROW
WE ACTUALLY ASKED THE CITY IF, IF THEY WOULD USE THE, THE PORCH THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE ON CH FRONTING CHEEK CONE STREET CUZ THAT WOULD BE, UH, ABOUT HALF THE HOUSE IS LENGTH AND THEY SAID NO WE HAD TO USE THE FRONT PORCH COMING OFF OF COLLEGE ROAD.
YEAH WE DEFINITELY, CAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE OUR LIFE A LOT EASIER.
AND THEY DEFINITELY SAID WE HAD TO DO IT WHERE IT'S SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE.
I KIND OF SOMETIMES WISH WE COULD.
IT'S TOO BAD Y'ALL DIDN'T NOTICE FOR THAT CUZ I WOULD'VE GRANTED THAT ONE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'M INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE JUST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING.
OKAY, SO IT'S THE MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER COHEN SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY FINDINGS.
GIMME A SECOND WHILE I FLIP BACK TO MY PC.
OKAY, I'M GONNA TRY TO PULL A MELISSA, UM, AND SEE IF I CAN CHOP THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE LOT IS SUBSTANDARD FOR SF THREE ZONING AND IS ON A QUARTER LOT THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS PUSH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FAR BACK INTO THE LOT, WHICH PRESENTED ISSUES WITH TENDING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUB CHAPTER F.
THE LOT ALSO HAS DRASTIC GRADE CHANGES TO 67 FEET AND IN ORDER TO STABILIZE THE SOIL AND ACCOMMODATE DESTRUCTION, THEY HAD TO BUILD RETAINING WALLS AND DESIGN THE GARAGE.
AND HOUSE IS A TWO-STORY APAR TO ALLOW FOR TWO OFF-SITE PARKING, PARKING SPACES.
UH, HOWEVER, SETBACKS UNDER BY ZONING RESTRICT THE DUE F A R TENDING IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THEN I'M GONNA JUST GO INTO HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE LOT IS SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE IS A CORNER LOT IS, BUT IS UNIQUE IN THAT THERE ARE TWO LARGE HERITAGE TREES POSITIONED ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE LOT.
LIMITING THE BUILDABLE AREA, THE DRASTIC TO GRADE CHANGES ALSO PRESENT A CHALLENGE.
THE DESIGN, SINCE THEY'RE LIMITED BY THE TENTING AND F D R REQUIREMENTS, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE LOT IS 4,689 SQUARE FEET AND IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT GRADE CHANGES DRASTICALLY THROUGHOUT THE SITES.
AND WHEN LOOKING AT THE LOTS OF THE CITY OF 1001, CHICO WOULD BE MOST SIMILAR TO THEIR PROJECT THOUGH.
I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT PART OFF.
AREA CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
UH, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT FORM PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE GRANTING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WIDER DRIVEWAY OF 18 FEET FIVE INCHES WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT AREA.
SINCE HOUSES DEVELOPED UNDER BAY ZONING ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY AND MOST OF THE HOUSES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA DO HAVE 20 FOOT DRIVEWAYS, UH, PARKING PARK.
DO I HAVE TO BRING PARKING FOR THIS ONE? NO, NO.
SO THERE IT'S, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT SURE.
THAT WHEN, IF THEY DO GET THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY, THAT THEY DO DO STRIPS INSTEAD OF A SOLID CONCRETE.
WE CAN DO THAT FA MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY SCRIPPS.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY, UH, BOARD MEMBER COHEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY, UH, THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THEY WILL USE
[02:05:01]
STRIPS, NOT, UH, FULL COVERAGE OF THE DRIVER.YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
[7. C15-2023-0016 Jennifer Hanlen for William & Louisa Marsh 4208 Hidden Canyon Cove]
ITEM SEVEN C 15, 20, 23 0 0 16.JENNIFER HAMLIN FOR WILLIAM AND LOUISA MARSH, 42 HIDDEN CANYON COVE.
HI, GIVE US JUST A SECOND TO GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
I'M BEING HERE AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I AM REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 42 0 8 HIDDEN CANYON COVE.
I'M JOINED HERE TONIGHT WITH THE ARCHITECT, UM, WHO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A PLAN SET.
WE PLAN ON PRESENTING TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND REQUESTING A BUILDING PERMIT.
HIS NAME IS BART WALLY AND I'M ALSO HERE JOINED TONIGHT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA, WHO HAS APPROVED OUR PLAN SET.
UM, HE'S, UH, CHAD EDO, I'M SORRY IF I MESSED IT UP.
UM, OUR REQUEST HERE TONIGHT IS, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUESTING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND UNFORTUNATELY THE SITUATION IS THAT THE LOT WAS, UH, ZONED LA BACK IN 2014.
SO THE SITUATION IS THAT WE HAVE ALMOST A SQUARE, AN ACRE LAND AND UM, THE CURRENT SQUARE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS OVER THE 20% THAT'S ALLOWED PER, UM, LDC 25 DASH TWO DASH 5 51 C2, WHICH IS TO INCREASE MAXIMUM PER COVER ON A SLOPE IN THE GRADIENT OF 25% OR LESS FROM, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AT 23% AND WE'RE GOING TO BE REDUCING IT TO 22.9%.
SO THE HOUSE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS BASICALLY A, UM, IT'S A SINGLE, I'M SORRY, A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, 41 SQUARE FEET AND WE HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A POOL THAT'S ALL BEEN LEGALLY PERMITTED BY THE CITY BACK IN.
