[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
THE TIME IS 5:45 PM ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024.
I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE.
THANK YOU SUZANNE, FOR FILLING IN.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? OKAY.
I THINK WE TOOK CARE OF THE SIGN IN SHEET.
UH, JUST A REMINDER, FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE, PLEASE REMEMBER TO CHECK YOUR CITY EMAIL.
THERE IS A NEW PASSWORD CHANGE THAT'S BEING, UH, IMPLEMENTED.
SO YOUR PA YOU'RE GONNA BE ASKED TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD THE NEXT TIME YOU LOG IN.
I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT ME, BUT JUST KEEP YOUR EYES OUT 'CAUSE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO ME.
DO YOU HAVE TO BE HERE AT CITY HOME TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD? YEAH.
UH, THERE, THERE'S A NEW ONLINE PASSWORD TOOL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T HERE THAT YOU CAN USE, UH, REMOTELY.
AND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, EMAIL ELAINE AND SHE CAN CONNECT YOU WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ON HOW TO DO THAT.
SO WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT NOW, SO WE CAN'T DO IT WHILE WE'RE HERE.
YOU CAN DO IT WHILE YOU'RE HERE THROUGH THIS COMPUTER IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, JUST A COUPLE REMINDERS TO THE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.
AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER, PLEASE TAKE THE DISCUSSION OUT TO THE LOBBY.
UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR KEYS, CALL THE BOARD LIAISON ELAINE TOMORROW, OR EMAIL WHEN ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
THE BOARD USUALLY TAKES A BREAK ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK FOR 10 MINUTES.
I HAVE A FEELING WE MAY NEED THAT TONIGHT.
UH, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE QR CODE ON A TICKET WHEN YOU CAME IN.
WE HAVE A FEW MORE LIKE LITTLE PRINTED OUT QR CODES OVER HERE BY THE EXIT.
MAKE SURE YOU GRAB ONE OF THOSE BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR PARKING VALIDATION.
ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, COULD YOU PLEASE STAND? I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO GIVE YOUR OATH OF AFFIRMATION, AND THAT'S IF YOU'LL BE SPEAKING BEFORE THE BOARD, PLEASE STAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? YES.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OKAY.WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
I HAVE TO SAY THE WHOLE THING.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 12TH, 2024.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
OKAY, I'LL TAKE IT FROM MICHAEL RELAND.
UH, MAGGIE, I'M HAVING A LITTLE HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
[00:05:01]
VOLUME UP OR CTM? MAYBE IF WE COULD GET A LITTLE MORE VOLUME FOR BOARD MEMBER.SHERIFF, IS THAT ANY BETTER OR IT'S STILL COMING THROUGH PRETTY SOFT.
YOU, YOU COULD PROBABLY EVEN SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO CLARIFY VOTING.
WE, SO BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING, I NEED TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ONLY NINE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE TONIGHT.
IN ORDER TO HAVE YOUR VARIANCE APPROVED OR AN APPEAL GRANTED, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL NINE MEMBERS VOTE.
WE REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY ON THIS BOARD, WHICH IS NINE OUT OF 11.
IF YOU HAVE A VARIANCE CASE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE TILL NEXT MONTH, I'M WILLING TO OFFER A FREE NO CONSEQUENCE POSTPONEMENT.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, UH, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND TELL ME YOUR PROPERTY PLEASE.
ANYONE ELSE? THANKS MADAM CHAIR.
I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD POSTPONE THAT CASE.
COULD YOU ALSO, UH, EXPLAIN THAT IF THEY DON'T, THEY GET A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THIS TIME? IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT, THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEIR CASE BACK IF IT DOESN'T PASS, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, QUORUM SITUATION.
SO THERE IS A RULE CALLED RECONSIDERATION WHERE IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE BOARD'S DECISION, YOU CAN FILE FOR A RECONSIDERATION WITHIN 10 DAYS.
UH, FROM THE DENIAL, IF YOU CHOOSE, THERE'S A HIDDEN MESSAGE IN THAT.
IT'S KIND, IT'S KIND OF A FREEBIE.
[2. C15-2024-0024 Christi Lane 2104 Westover Road]
START WITH THE FIRST CASE, WHICH WILL BE C 15 20 24 0 0 2 4.CHRISTIE LANE, 2104 WESTOVER ROAD.
YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? I DO.
UH, I MOVED TO AUSTIN IN THE NINETIES.
I'VE SEEN THE CITY GROW AND DEVELOP AND BECOME VERY POPULATED.
UH, I'M A LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER.
I OWN A REFORM, UH, PILATES STUDIO.
AND, UM, I LIVED IN MY HOME IN TERRYTOWN FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS.
UH, I LOVED WATCHING AUSTIN GROW, UM, BUT IT'S BEEN AT A DETRIMENT TO MY PROPERTY.
UM, CAN I CHANGE THE SLIDES FOR, I'LL JUST TELL 'EM NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE AREA.
UM, IN 1969, MY HOME WAS, UH, DISSECTED, UH, DIAGONALLY IN ORDER TO BUILD MOPAC.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER STREETS THAT WERE AFFECTED, OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WERE AFFECTED, BUT NOT QUITE LIKE MINE.
UM, MY PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN HOW IT WAS AFFECTED, UH, WITH THE BUILDING OF MOPAC.
I DO HAVE AN ILLUSTRATION OF THAT EVENTUALLY.
UM, SO HERE'S HOW MY LOT WAS DISSECTED, UH, FOR THE BUILDING OF MOPAC.
UH, WHICH PROBABLY IN THE SIXTIES WASN'T TOO BIG OF A PROBLEM.
BUT, UH, WITH INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, UM, I'M HAVING A LOT OF AIRBORNE DEBRIS FLYING TO MY HOME.
I'VE HAD TO REPLACE MY BACK WINDOWS MULTIPLE TIMES FOR A WHILE.
I HAD THEM JUST BOARDED UP AND LEFT THEM THAT WAY FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
UM, I BUILT A FENCE THAT, UH, I STARTED AT SIX OR FOUR FEET AND ADDED FOUR FEET PANELS ONTO IT, AND, UH, JUST LEFT THE POST, UH, AS HIGH AS I COULD, UH, AND KIND OF EXPERIMENTED WITH SEEING HOW HIGH I NEEDED TO MAKE IT IN ORDER TO STOP THE DEBRIS FROM COMING IN.
[00:10:01]
THE TRAJECTORY, UH, I WENT AND TOOK AN ALTIMETER TO TAKE THESE MEASUREMENTS, UH, AT VARIOUS PLACES.UH, IT JUST KIND OF FUNNELS TRAFFIC AND DEBRIS FLYING OFF THE ROAD STRAIGHT INTO MY HOUSE.
UM, YEAH, WHEN I LEAVE MY HOUSE, I MAKE SURE THAT THE DOGS DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IN CASE A WINDOW IS BROKEN THAT THEY GET OUT AND, UM, PROBABLY, UH, LEAVE THE BACKYARD BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE CARS RUN THROUGH THE BACKYARD QUITE FREQUENTLY.
UH, SO, UM, DURING THE TIME THAT THIS FENCE HAS BEEN, UH, UNDER SPECULATION, THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER CAR THAT DROVE THROUGH MY BACKYARD, A TRUCK, UH, ON A, ON APRIL 18TH.
UM, AND SINCE THEN, I, MY YARD HAS BEEN OPENED UP TO DEBRIS AGAIN.
AND, UH, I'VE LEFT OUT THE SOFT DEBRIS 'CAUSE I DON'T DEEM THAT HAZARDOUS.
EVERYBODY GETS TRASH ON THE YARD EVERY NOW AND THEN.
UM, IT'S THESE OBJECTS THAT I COLLECTED OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE DAYS, UH, THAT HAVE ME PRETTY WORRIED AND AFRAID TO GO IN MY OWN BACKYARD.
UH, IT'S, IT, THESE ARE JUST OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE DAYS.
UM, SO MORE MACHINE PARTS, METAL, GLASS WOULD, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW A PIECE OF GRANITE GOT IN THERE, BUT YOU, I FOUND WEIRDER THINGS.
UH, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT DROVE THROUGH WHEN I FIRST MOVED INTO THE HOME, AND HONESTLY, HAVING A TALLER FENCE IS NOT GOING TO HELP KEEP CARS FROM DRIVING THROUGH MY FENCE.
UM, BUT IT IS THE SAME TRAJECTORY THAT ALL THE AIRBORNE DEBRIS IS COMING INTO.
AND, UH, IT JUST KINDA OF ILLUSTRATES HOW IT'S A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA THAT I'M DEALING WITH.
UH, JUST ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SAME WRECK THAT TOOK OUT PART OF MY HOUSE.
UH, THIS WAS THE MOST RECENT ONE IN APRIL.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TALL FENCE WITH THE REALLY, REALLY STURDY FENCE POSTS KIND OF STOPPED THE TRUCK.
UH, BOTH OF THESE TRUCKS HAD LOST, DID NOT BREAK.
SO THEY WERE COMING IN THE HIGHWAY AND ENTERED MY PROPERTY AT THE SAME EXACT AREA, POINTED THE SAME EXACT WAY.
SO IT DOES GIMME AN IDEA OF, OF WHERE THE DEBRIS AND WHERE THINGS ARE FLYING IN FROM THE HIGHWAY AND FROM THE EXIT RAMP.
UH, YEAH, THIS ONE DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THANKFULLY, BUT NOW MY, MY FENCE IS OPEN AND I'M HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM ALL OVER AGAIN.
UM, SO THIS IS HOW THE CARS KIND OF ENTERED.
THE WHITE ARROW ILLUSTRATES WHERE, UH, THAT LAST TRUCK WAS SLOWED DOWN BY THE FENCE.
UH, THE YELLOW ONE ILLUSTRATES KIND OF THE LINE OF FIRE THAT I'M FINDING ALL OF THE DEBRIS AND WHERE THAT FIRST TRUCK HAD ENTERED THE PROPERTY.
UM, HERE ARE ALL THE PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR TIME UP, TIME'S UP.
GO AHEAD AND THANK, FINISH UP YOUR LAST SENTENCE FOR ME, PLEASE.
GO AHEAD AND FINISH UP ONE SENTENCE.
UM, THE, THE WALL THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY BUILT, UH, IS AROUND ALL OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES WITH KIND OF EXPOSED ELEMENTS TO MOPAC.
UH, AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IT SHOWS HOW FAR AWAY IT IS FROM MY HOME.
UM, SO I DID NOT GET ANY PROTECTION FROM IT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT'S UNUSUAL FOR ME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST BE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW HOW I'M TALKING ABOUT FENCES.
'CAUSE I USUALLY HATE BIG FENCES, BUT I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
HOW, HOW HIGH THE SOUND WALL IS.
COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM THAT OTHER PROPERTIES ENJOY.
UM, IN SOME PLACES IT'S ABOUT 15 FEET HIGH AND OTHER PLACES, UM, UH, AT A, I THINK IT'S AT 35TH WHERE IT WRAPS AROUND, IT ACTUALLY GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S ONLY EIGHT FEET THERE, BUT WHERE IT'S, WHERE IT'S PROTECTING HOMES, KIND OF FROM THE NOISE AND 15, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY HIGH.
OH, SHOULD I STAY HERE? DO YOU GUYS HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? STAY THERE FOR A SEC.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FINDINGS? YOU, YOU, YOU JUMPED.