SORRY, I'M NOT FOLLOWING MY SLIDE.
SO
YEAH, THESE ARE, THE SECOND, THIRD SLIDE WAS ACTUALLY THE BUILDING PERMITS THAT I PULLED FROM, UM, FROM RECORDS TO WHERE THE HOUSE WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED.
SO WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE IT'S LEGALLY IN COMPLIANT, UM, JUST DUE TO THE LA ZONING.
UM, SO, UH, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
YEAH, THESE ARE JUST MY NOTES ON THE FACTS OF THE VARIANCE AND WHERE THINGS STAND AND US NEEDING AVE UM, AN APPROVAL ON REDUCING THAT PERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WE WOULD BE REDUCING IT FROM 23% TO ACTUALLY 22.9.
AND DOING THAT WITH, WE'RE REMODELING THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE PATIO AND THE POOL.
WE'RE GONNA BE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AROUND THE POOL, THE COPING AND THE PATIO AND, AND THEN ADDING 400 SQUARE FEET.
UM, YOU CAN GO TO THE SECOND SLIDE.
THESE ARE THE CON CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE POOL, WHICH, UM, HAVING PROBLEM THE NEW OWNER IS HAVING ISSUES WITH.
UM, WE HAVE PROOF OF THIS AND THIS IS THE POOL THAT WE'RE GOING, THEY'RE GOING TO REDESIGN, UH, THE SHAPE AND THEN ALSO REDUCE THE COPING.
SO REDUCING IT DOWN BY, I THINK IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 155 SQUARE 150 SQUARE FEET.
THESE ARE THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
AND LIKE I SAID, ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE GONNA BE DONE AND THE REAR OF THE HOME WITH RE WE'RE CHANGING THE SIZE OF THE POOL.
AND THEN ADDITION, ADDING THE 400 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO, TO HVAC.
UM, I PROVIDED THE PLAN SETS IF Y'ALL NEEDED ANY KIND OF DETAILS AS TO WHAT WOULD BE, UH, PROPOSED TO AND INCLUDING ON OUR BILLING PERMIT APPLICATION.
THIS IS JUST SOME MORE DETAILS IN THERE.
[02:10:01]
SLIDE AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ABOUT IT WITH YEAH, I'VE PROVIDED, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, DETAILS ON THE MATERIALS THAT WILL BE USED AND, UM, THE PLAN SET THE NEXT SLIDE AND THAT IS IT.THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
AGAIN, WE HAVE THE ARCHITECT HERE AND UM, WE HAVE HAD HOA APPROVAL.
WE WENT AROUND AND, UH, REQUESTED SUPPORT OF THE, THE NEIGHBORS AND HAVE OVER ABOUT 50% OF THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL.
AND WE INCLUDED THAT IN OUR CASE PACKET.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SCENE? NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, SO YOU'RE REMODELING AND YOU'RE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM THE EXISTING 23%.
UM, YOU COULDN'T GET, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THE 20%? I MEAN, IS IT IF YOUR POOL WAS SMALLER OR SOMETHING, COULD YOU BE AT 20%? WE ARE REDUCING THE COPING AROUND THE POOL AND CHANGING THE SIZE OF IT.
AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW IS, IT JUST CAME UP TO THAT 22.9%.
BUT IF YOU MADE THE POOL SMALLER, THEN NOW YOU MAYBE GET IT DOWN TO 20%.
IT, IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM SEVEN 11 ON, UH, ON THE BACKUP, IT SHOWS THE REDUCTION OR IT SHOWS THE PROPOSED AND THE PRODUCTION IN THE POOL SIZE.
SEVEN 10 IS THE CURRENT AND SEVEN 11 SHOWS WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING.
IT'S A LITTLE CLEARER ON THOSE TWO PAGES.
WELL, I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION THEN IS WHAT, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET DOWN TO 20%? OH, WHAT'S THAT? I GET HANDS.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND, AND YOU ARE, YOU ARE, YOU'RE THE ARCHITECT? OH YES, I'M THE ARCHITECT.
AND TO GET, TO GET FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT CITY REGULATIONS, WE'D HAVE TO ACTUALLY DEMOLISH PARTS OF THE HOUSE.
UM, AND THIS IS A FAMILY WITH, UH, FOUR CHILDREN AND THEY NEED TO EXPAND THE BACK BREAKFAST ROOM A LITTLE BIT.
AND SO IT'S A SMALL ADDITION AND THEN, BUT THEY, THEY CAN'T REALLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THAT HOUSE.
AND THEN THE POOL, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE IT SMALLER AND LESS DEEP BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE KIDS AND THE DEEPNESS OF THE POOL.
IT DOES HAVE A LEAK, SO WE ARE REDUCING THE, BUT THERE'S A LIMITATION ON HOW MUCH WE CAN REDUCE.
SO IT'S KIND OF A, IT'S A, IT'S A FAR AWAY AWAY TO GET TO THE 20%.
BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, UH, MR. WATLEY, THERE'S NOT REALLY A DECENT SLOPE MAP.
I MEAN, THERE IS A SLOPE MAP, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL HOW STEEP IT IS OR ISN'T.
THE PICTURES LOOK LIKE IT'S NOT VERY STEEP, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE HAVE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY DROP OFF RIGHT OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE CURB, BUT ONCE YOU GET INTO THE LOT, IT'S, IT'S L ALL LESS THAN 20% PRETTY CONSISTENT SLOPE.