I SHOULD HAVE PULLED IT UP FIRST.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL LOT WAS DIAGONALLY BISECTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOPAC FRONTAGE ROADS EXISTS IN THE EXACT PROXIMITY WHERE THE
[00:15:01]
OTHER HALF OF THE YARD USED TO BE ALONG THE LA OF THE DIAGONAL.THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THIS PROPERTY LINE EXPOSES THE REMAINING PROPERTY TO VEHICLE IMPACT AND HAZARDOUS DEBRIS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS.
HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE RARE.
NONE HAVE A LOT BISECTED, BUT ALL REFLECT PROTECTIVE MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE WITH A 12 TO FOOT, 15 FOOT CONCRETE WALL.
OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA WITH THE SAME TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PROXIMITY TO MOPAC HAVE A 15 FOOT WALL AREA OF CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
BECAUSE THE ONLY PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PROPERTY LINE IS OWNED BY THE DOT, THERE IS NO RESIDENCE OR NEIGHBOR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
AND DOT USE IS NOT IMPAIRED BY THE VERTICAL STRUCTURE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT FENCE OUT OF WOOD.
SINCE WE HAVE CITY STAFF HERE, COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE TAKE UP THE INTERPRETATION? I'M SORRY.
TAKE IT OUT OF ORDER AND TAKE THE INTERPRETATION NEXT SINCE STAFF.
YOU WANNA TAKE IT EARLY? YEAH.
WHAT'S NEXT? LEMME LOOK AT THREE REAL QUICK.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THAT EARLIER.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO TAKING, UH, THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL CASE OUT OF ORDER AND MOVING IT TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA? IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THEN FIRST LET'S TALK ABOUT ITEM NINE,
[9. General discussion regarding interpretation appeal process for new members]
GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING INTERPRETATION, APPEAL PROCESS FOR NEW MEMBERS.SO FOR A LOT OF YOU WHO ARE NEW TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THIS WILL BE YOUR FIRST INTERPRETATION APPEAL.
UH, I KNOW WHEN I HAD MY FIRST INTERPRETATION APPEAL, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF GUIDANCE ON, ON HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT, WHAT WE NEEDED TO, UH, DISCUSS.
SO I WANTED TO OPEN IT UP TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND HOW THE VOTING WORKS? AND THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, WE CAN EITHER REVERSE STAFF DECISION, MODIFY STAFF DECISION, OR UPHOLD STAFF DECISION.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OR ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO WE STILL REQUIRE SUPER MAJORITY FOR THIS.
IT'S GONNA TAKE ALL NINE MEMBERS.
UH, IF WE WANT TO REVERSE OR MODIFY, UPHOLD IS SIMPLE MAJORITY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
IF WE COULD GET AN OPINION FROM LEGAL ON THAT ONE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.
STEVE MADDOX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
SO ON THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL, UR CORRECT.
UH, TO, UH, REVERSE OR MODIFY A STAFF DECISION WILL TAKE A SUPER MAJORITY, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
UH, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS NO SOME SPECIAL, UH, PROCEDURES IN THE RULES, BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT IF YOU DO NOT REACH, UH, THE NINE VOTES, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY, UH, DEEMED TO BE DENIED.
IF ON A MOTION TO DENY YOU HAVE AT LEAST THREE VOTES TO DENY IT IS ALSO DEEMED DENIED.
JUST AS A POINT OF NOTE, THIS IS ALSO THE ONLY TIME WHERE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GETS A BRIEFING FROM STAFF.
NORMALLY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHEN WE'RE HANDLING VARIANCES OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BUT IN THIS CASE, INTERPRETATION OF APPEAL, WE DO GET A BRIEFING FROM STAFF.
SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT TONIGHT IF THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS.
[00:20:05]
STRENGTH ITEM NINE OFF THE AGENDA FOR NOW, AND LET'S MOVE ON WITH[5. C15-2024-0025 Appellant’s Agent: Nicholl Wade - Appellant: Warren Konkel Owner: Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cove]
THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL CASE C 15 20 24 0 2 5.THE APPELL APPELLANT'S AGENT IS NICOLE WADE.
THE APPELLANT IS WARREN CONEL.
OWNER IS CHRISTY MAY 6, 7 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE.
OKAY, SO BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT OR ISSUES OF STANDING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE? OKAY.
WE'LL START WITH A REPORT FROM CITY STAFF.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UM, CHAIR COHEN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I AM DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH DSD AND ALSO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
TONIGHT IS STEVE LEACH, THE CHIEF PLANS EXAMINER, WHO, UH, OVERSAW THE REVIEW STAFF THAT ISSUED THE PERMIT IN THIS CASE.
UH, AND BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT AUTHORIZING A TWO STORY ADDITION AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 67 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE.
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU PERTAINS TO THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE PROPERTY.
BOTH OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, UH, THE LANDOWNER, MS. CHRISTIE MAY, UH, AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT, UH, HER NEIGHBOR, MR. WARREN CONEL, HAVE PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH EXCELLENT BRIEFING MATERIALS THAT DEPICT THE PRO THEIR PROPERTIES AND SET FORTH THEIR COMPETING THEORIES OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.
TONIGHT, WE BELIEVE THE BOARD'S TIME IS BEST RESERVED FOR HEARING THEIR ARGUMENTS.
SO I WILL CONFINE MY COMMENTS TO A FEW ESSENTIAL POINTS.
SO WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH IS REGULATED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN THROUGH OUR ZONING REGULATIONS, WHICH IS, UH, WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION, UM, THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THIS RESIDENCE, LIKE MANY OTHERS IN THE AREA, WAS ENTITLED TO VESTED RIGHTS TO REGULATIONS THAT WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE VESTED RIGHTS GENERALLY ACCRUE ON THE DATE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT IS SUBMITTED.
AND SO A PLA APPLICATION CONSTITUTES WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE FIRST PERMIT IN THE SERIES.
AND SO WHEN A PLA APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, IT, UH, SETS THE REGULATIONS THAT WILL APPLY TO THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PLAT, UH, ONCE A PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
UM, SUBSEQUENT REDEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO CURRENT REGULATIONS.
UH, WHEN A PROJECT IS COMPLETE FOR PURPOSES OF VESTED RIGHTS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR.
UM, IN A CONVENTIONAL CASE WHERE A PRO A PROJECT BEGAN WITHIN THE CITY'S ZONING JURISDICTION AND IT HAD IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, IN EFFECT UNDER THOSE REGULATIONS, AND THEN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AMOUNTS CHANGED THROUGH SUBSEQUENT REZONINGS.
UM, THE CITY GENERALLY TAKES A HARD LINE POSITION THAT ONCE THE HOUSE IS BUILT, ONCE THE STRUCTURE, UH, IS BUILT AND ANY ACCESSORY, UH, COMPONENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT, THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT REDEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE A NEW PROJECT SUBJECT TO CURRENT REGULATIONS.
VESTED RIGHTS APPLY TO A PROJECT, NOT TO A PROPERTY, AND EVENTUALLY, UM, A PROJECT HAS GOTTA BE DEEMED COMPLETE AND THE CITY APPLIES ITS CURRENT REGULATIONS.
WE DO HAVE CASES, HOWEVER, THAT PRESENT, UM, MURKY FACTUAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, WHEN WAS THE PROJECT COMPLETE.
AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THERE IS A MEMO THAT IS BEFORE YOU, IT'S A, I BELIEVE, ATTACHMENT A TO OUR STAFF REPORT THAT DELINEATES A POLICY REFERRED TO, I THINK IS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
UM, AND THAT IS A 1995 MEMO ISSUED LONG BEFORE ANY OF OUR, ANY OF US WERE INVOLVED IN, UH, DEVELOPMENT REGULATION FOR THE CITY.
UH, AND IT PROVIDES SOME LIMITED, A LIMITED PATHWAY FOR THE CITY TO RECOGNIZE, UH, ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THAT A PROJECT IS COMPLETE.
UM, THE CITY USES THIS POLICY SPARINGLY, UM, BUT WE FELT ULTIMATELY THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS, UH, PROJECT WAS BEGUN AT A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS IN EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
[00:25:01]
UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, UH, DUE TO THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OCCURRED OVER THE YEARS, SOME OF IT PERMITTED, SOME OF IT UN PERMITTED.UH, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS THAT COMPLETED THE PROJECT.
SO IN RARE CASES, AND I THINK, UM, A TINY NUMBER OF THEM OVER THE LAST 10 OR 15 YEARS, WE HAVE USED THIS POLICY TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND TO BASICALLY, UM, PROVIDE LANDOWNERS WITH, UM, A FINAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER TO WRAP UP THE PROJECT AND, UH, ISSUE FINAL APPROVALS.
AND THEN THAT IS, UH, DELINEATES THE, THE END OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT.
AND ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AFTER THAT, UH, WILL BE DEEMED A NEW PROJECT.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE, UH, APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.
AND SO WE THINK THAT IS A GESTURE TOWARDS, UH, ACHIEVING BETTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE LA ZONING REGULATIONS.
WE ALSO THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER THERE.
THESE SORTS OF SITUATIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, IN THIS AREA ARE NOT UNCOMMON.
UM, AND SO WE THINK RATHER THAN NECESSITATING COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THINGS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, WE HAVE, AGAIN, IN RARE CASES USE THIS POLICY.
UH, CITY CODE AUTHORIZES THE ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHEN PROJECTS ARE COMPLETE.
UM, AND THIS, THIS, UH, POLICY MEMO CONSTITUTES GUIDELINES FOR THAT PURPOSE.
UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY THIS IS A, IN OUR VIEW, AND YOU HAVE COUNSEL THAT YOU CAN CONSULT WITH, UH, IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS A TIMELY, UH, A TIMELY APPEAL.
UM, SINCE IT RAISES ISSUES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT IS IN A BROAD SENSE WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.
UM, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, WHEN YOU DRILL DOWN INTO THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN CONTENTION, IT IS ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS.
AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD NOT WEIGH IN ON VESTED RIGHTS.
VESTED RIGHTS ARE NOT A ZONING REGULATION.
THEY ARISE UNDER A DIFFERENT PART OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY WITHIN Y'ALL'S JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE COUNSEL FOR THAT.
UM, BUT WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I THINK STEVE IS BEHIND ME AND HAS GOT, UH, DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THE, UH, ISSUES IN THE CASE AND THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS ALLOWED AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT INTO DETERMINING WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ORIGINALLY EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWED AN ADDITIONAL, UH, 1000 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN AGAIN, I THINK THE PARTIES HAVE EXCELLENT PRESENTATIONS FOR YOU.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THE REPRESENTATIVE.
WE'LL BE LIMITING THE TIME TO 10 MINUTES.
SO, AND WE'RE HEARING BOTH CASES, THERE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED AND WE'RE HEARING BOTH CASES AT ONCE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THE IT FOR US, IT'S ONE APPEAL CASE, BUT IT'S FOR TWO BUILDING PERMITS, TWO DIFFERENT APPEALS.
SO THEY'RE APPEALING BUILDING PERMIT, UH, 1 2 9 6 5 8.
I AM JUST CLARIFYING BECAUSE THEY APPEALED THEM AT TWO SEPARATE TIMES.
I'M JUST CLARIFYING THAT WE ARE THE WHOLE THING IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ONE AND THEN DO THE CORRECT.
EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE UNDER THIS ONE APPEAL CASE, BOTH BUILDING PERMITS, JUST CLARIFYING FOR EVERYONE SO THAT WHEN WE FINISH THAT WE DON'T DO IT AGAIN.