IT LOOKS THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, UH, FAIRLY, IT'S NOT LIKE A LOT OF THESE LAKE AUSTIN LOTS WHERE THERE'S EXTREME SLOPES.
SO YOU'RE TRYING TO RECONFIGURE A APPROVED PERMIT, PERMITTED STRUCTURE AND MAKE SOME SMALL ADDITIONS AND BRING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER DOWN.
AND I MEAN, I CAN SEE YOU TOOK OUT THAT WINDY WALKWAY AND YOU'RE USING IN THE AREA THAT A LOT OF IT WAS IMPERVIOUS COVER AND FOR THE HOUSE EDITION AND, AND KIND OF SQUARING THINGS UP MAYBE MIGHT BE A, A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT.
UM, JUST IN THE FUTURE THE, THE SLOPE MAP WOULD REALLY HELP IN THE BACKUP.
UH, SORRY, UH, VICE CHAIR, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO SEE OR WAS THAT JUST A SUGGESTION? UH, I WAS JUST SAYING ON A LAKE O IN CASE WE USUALLY HAVE A SLOPE MAP AND I MEAN JUST FROM THE PHOTOS IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS RELATIVELY FLAT.
[02:15:01]
SEE, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM THAT VISUAL, IT'S JUST US THIS USED CUSTOMARILY, WHAT YOU WOULD GET ON A LAKE AUSTIN CASE.LAKE AUSTIN CASES ARE USUALLY MUCH MORE COMPLICATED IN THIS AND BEING THAT THIS IS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE THAT PASSED INSPECTION AND IT'S A REMODEL, UM, WITH, WITH VERY SMALL ADDITIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND BOARD MEMBER PUT, I I DID HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE ARCHITECT ABOUT THE, UH, PARTICULAR, UM, THE, THE AMOUNT OF OF PERVIOUS COVER BEING REMOVED, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER BEING ADDED BACK IN.
IF, UM, WHAT IS THE CALCULATION IF YOU JUST, IF WE JUST LOOK AT CALCULATING THE REDUCTION, THE, THE REMOVAL OF THE 1,527 SQUARE FEET AND WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER BEING ADDED BACK IN, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THAT CALCULATION BE? I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH CLOSER TO THAT 20%? YEAH.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT CALCULATION, BUT ROUGHLY IF WE REDUCE THE 1500 AND SO SQUARE FEET ENCOMPASSES ALL THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE BACKYARD POOLS SURROUND, ALL THE PAVING PATIO I THINK WOULD BE REALLY CLOSE TO THE 20%.
AND THE CHALLENGE FOR THIS HOMEOWNER IS WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WORK WAS PERMITTED IN 2009, BUT THE APPLICATION RECORDED TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER IS 16%.
SO IT'S, IN OUR OPINION, THE, UH, PERMIT WAS GRANTED AN ERROR AND THE HOMEOWNER HAD NO IDEA WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE HOUSE THAT THEY WOULD BE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO POTENTIALLY REMOVE THE POOL THAT WAS EXISTING WHEN THEY DID BUY IT.
SO THUS, YEAH, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF COMPROMISE TO TRY TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER SOME, BUT GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SOME REPAIRS.
BUT THEN IN ADDITION TO KIND OF REPLACING THE POOL SURROUND THE 690 SQUARE FEET.
THEN YOU'RE ALSO ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL 687 SQUARE FEET, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POOL.
IT'S MORE OF A, AN ADDITION TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? YES.
WE'RE REMOVING ALMOST 300 SQUARE FOOT OF A TWO-STORY STRUCTURED, UH, UH, PORCH AND BALCONY.
AND THEN ONCE WE REMOVE THAT 300 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE COMING BACK WITH, UH, SOME HOUSE EDITION THAT, SO THE TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF THE HOUSE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN IT IS TODAY, BUT THE NON-STRUCTURE, UH, SITE COVERING WILL BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THAN IT IS TODAY, AND THE NET EFFECT WILL BE SMALLER IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT THAT IT IS TODAY.
WELL, I WANTED TO ASK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE, UH, ON THE PRESENTATION ON PAGE 11 ABOUT THE, UH, WHERE IT SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS YOU'RE GONNA BE ADDING IN.
YOU'VE GOT THE ADDITION AT 400 SQUARE FEET AND THE PORCH AT 287 SQUARE FEET, BUT THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE PIECE OVER THERE IN THE CORNER, IN THE BACK CORNER.
IS THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OR IS THAT PART OF THE PORCH? 287 SQUARE FEET? UH, NO, SIR.
THAT'S PART OF THE 400 SQUARE FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE PORCH ADDS UP TO 400 SQUARE FEET TOTAL.
SO IN ORDER TO GET THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER, IT'D BE 400 PLUS THE 2 87 PLUS THE 400 PLUS THE SIX 90, JUST ONE 400 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE TOTAL ADDITION WOULD BE 400 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL.
AND THEN THE PORCH IN THE MIDDLE, COVERED PORCH WOULD BE 287.
I DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
UM, YOU GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.
I'LL WORK ON THE FINDING OF THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE? ANYONE? OKAY.
SO FINDINGS, WHEN YOU'RE READY, SETTING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS THE HOUSE WAS PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED AND IN PERMITTED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSPECTED AND COED.