NO, WE WON'T BE DOING THIS TWICE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, SO NEXT, UM, THIS IS, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE, ACTUALLY BACK ONE MORE.
I'M HERE TO APPEAL THE PERMITS ISSUED TO MY NEIGHBOR AT 6 7 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE.
OUR NEIGHBOR HOOD HAS FOUR UNIQUE VIEW HOMES
[00:30:01]
BUILT ON LONG, NARROW, LOTS WITH DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT AND HOUSES POSITIONED AT THE BACK RIGHT ON THE CLIFF EDGE.THESE HOMES ARE CLOSELY SPACED TO MAXIMIZE LAKE VIEWS AND PROPERTY VALUES.
NEXT, MY NEIGHBOR AT 6 7 0 8 IS PLANNING A MASSIVE POOL HOUSE EXPANSION AT THE BACK OF HER PROPERTY DIRECTLY NEXT TO MY HOME.
THIS ADDITION WILL TOWER OVER MY BACKYARD AND POOL CASTING SHADOWS, BLOCKING THE BREEZE AND DISRUPTING VIEWS THAT HAVE EXISTED SINCE 1990.
THIS PROJECT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE MY PROPERTY VALUE AND DIMINISH THE ENJOYMENT IN MY BACKYARD.
NEXT, ONLY THE NEW BUILDING AND POOL HAVE BEEN, I'M SORRY.
ONLY THE NEW BUILDING AND POOL HAVE BEEN PERMITTED SO FAR.
BUT THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERMITS TO EXTEND SIGNIFICANTLY BEYOND THE CLIFF EDGE.
IT WILL NEED SPECIAL ENGINEERING, INCLUDING LARGE RETAINING WALLS AND EXTENSIVE DECKING FOR STABILIZATION.
THAT RED SQUARE IS THE BUILDING THAT'S TRYING TO BE BUILT, JUST TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE.
NEXT, THE TREE AND FIRE PIT SHOWN HERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT IN THEIR PLACE.
IMAGINE A LARGE TWO-STORY BUILDING 24 FEET TALL, 32 FEET LONG.
THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN JUST FIVE FEET FROM MY BACKYARD AND POOL PATIO.
NEXT, NEXT, THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1989 WITH THE POOL ADDED IN 1990.
NEXT, IN 1989 AFTER THE HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY, BUT BEFORE THE POOL, MICHAEL MCMINN CONDUCTED A SURVEY.
BASED ON HIS FIRSTHAND INFORMATION, HE CALCULATED THAT THE HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY ADDED 10,803 SQUARE FEET OF IC.
USING HIS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS AND SATELLITE PHOTOS, HE ESTIMATED THE POOL DECK ADDED ANOTHER 605 SQUARE FEET, BRINGING THE TOTAL ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION TO 11,408 SQUARE FEET.
THIS NUMBER WILL COME UP A LOT, SO I'M GONNA REPEAT IT.
HIS DOCUMENTS AND ORIGINAL FIELD NOTES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 43 TO 1 62 OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
NEXT, MCMINN CALCULATED IC USING FIRSTHAND SURVEY DATA FOR LINES ONE THROUGH SEVEN ON THIS STUDY.
LINE EIGHT FOR THE POOL PATIO IS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE SATELLITE PHOTOS AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS.
THE KEY NUMBER HERE IS 11,408, REPRESENTING TOTAL ORIGINAL IC.
MR. MCMINN, WHO CONDUCTED THE SURVEY IS AVAILABLE AS A VIRTUAL CALLER.
SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK QUESTIONS, HE'S AVAILABLE ON THE LINE AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS NEXT, FOR THE NEXT 24 YEARS.
NO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED ON THIS PROPERTY 24 YEARS.
NO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED ON THIS PROPERTY.
THE 2013 SATELLITE PHOTO MATCHES THE 1989 SURVEY EXACTLY.
THE PROPERTY WAS THEN SOLD IN 2014.
NEXT, SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, THE NEW OWNERS BEGAN UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING IC.
THESE CHANGES INCLUDED ADDITIONS TO THE DRIVEWAY, FRONT WALKWAY, POOL, PATIO, THE ADDITION OF A FIRE PIT, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, AND LANDSCAPING WALLS.
ALL OF THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.
AFTER THIS WAS COMPLETED, THE 2014 CONSTRUCTION INCREASED THE TOTAL IC TO 14,860 SQUARE FEET, AN INCREASE OF ALMOST 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
NEXT IN 2020, OWNERSHIP CHANGED AGAIN AND THE CURRENT OWNER BEGAN A SECOND ROUND OF UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION.
IN 2021, PLANS TO EXPAND THE MASTER BATHROOM AND ENTRYWAY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, BUT NO PERMIT WAS ISSUED, LIKELY DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IC.
DESPITE NO PERMITS, THE OWNER PROCEEDED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 240 SQUARE FEET, BRINGING THE TOTAL IC ON THIS PROPERTY TO 15,100, NEARLY 3,700 ABOVE THE ORIGINAL IC.
NEXT LAST YEAR, PLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO REDO THE POOL AND ADD A LARGE POOL HOUSE IN CABANA.
TWO PERMITS WERE ISSUED SIX MONTHS AGO, ONE FOR THE POOL AND ONE FOR THE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE APPEALING TO THE POOL AND THE BUILDING.
UM, UH, NEXT, THESE PERMITS CONTAINED SERIOUS ERRORS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM LEFT, THESE PERMITS REPRESENTED VARIOUS AREAS AS LOWER PAVER PATIO.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THE UPPER AREA IS A CLIFF.
AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE LOWER CIRCLE, THAT LOWER PAVER PATIO
[00:35:01]
IS A FIRE PIT.FURTHERMORE, IN THIS PHOTO, HALF OF THAT POOL DECK, IF NOT MORE, WAS UN PERMITTED WHEN IT WAS ADDED BACK IN 2014.
AND THIS, BY THE WAY, IS THAT FIRE PIT AND TREE THAT WAS ON A PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT'S GETTING TORN DOWN TO PUT IN A A TWO STORY HOUSE OR, UH, EXTENSION.
NEXT, THE UNPERMITTED EXPANSIONS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WERE CONVENIENTLY OMITTED FROM THESE PLANS, LIKELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLEGAL AND WOULD'VE FURTHER INCREASED IC.
THESE, THERE ARE CLAIMS BY SOME PEOPLE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL REDUCE IC BY A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, BUT THIS CALCULATION IS BASED ON ALL OF THE UNPERMITTED EXPANSIONS, NOT THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
THIS PROJECT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE IC FAR BEYOND WHAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND WHAT WAS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
NEXT, I ALERTED THE CITY TO THESE ERRORS, AND BACK IN, I THINK IT WAS MAY OR JUNE, THESE PERMITS WERE PLACED ON HOLD.
I ASSUME THE PROJECT WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD, BUT I WAS WRONG.
NEXT, VESTED RIGHTS ARE OUR FRIEND.
NEXT, THE PROPERTY OWNER HIRED TERRY ION, A FORMER CITY ATTORNEY IN AUSTIN, WHO SUBMITTED A VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION, CLAIMING THE PROPERTY HAD RIGHTS TO ADDITIONAL IC.
CHRIS JOHNSON, ANOTHER CITY EMPLOYEE, DENIED THIS VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION DENIED.
HE STATED NO VESTED RIGHTS EXISTED SINCE THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE POOL WAS COMPLETED IN 1990.
I FULLY AGREE WITH CHRIS JOHNSON'S ASSESSMENT OF THESE VESTED RIGHTS.
NEXT, ON JUNE, ON JUNE 17TH, A PRIVATE MEETING TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY LED BY BRENT LLOYD.
THIS RESULTED IN MANY UNUSUAL DECISIONS.
THE ORIGINAL IC NUMBER WAS SET AT 12,811 AND EXTRA THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WAS GRANTED AS AN EXCEPTION.
GRANDFATHERED IC COULD BE MOVED AROUND.
PREVIOUS UNPERMITTED WORK WAS NOW APPROVED AND ACCURATE PERMITS WERE DEEMED UNNECESSARY.
THE ONLY CHANGE TO ALL OF THIS WAS A RESTRICTION COMPLIANCE AT FINAL INSPECTION.
SO PERMITS DON'T MATTER ANYMORE, YOU JUST GET COMPLIANCE AT FINAL INSPECTION.
NEXT SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THIS PRIVATE MEETING WHERE, WHERE THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WERE GRANTED, I EMAILED BRENT LLOYD ASKING HIM IF VESTED RIGHTS HAD BEEN GRANTED.
HE EMAILED ME BACK SAYING NO, THEY HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED VESTED RIGHTS WERE DENIED.
CHRIS JOHNSON ALSO CLARIFIED THIS SAYING THAT MEETINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SET UP BUT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN AND VESTED RIGHTS WERE DENIED.
SO BOTH BRENT LLOYD AND CHRIS JOHNSON SAID NO VESTED RIGHTS HAD BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH FOUR DAYS PREVIOUSLY TO THIS, THEY HAD JUST ISSUED A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET THROUGH A VESTED RIGHTS, UH, EXCEPTION.
NEXT, WE FILED OUR APPEAL SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, UM, A WEEK AFTER WE FILED OUR APPEAL, AFTER WE FILED OUR APPEAL, ONE WHOLE WEEK AFTER WE FILED OUR APPEAL, AND A MONTH AFTER THE PERMIT WAS REACTIVATED, BRENT LLOYD ISSUED HIS DOCUMENT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE REACTIVATION.
HE CLAIMS THE 12,800 SQUARE FEET.
HE CLAIMS THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ONGOING.
REMEMBER THERE WAS A 24 YEAR GAP, AND HE'S CLAIMING THAT THIS IS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION FROM 1990 NEXT.
AND JUST THREE DAYS BEFORE THE, THE PREVIOUS AUGUST BOARD MEETING, WHICH WAS, UH, SUS, UH, POSTPONED, HE ISSUED EVEN MORE DOCUMENTS THREE DAYS BEFORE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO APPEAL THEM.
AFTER WE SUBMITTED OUR PRESENTATION, HE GAVE OUT MORE AND MORE DOCUMENTS.
NEXT, HIS GUIDELINES THAT HE'S QUOTING SB 1704, IT'S FOR A BILL THAT WAS REPEALED TWO YEARS LATER IN 1997.
IT'S NOT EVEN AN ACCURATE BILL.
FURTHERMORE, THE LDC THAT HE QUOTES, LDC 25 1 5 45 SAYS THAT THESE GUIDELINES THAT ARE ADOPTED HAVE TO BE POSTED PUBLICLY.
THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM PRIVATELY TO MR. LLOYD.
AND HE'S NOW MAKING HIS CLAIM OVER ALL OF THIS, THAT IT'S CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION.
NEXT, REGARDING THAT 12,811 NUMBER.
OVER THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, I'LL SHOW I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MORE SECONDS, SO I'M GONNA GO QUICKLY.
THE DRIVEWAY, THESE NUMBERS ARE WRONG.
NE NEXT, SAME THING WITH THE WOOD DECK.
SO I'M GONNA INTERRUPT WRONG NEXT REAL QUICK.
NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT.
DO YOU HAVE LEFT FINAL SLIDE? I ASK THAT YOU GUYS DENY THESE TWO PERMITS.