UM, AND THEREFORE, UH, IS EXISTING NON ALWAYS CONFUSE THEM.
NON COMPLYING AND NONCONFORMING.
ONE IS USE, ONE IS STRUCTURE, SO WHATEVER ONE THAT IS, UM, AND TO DO ANY KINDS OF, UH, REMODEL ON THE PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
UH, THE SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY IS NOT VERY EXTREME, UH, WHICH IS NORMALLY WHAT WE SEE WITH LAKE AUSTIN CASES.
[02:20:01]
THE REQUEST IS VERY SMALL.THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AS THAT WHILE THE, THE SLOPE IS, UM, RELATIVELY EVEN WHERE THE HOUSE IS, UH, AS THE STRUCTURE WAS PERMITTED, INSPECTED, COED, UH, IN THE PREVIOUS, IN ITS PREVIOUS LIVE, UM, TO COME AND REMODEL IT AND TO HAVE TO BRING IT COMPLETELY DOWN TO A 20% WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE, UH, THAT THE HOUSE EXISTS.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERALLY AREA CHARACTER.
AS THE RESIDENCE WAS BUILT IN 1989, IT SITS ON OVER AN ACRE.
THERE WAS, I'M SORRY, I'M TRYING TO READ, UM, VERY, VERY LONG.
SO IT WAS DONE IN, IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE UNDER A ZONING AND CHANGED TO LA AND NOT CALCULATED ON THE NET SIDE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF LA ZONING.
AND SO THEREFORE, UH, THE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTING ARE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER DOWN WHILE MAKING THOSE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS.
THE VARI THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT.
THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AS THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS APPROVED, UH, THE RENOVATION PLANS, UH, THE RENOVATION IS TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND, UH, IN CONTEXT WITH, UH, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE END.
AGAIN, EXCUSE ME, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
AND IT'S MAINLY BECAUSE, UM, THE LA ZONING AND THE SLOPE HAS TO DO WITH, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
A LOT OF IT, AND THIS HOUSE IS NOT ON THE LAKE, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME SLOPE.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME ISSUES THAT SOME OF THE OTHER HOMES HAVE, THAT WE REALLY TAKE A HARD LOOK.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ASK FOR THE TOPO MAPS ON THESE CASES.
SO, UM, IT'S JUST, IT IS A MINOR.
WELL, IT'S A REDUCTION IN THE IMPERVIOUS, SO IT'S, I CAN SUPPORT IT.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
AND FOR THE SEVEN OF YOU WATCHING THIS IS WHY WE WANT BROOKE BAILEY TO BE REAPPOINTED BECAUSE LA'S ZONING, THIS ALL LA ZONING IS HARD.
IF IT'S HARD FOR ME, I, I FEEL BAD FOR, I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
[8. C15-2023-0017 Michael J. Whellan for Anthony Siela (SB-Frank South, LLC) 909, 911, 915, 1001, 1003, 1106 ½ S 2nd St., 908, 910, 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1100, 1104, 1106, 1108, 1110 S 1st St, 602, 604, 606, 605, 607 Copeland St. ]
C 15 20 23 17.MICHAEL J WELLEN FOR ANTHONY SEAL, SB FRANK SOUTH LLC.
1106 AND A HALF SOUTH SECOND STREET.
NINE TEN ONE THOUSAND ALMOST MADE IT.
DO YOU NEED A PACK OF LUNCH AFTER THAT? I
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS A PROJECT AT 1000 SOUTH FIRST.
LOCATED ALONG IN IMAGINE AUSTIN
[02:25:01]
TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK AND CORRIDOR OVERLAY CORRIDOR INDICATORS AT A MIXED USE PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE USE.HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY FACES MEANINGFUL HARDSHIPS THAT THREATEN THE REASONABLE USE AND IMPACT OVER 42% OF THE PROJECT AREA.
TO MANAGE THIS, THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER THREE YEARS TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS PLAN, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR THIS VARIANCE.
NEXT, HERE'S THE PROJECT AREA, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE IS MEANINGFULLY CONSTRAINED ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, WHICH IS THE SOUTHWEST BY FLOODPLAIN CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, EROSION, HAZARD ZONE, ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND AN EASEMENT AREA.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS MEANINGFULLY IMPACTED BY AN EXTENSIVE NUMBER OF TREES, WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE SITE, POSING ADDITIONAL DESIGN ISSUES.
NEXT, ALL TOLD THESE CONSTRAINTS IMPACT OVER 42% OF THE PROJECT AREA.
AND I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT FIGURE IS NON OVERLAPPING.
SO ANY AREAS WHERE CONSTRAINTS OVERLAP WAS ONLY COUNTED ONCE, NOT TWICE.
TO ADDRESS THIS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, THE APPLICANT WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE NEIGHBOR STARTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STARTING IN 2019 AND DEVELOPED AN OVERALL CONSENSUS PLAN THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD VOTED TO SUPPORT IN 2022.
THIS PLAN INCLUDES AMPLE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIFICALLY FOR OWNERSHIP, AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR OWNERSHIP, AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL SPEAK TO IN A MOMENT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, COUNCIL THEN TOOK THE FIRST STEP IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, APPROVING THE ZONING.
NEXT, WHILE WE BELIEVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WAS THE BEST AND MOST COLLABORATIVE WAY FORWARD, IT DID PRESENT US WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW BEST TO TRANSLATE THIS VISION INTO THE CITY'S TERMS FOR A VARIANCE.