[00:40:02]
CHRISTIE? MAY.DO YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION IF I ADD AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES TO THE APPELLANT IF I GIVE Y'ALL AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES AS WELL, SO THAT IT'S EQUAL? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
UM, CAN WE GO BACK A FEW SLIDES REALLY QUICK? YEAH.
IT'S 50%, NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
SO THE PATIO THAT WAS ADDED LATER IS UNDERNEATH IT, NOT ORIGINAL.
NEXT, THEY ESTIMATE 933 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS TOP LEFT CORNER IS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
NEXT, ONCE AGAIN, 21 FEET VERSUS 180.
NEXT, ALL OF THIS IS UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTION.
IT EVEN SAYS RIGHT THERE ON THE PHASE AND YEAR UNKNOWN.
THIS WAS ALL ADDED IN 2014, NOT GRANDFATHERED IN.
NEXT, I ASK THAT THIS BOARD DENIES THESE TWO PERMITS APPEALS THEM.
I ASK THAT THE DSD THAT THIS BOARD INSTRUCTS THE DSD TO FOR FOREVER DISREGARD THE JULY 19TH VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION.
THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BONUS IS MADE UP.
I ASK THAT YOU SET THE MAXIMUM IC ON THIS PROPERTY TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF 11,408 SQUARE FEET.
AND I REQ ASK THAT YOU SUBMIT, YOU REQUIRE ALL NEW PERMITS TO BE TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE.
LASTLY, I'M GONNA READ THE OPENING SENTENCE, THE LAKE AUSTIN USAGE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO PROTECT THE SCENIC, RECREATIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LAKE AUSTIN BY RESTRICTING THE SCALE AND INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE LAKE.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW HEAR COMMENTS BY THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE COMMENTING TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL? YOU SEEING NONE? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND IT WILL BE LIMITED TO 12 MINUTES.
SO IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, WHILE WE GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
MADAM CHAIR, COULD WE HEAR FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRST, UH, AS TO HOW HE JUSTIFIED THE, UH, 12,811 SQUARE FEET? NO, I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC FORMAT I'M REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.
SO YOU HAVE, UH, 28, 9, 10, 11, 12 MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS TERRY IAN, I'M HERE REPRESENTING KRISTEN MAY, WHO IS THE OWNER OF 67 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE TO, SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2020.
I THINK THERE HAD BEEN A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS, ALTERATIONS, RENOVATIONS THAT HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH THE YEARS.
UH, AS MR. KUNKEL, UH, POINTED OUT, UH, MOST OF THESE WERE DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.
UM, BUT THAT REALLY ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE TONIGHT.
THE ISSUE, THE ONLY ISSUE IS DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIR IN DETERMINING THAT THE CALCULATION THAT 12,811 SQUARE FEET IS A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH GRANDFATHERED PROJECTS.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WAS.
WELL, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF THAT? UM, MR. KUNKLE, UH, OFFERED A DECLARATION OF, UH, HIS SURVEYOR, MIKE MCIN.
AND I THINK THERE IS A, UH, A COPY OF MR. MC MEN'S, UH, SURVEY, UH, IN, IN HIS PRESENTATION DOCUMENTS, IN THE OWNER'S PRESENTATION DOCUMENTS.
IF YOU'LL LOOK AT PAGE 13, UH, THERE ARE, I BELIEVE TWO, UH, 13, PAGE 13.
UH, THE, THE, UH, SURVEY ON THE RIGHT IS THE SURVEY THAT MR. MCIN DID IN JUNE OF 1989
[00:45:02]
UPON COMPLETION OF THE HOUSE, BUT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED ON THE POOL AND AND PATIO.UH, THE EXHIBIT ON THE LEFT IS WHAT ACCORDING TO HIS, UH, UNSWORN STATEMENT, UH, IS HOW HE CALCULATED THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER AFTER THE POOL WAS BUILT.
AND, UH, THE, THE DECKING WAS BUILT.
NOW, HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THAT AT THE TIME, AND HE DIDN'T DR.
MAKE THAT DRAWING ON THE LEFT.
UM, THAT, THAT DRAWING ACCORDING TO, TO MR. MCMAN, UH, WAS A MODIFICATION OF HIS SURVEY.
HANDWRITTEN, NOT MENTION, NOT SCALED.
AND HE MADE AN ESTIMATE OF, OF HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ADDED BASED UPON THAT HANDWRITTEN DRAWING.
BUT DESPITE THAT, MR. MR. CONAL WHO RELIED ON THAT, UH, TO DETERMINE THAT ALL THAT, UH, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED WAS 11,408 SQUARE FEET WHEN HE SUBMITTED HIS PRESENTATION UPDATE, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT PAGE SEVEN, I'M SORRY, PAGE EIGHT.
UM, HE DIDN'T USE THE HANDWRITTEN MODIFICATION TO THE MCMAN SURVEY.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE FORMER OWNER WHO, WHO, UH, SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPERTY SAYING THE ORIGINAL PROJECT HAD DECKING THAT WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SWIMMING POOL.
UH, WE HAVE ANOTHER NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S STATEMENT THAT THE ORIGINAL WHO'S LIVED THERE FOR 34 YEARS.
THE ORIGINAL PROJECT POOL WENT ALL THE WAY.
THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, UH, DECKING WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND THE POOL.
HE LIKED THAT EX THAT PICTURE THAT HE PUT.
YOU WANNA WANNA BRING THAT UP? UH, PAGE NUMBER.
UH, I, IT'S, UH, UPDATED PRESENTATION, PAGE SEVEN.
IT, IT'S IN ANOTHER PACKAGE THAT WOULD YOU, OKAY.
YOU MIGHT COULD DO THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD, THE POINT IS, YOU'LL NEED TO PAUSE IF YOU WANT HIM TO FLIP TO THE TWO PRESENTATIONS.