IN SHORT, WE DESIGNED OUR CONSENSUS VISION FOR THE PRO THE PROJECT, AND THE VARIANCE RELIEF AROUND THE WAY IT WOULD BE EXPERIENCED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEREAS THE CITY'S REGULATIONS CONSIDER HEIGHT ONLY AS A NUMERICAL AVERAGE OF DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON THE SITE.
NEXT, IN OTHER WORD, IN OTHER WORDS, THE CITY REGULATIONS MEASURE AVERAGE GRADE.
WHILE OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD USES FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IN MEAN SEA LEVEL, THIS BECOMES A PARTICULARLY TRICKY ISSUE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGE ACROSS OUR SITE, COMPLICATING THE AVERAGES UNDER THE CITY'S CALCULATION.
NEXT, TO ADDRESS THIS, WE HAVE SUBMITTED OUR VARIANCE IN TERMS OF MEAN C LEVEL FOR TWO REASONS.
IT IS A FIXED STANDARD TAILOR TO OUR REQUEST AND DOES NOT CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE AVERAGES OR SITE GRAY.
SECOND, THE MEAN SEA LEVEL CAPTURES THE CONSENSUS VISION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NEXT HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS WOULD WORK IN PRACTICE, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A 507 FOOT ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL AS THE BASELINE.
THE ORANGE AREA WOULD PROVIDE 35 FEET ABOVE THE MSL BASELINE, AND THE YELLOW AREA WOULD PROVIDE A 65 FOOT ABOVE THAT BASE MSL BASELINE.
NEXT, THE NEXT SLIDES THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE SHOW HOW THIS WOULD WORK IN PRACTICE, AND WE CAN RETURN TO THEM DURING THIS DISCUSSION.
HERE ARE THE SOUTHERN CONDOS, NEXT, THE SOUTHERN HOTEL, NEXT THE NORTHERN CONDOS NEXT, AND THE NORTHERN OFFICE AND TOWN HOMES.
NEXT, I'LL JUST RECAP QUICKLY BY SAYING THAT OUR SITE FACES MEANINGFUL HARDSHIPS.
NEXT, WE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF AND EARN THEIR SUPPORT.
NEXT, AND I'LL NOW TURN MY REMAINING TIME OVER TO JEFF SEON, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SPEAK OF THEIR SUPPORT.
I'VE GOT, UH, OVER 12 YEARS EMBOLDEN, 25 YEARS IN AUSTIN, NINE YEARS VOLUNTEERING WITH THE BCNA BOLDON CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE ZONING BOARD.
THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT FOR OVER THREE YEARS WITH OUR GENERAL ASSOCIATION, UH, MORE THAN SIX TIMES AT, UH, REGULAR GENERAL ASSOCIATION MEETINGS.
THOSE MEETINGS ATTRACT 60 TO A HUNDRED NEIGHBORS, TYPICALLY FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY BOTH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN A VERY WELL ATTENDED GENERAL ASSOCIATION MEETING WHO VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO SUPPORT THE TERMS, UH, REQUESTED AFTER ROBUST DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IS BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S COMMITMENT TO 20% OF THE UNITS ON SITE, AFFORDABLE BETWEEN 60 AND A HUNDRED PERCENT MFI AND UNPRECEDENTED MILLION DOLLAR ESCROW FUND FOR THE PROTECTION OF HERITAGE TREES, UH, WITH ANY FUND RELEASE GOING DIRECTLY TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
THE DEDICATION OF ONSITE PARKLAND ADJACENT TO EAST BALDING CREEK AND NICHOLAS DAWSON PARK EFFECTIVELY INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE PARK BY 30%.
ALONG WITH OTHER KEY TERMS. PLEASE NOTE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 20% WITHIN A HALF A MILE OF DOWNTOWN IS HUGE AND A MAJOR REASON THAT OUR NEIGHBORS SUPPORTED THIS.
AND YOUR SUPPORT IS KEY TO ENABLING THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
[02:30:01]
AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND START WITH QUESTIONS.BOARD MEMBER PT, I HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. WHELAN.
UM, THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE JUST TALKED ABOUT ALL THESE VARIOUS, UM, AGREEMENTS, UH, THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS MADE WITH THEM ABOUT THIS.
UM, WHERE IS THAT INFORMATION IN THE PACKAGE AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT APPROVING SOMETHING CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THOSE AGREEMENTS? I I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET ALL THE DETAILS OF THOSE TERMS INTO OUR, UH, SURE.
I'M GONNA, THE ANSWER IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND I'LL HAVE MR. SEON CONFIRM THAT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HAS BEEN, IS BEEN SIGNED.
A AFTER, UH, EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS, WE ENTERED INTO A, UH, LEGALLY BINDING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT'S BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT THAT, UH, HAS ALL OF THE TERMS DESCRIBED, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS FOR WHICH, UH, THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD BE, UM, COMMITTED TO BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON CERTAIN GOALS REACHED IN THE APPROVALS PROCESS, AS WELL AS THE COMMITMENT TO ESCROWING A MILLION DOLLARS IF A TREE IS HARMED IN ANY WAY AND NOT RECOVERABLE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION IN UP TO 18 MONTHS AFTER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER TREE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THAT FUND AND GIVEN DIRECTLY TO EITHER FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES OR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
ALL OF THESE TERMS ARE IN A NOW SIGNED AND IT AND, UH, BINDING AGREEMENT.
AND IS IT INTENDED TO BE FILED IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS AS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? IT'S RECORDED.
THE, UH, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WAS, I BELIEVE, RECORDED AT THE POINT WHEN, UH, YEAH, WHEN THE ZONING WAS DONE BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT IS A PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, SO IT CANNOT BE ALTERED BY ANYONE WITHOUT YOUR AGREEMENT.
IT'S A PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT.
THE TERMS REQUIRE THE, UH, MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO IT.
UM, YEAH, YOU MENTIONED THE, UH, ZONING WAS APPROVED IN THE DECEMBER, UH, COUNCIL MEETING.
WAS THAT THE DECEMBER 1ST MEETING THAT, UM, DESER THE ZONING, UH, ORDINANCE THAT THEY PASSED? IS THAT MIKE? MICHAEL MICHAEL WAYLAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, COMMISSIONER AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, UH, MR. SEON WAS DESCRIBING RECORDED HAS ALL THESE CONDITIONS IN IT, INCLUDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TONIGHT OF WHAT WE'VE, UH, PRESENTED, UH, WITH THEIR AGREEMENT? YES.
SO THIS CAME UP EARLIER THIS EVENING, BUT THERE'S A, THERE'S AN INJUNCTION IN PLACE FROM THE ACUNA CASE AND THERE'S A MOTION TO ENFORCE THE INJUNCTION AS TO THAT ORDINANCE, OTHER ORDINANCE AS WELL.
UH, THAT WAS FILED ON, ON MARCH 6TH.
THIS TH THAT, UH, ANOTHER GOOD REASON WHY WE FOR THREE YEARS WORKED ON THIS AND HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT THAT WOULDN'T IMPACT, UH, THE OUTCOME HERE WITH THIS VARIANCE.
THE 20% AFFORDABLE UNITS OWNERSHIP, OWNERSHIP UNITS MORE RARE, UH, MORE LIKE A UNICORN HERE IN THIS TOWN THESE DAYS.
20% OWNERSHIP UNITS ON SITE WOULD BE, WOULD BE DONE, WOULD BE DELIVERED.
WELL, HOW DOES THE, HOW DOES, I MEAN IF THE, IF THE COURT COURT FINDS THAT THEY'RE ENJOINED FROM THAT ORDINANCE, I MEAN THE ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED VOID.
HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR WE'RE WE'RE NOT U MICHAEL WAY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE NOT UTILIZING THOSE ORDINANCES AT ALL.
WE'RE STICKING WITH THE CURRENT, THE ZONING THAT EXISTS NOW, THE VM U ORDINANCE THAT EXISTS NOW, THIS WOULD NOT BE VM U TWO.
WE WOULDN'T BE SEEKING, UH, 90 FEET.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING INITIALLY, WHETHER YOU WERE, WERE RELYING ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST ADVISED THAT WE CAN'T REFER TO PERSPECTIVE CASES UNTIL THEY'VE BEEN DECIDED WE HAVE TO GO BY WHAT IS CURRENT LAW.
I JUST AM ASKING THE QUESTION.
WELL, UM, I NOTICED THERE AND SOME OF THE, UM, THE DRAWINGS, THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AROUND THERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS OKAYED THIS.
WHAT, WHAT, UH, WHAT CONTACT HAVE YOU HAD WITH ANY OF THE OTHER OWNERS? UH, JEFF SEON
[02:35:01]
FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, REACHED OUT TO NEIGHBORS RESIDING THERE AND INVITED THEM TO ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS, ALL OF THE MEETINGS OVER THE COURSE OF THE THREE YEARS.AND, UH, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF, UH, THEIR, UH, WILLINGNESS TO COME AND PARTICIPATE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
UM, AND, UH, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, HAS REACHED OUT TO THEM AS WELL.
DID YOU WANNA ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? SURE, YES.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? ROSS WILSON WITH STORY BUILT DEVELOPER OF THE THE PROPERTY, UH, WE REACHED OUT TO ALL FIVE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE E EAST SIDE OF EAST FOLDEN CREEK.
UM, ONLY THREE OF THEM RESPONDED.
ALL THREE OF THEM WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CASE AND VARIANCES REQUESTED.
UH, THE OTHER TWO DID NOT RESPOND.
YOU COULDN'T GET LIKE ANOTHER A HUNDRED FEET.
I JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY ON, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
ON THE GOVERNOR RESTRICTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT, IS IT, UH, LEFT TO THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE OR IS THERE, UH, AN AFFORDABLE GROUP THAT WILL BE MONITORING THAT LIKE HOME BASE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES? UH, I'LL, I'LL ALLOW, UH, JEFF SEON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'LL ALLOW, UH, ROSS TO ANSWER THAT.
SO MOTION ANYONE, BECAUSE I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I REALLY DON'T WANNA READ THE FINDINGS, BUT I'LL DO IT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SAVE YOU.
GERALD'S PROBABLY NOT GONNA LIKE IT ANYWAY.
UH, BROOKE, ARE YOU SECOND? YES.
ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS THE SITE IS ENCUMBERED WITH A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE FLOODPLAIN, UH, C E FOR M, ROCK SPRAYING EROSION HAZARD ZONE, AS WELL AS, UH, A LOT OF HERITAGE TREES THAT ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.
THE HARDSHIP OF WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IS ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, FLOOD PLAIN, THE CFS, THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE, AS WELL AS DRAINAGE AND WA WATER WASTEWATER EASEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE TREES IMPACT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL, THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
I DON'T THINK YOU'D ACTUALLY SEE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD ALL OF THOSE, UH, BONUS ITEMS ON THEM AT, AT ONE TIME.
I MEAN, IT IS, IT IS NORMAL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE HERITAGE TREES BUT NOT CFS AS WELL AS THE FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES ON THE, UM, WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT IS LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PLAN.
AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA, BUT IT IS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS, HAS BEEN COLLAB WITH GOLDEN CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND IS FIRM WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO THEIR AGREEMENTS THAT IS, IS PROCESSED AND FILED.
AND THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE ZONING CASE THAT WENT FORWARD WITH THE PROPERTY IN WHICH NOTICES WERE GIVEN.
AND AS THIS IS A V M U PROJECT, UM, HAVING A A HEIGHT THAT IS CERTAIN, IT CERTAINLY MAKES IT EASIER TO DESIGN AND MAKES FOR A SAFER BUILDING.
AND SO I BELIEVE THAT, UH, AREA CHARACTER WILL BE PRESERVED THE END.
[02:40:02]
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BY CHAIR HAWTHORNE EXECUTIVE BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE COLLABORATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING AND LETTING US KNOW ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
JESSICA COHEN, WHEN I SAW THIS COME THROUGH PC, I WAS REALLY EXCITED.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE OF IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WORKING SO WELL TOGETHER.
AND I'M HOPING EVERYBODY LOOKS AND SAYS, OH, LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO.
AND STARTS DOING IT EVERYWHERE.
I DO NOT LIKE VARIANCES FROM COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
I DON'T LIKE HAVING BIG, HUGE, TALL BUILDINGS RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE.
LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS.
THEY, THEY, THEY'VE DONE THIS THE CORRECT WAY, WHICH IS TO FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TALK TO THEM, COME UP WITH A VISION FOR WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE, AND THEN TRY TO COME TO US WITH THE MINIMUM ASK NECESSARY TO GET THAT VISION, UH, PUT IN PLACE ON THE GROUND.
UH, I THINK THERE'S SOME UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT WE APPARENTLY CAN'T TALK ABOUT AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING UNDER THE PRIOR V M U UM, ORDINANCES, BUT, UH, YEAH, THERE'S, UH, I SEE LEGAL ISSUES HERE, SO I'M GONNA SUSTAIN.
WAYNE? NICOLE, SORRY, I WAS ON MUTE AGAIN.
OKAY, SO THAT PUTS US AT NINE WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.
SO EVEN IF IT WAS AN EIGHT, I THINK WE'RE SAFE WITH THIS ONE.
EXPERIENCE IS GRANTED BUILD GREAT THINGS.
WE'RE JUST DOING DON'T LEAVE BUSINESS, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST DOING WORK.
UM, UM, I WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE AND SAY, UH, THANK YOU BROOKE, FOR YOUR SERVICE.
IF YOU'RE GONNA GIVE, YOU'RE WELCOME.
WELL, NOBODY'S BEEN APPOINTED YET, SO I NO IDEA HOW MUCH LONGER I'LL BE HERE, BUT THANK YOU.
MR. MAYOR LA ZONING APPOINTMENT.
[10. Discussion of the February 13, 2023 BOA activity report ]
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION OF THE FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 B O A ACTIVITY REPORT.THANK YOU FOR ALL THE EFFORT YOU PUT INTO THAT REPORT.
YOU'RE WELCOME FROM BOTH OF US.
YOU'RE VERY WELCOME, HUH? JUST, JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, I REALIZE WHAT IT TAKES TO PUT IT TOGETHER AND I I THANK YOU.
[11. Discussion regarding future training for board members]
UH, DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE TRAINING FOR BOARD MEMBERS.I'M GONNA SAY, LET'S JUST PUSH THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING UNTIL WE GET A FEW MORE APPOINTMENTS,
[12. Discussion regarding Senate Bill 491]
UH, DISCUSSION REGARDING SENATE BILL 4 91.NOW I L I ACTUALLY WAS DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH TODAY, NOT BECAUSE OF THIS, JUST ON MY OWN AND THE COMMITTEE HASN'T EVEN MET YET.
SO THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH TO REALLY TALK ABOUT.
YEAH, BUT SEE IT HASN'T MADE MUCH PROGRESS.
THE GUY WHO, UH, WROTE THE BILL IS FROM A VERY SMALL TOWN.
HE SEEMS TO BE GETTING A LOT OF FLACK FOR IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON IT? CAN WE TABLE IT UNTIL NEXT MEETING? YEP.
SPEAKING OF TABLE, DO WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT WE TABLED? NO.
ARE YOU SURE? YEAH, WE DIDN'T TABLE IT.
THE FIRST, RIGHT? THE FIRST ITEM, THE FIRST, IT WAS THE RECONSIDERATION.
[02:45:02]
YEAH, THAT WAS ITEM THREE.IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? HOLD ON.
CUZ WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TWO, BUT WE DIDN'T.
I I THOUGHT ITEM THREE IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IN MY MIND, IF IT'S STILL OUTSTANDING.
YOU KNOW HOW WHEN YOU THINK OF SOMETHING IN YOUR MIND SAYS DANGER, WARNING.
IT WAS THE PARKING ONE, RIGHT? FOR THE HOTEL? YEAH.
BUT WE GRANTED THAT, DIDN'T WE? YEAH.
I, FOR SOME REASON MY MIND HAS, IT HAS IT FUZZY THERE.
[13. Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP). ]
ITEM 13, UH, CITY STAFF HAS TILL MAY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT ROLLED INTO THINGS AND MAKE IT WORK, BUT IT'S APPROVED.SO ELAINE, WHEN YOU HEAR SOMETHING, JUST SHOOT ME AN EMAIL AND WE'LL GET THE UPDATE FROM ELAINE ONCE WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE IT.
DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE? OKAY.
UH, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE BOARD BASED ON THE WORKING GROUP UPDATE ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO BLE APPEALS.
UM, SO BOARD NUMBER MACARTHUR LEFT, UNFORTUNATELY.
UM, UH, DO YOU GUYS WANT, SINCE WE'VE GOT IT ON HERE, WE COULD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO JOIN THE WORKING GROUP IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE TWO OF YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO VOLUNTEER TO BE PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP? I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE SOMEBODY, BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD IF I'M GONNA BE EXTENDED AS AN ALTERNATE OR NOT.
SO HE MIGHT, IT MIGHT BE JUST DARYL ALL BY HIMSELF.
WELL, WE DID, WE DID HAVE, UM, I GUESS, UH, UM, SOME OF OUR IDEAS WE PUT DOWN ON PAPER MM-HMM.
I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED, ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR IF YOU WANT ME TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT AND KIND OF GIVE EVERYBODY AN IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS.
WOULD YOU HAVE THE, UH, ONLINE LINK
[14. Discussion and possible action by the Board based on the Working Group update on proposed changes to BOA Appeals. (Working group: Barbara Mcarthur, Darryl Pruett and Kelly Blume)]
TO ITEM 14? BUT THAT JUST APPEARS TO BE THE, UH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORKING FROM ORIGINALLY.SO, UH, ELAINE, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING NEW? I THINK AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE BACKUP, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH TO ADDRESS IT.
AND I'LL, I'LL TRY TO FIND UP MY COPY OF NOTES.
YEAH, WE DID MEET AND TALKED THROUGH THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND, AND I GOT OUR LAST MEETING TOO.
WE GAVE JUST A LITTLE BRIEF OVERVIEW VERBALLY OF SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS ON IT.
UM, BUT YEAH, IN TERMS OF ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION, WE'LL HAVE TO TRACK THAT DOWN.
SO WHAT DO Y'ALL WANT US TO PUT ON THE AGENDA NEXT MEETING? UH, COULD YOU EMAIL THAT DIRECTLY TO ELAINE PLEASE? BOARD MEMBER BLOOM? YES.
FOR THE NOTES THEY HAVE FOR LIKE A AND, UM, IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET AGAIN BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, UH, MAYBE BECAUSE WE ARE LOSING, UH, TWO OF Y'ALL, IF Y'ALL COULD JUST MAYBE NOT FINALIZE, BUT COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE OKAY PRESENTING, UH, THAT THE BOARD COULD PICK UP, UH, REVIEW AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD CREATE A NEW WORKING GROUP BASED ON WHAT YOU, YOU'VE FOUND SO FAR.
IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT OR WE COULD HAND IT BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND EXPAND IT.
UM, WHATEVER YOU ALL PREFER TO DO.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT.
LIKE WITH WHAT DARRELL, UH, BEING THE ONLY PERSON LEFT IN THE WORKING GROUP BECAUSE CAN WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP OF ONE THAT'S NOT REALLY A WORKING GROUP, IS IT? THERE HAS TO BE TWO AT LEAST.
I WOULD THINK A WORKING GROUP WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PERSON
I THINK IT HAS TO BE MORE THAN ONE OTHER.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN STILL SUBMIT, UH, ANY FINDINGS THE WORKING GROUP HAS MADE.
IF WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS MAYBE YOU PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF, OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR, UM, AND, AND JUST PROVIDE THAT RECORD AND, AND THEN SUBMIT IT FOR THE, THE GROUP.
UM, SO INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST,
[02:50:01]
UH, A SUMMARY SO YOU'RE NOT LOSING THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKING GROUP SO FAR, AND THEN THE, THE NEXT WORKING GROUP, UM, CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.AND SO NOT THAT THAT WORK IS LOST, UM, MIGHT BE THE EASIEST WAY FOR RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S NOT TOO MUCH WORK, UM, TO HAVE A MEETING, BUT JUST KIND OF A SUMMATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
ANY OTHER UPDATES ON THAT? OKAY.
[15. Discussion of future agenda items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests]
ITEM 15, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. EASTER IS IN APRIL.OUR NEXT MEETING IS RIGHT AFTER EASTER, THE NEXT DAY.
NON BREAD EATERS IN THE MONTH.
AND IN CASE, JUST IN CASE I DON'T SEE SOME OF Y'ALL BACK HERE NEXT MONTH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I HOPE WE DO GET TO SEE YOU, BUT IF NOT, THANK YOU.
UH, 8:51 PM MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
AND AND WELCOME NEW BOARD MEMBER.
I, UH, I HAD THIS STOMACH BUG AND DIDN'T WANNA GIVE IT TO YOU.
I, I APPRECIATE YOU NOT GIVING ME A STOMACH BUG FOR SURE.