THE POINT IS THAT, UH, THAT THERE YOU GO.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE EXHIBIT THAT, WELL, THERE'S ACTUALLY, I THINK, UH, THAT IMAGE ATTACHED TO THE, UH, SURVEY.
HE, HE PUT THAT IMAGE OF WHAT THE, THE POOL DECKING WAS ON, ON, UM, AS, AS HIS FINAL STATEMENT.
SO IN EFFECT, HE HAS CONTRADICTED HIS OWN SURVEYOR WHO ORIGINALLY SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS COAUTHORED UNKNOWN MODIFICATION OF MY SURVEY CAME FROM, BUT IT SHOWS DECKING AROUND THE POOL.
AND THAT IS COLLABORATED BY THE FORMER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UM, WHO, WHO TORE THAT OUT THE DECKING OUT IN 2014, UH, TO, IN ORDER TO GET A BETTER VIEW OF THE LAKE, HE HAD THE DECK NOT ALL THE WAY AROUND.
THE POINT IS THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY HARD EVIDENCE OF, OF WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WAS.
BUT THE CITY, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT, UM, HAS DONE THEIR BEST TO, TO US, TO FIGURE WHAT, BASED UPON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, UH, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS CONCRETE SLAB UNDERNEATH THE, THE ORIGINAL WOOD DECK, UH, THAT THERE WERE, UM, A NUMBER OF, UH, UH, HVAC AND POOL PADS, CONCRETE PADS THAT MR. MCMAN NEVER SAW BECAUSE THE, THE POOL HADN'T BEEN BUILT YET.
AND, AND THEY THOUGHT THAT THAT NUMBER
[00:50:01]
WAS TOO LOW.NOW WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS 14,000, UM, I THINK 800 SOME SQUARE FEET ACCORDING TO THE HOLT CARSON SURVEY, THAT THAT'S RELIABLE.
UM, AND WE UNDERSTAND, AND THAT'S BASED UPON A, A CIRCLE BEING ADDED TO THE DRIVEWAY, UH, AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE DONE, UH, TO THE DECKING IN 2014.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT, UH, THAT IS GONNA HAVE TO BE REMOVED.
UM, WE THINK THAT THE CITY ACTUALLY UNDERESTIMATED WHAT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIGHT IT.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS CALCULATIONS ARE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, UH, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION THAT'S NOT REALLY AT ISSUE HERE.
UM, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS, UH, BASED UPON GUIDELINES THAT WERE ADOPTED FOR THE VESTED RIGHTS STATUTE BACK IN 1995.
IT IS TRUE THAT THE LEGISLATURE INADVERTENTLY, UH, REPEALED THE VESTED RIGHTS STATUTE IN 1997, BUT THEY READOPTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS, THEY DIDN'T INTEND FOR IT TO BE REPEALED IN 1997.
THE CITY KEPT THEIR GUIDELINES, WHICH WERE, UH, WIDELY DISTRIBUTED AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN.
UM, AND THEY'VE KEPT THEM EVER SINCE.
WHETHER THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, UH, IS EVEN NEEDED OR NOT, WE DON'T KNOW.
BUT WE, WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT IS, IS THERE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT, UH, THE, UH, DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON 12,811 SQUARE FEET IS WRONG? AND THERE ISN'T ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.
EVERYTHING MR. KUNKEL HAS SUBMITTED IS HIS SPECULATION OF WHAT WAS THERE.
HE HASN'T, THE ONLY SURVEY THAT HE PROVIDED, HE HAS, HE IS, UH, CONTRADICTED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THIS EXHIBIT.
UM, THERE WAS ORIGINAL DECKING ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT POOL.
AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS RELYING ON THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS.
UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, UH, A DRIVEWAY TURNOUT THAT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.
UH, UH, ADDITIONAL HVAC PADS THAT WEREN'T CALCULATED, UH, CONCRETE SLAB UNDER, UH, THE WOOD DECK THAT WASN'T CONSIDERED.
UH, HE COULDN'T SEE THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, THE TREES AND BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING AT AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.
SO, UH, AND THE LAST THING I WANNA SAY IS IF YOU'LL LOOK IN YOUR PACKETS AT, UH, SHEET SEVEN OR PAGE SEVEN OF THE APPLICANT'S OF THE APPELLANT'S, UH, UPDATED PRESENTATION, HE HAS THAT RED BOX THAT PURPORTS TO BE THIS MASSIVE STRUCTURE THAT IS GOING TO OVERWHELM HIS PROPERTY, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY 15 FEET, UH, SETBACK, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
WELL, UH, MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY HONORS THE 10 THOU 10 FOOT LA ORDINANCE, UH, SETBACK.
HIS HOUSE IS ONLY FIVE FOOT SET, UH, SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND HIS, HIS HOUSE, UH, IS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THIS CABANA IS 24 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND IT IS, UH, ON A, UH, A GRADE THAT IS THREE FEET LOWER THAN THE GRADE OF HIS HOUSE.
IT WAS INTENTIONALLY AN ILLUSTRATION, INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD TO PURPORT THAT THERE'S THIS MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH, WHEN IN FACT, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE, UH, MORE THAN 2000 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, THE CITY'S, UH, UNBIASED, UH, DETERMINATION OF THE, UH, ORIGINAL PROJECT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
[00:55:01]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.NEXT, WE'LL BE HEARING COMMENT BY THOSE OPPOSING THE APPEAL AT THREE MINUTES EACH.
IF YOU'D PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTIE MAY, AND I AM THE HOMEOWNER.
I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
I BOUGHT THIS HOME TO BE MY HOME RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM MY SMALL BUSINESS.
UM, WARREN KUNKEL, SINCE I STARTED MY PROJECT, HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE CAN TO STOP MY PROJECT.
HE'S GOT ONE GOAL IN MIND, AND HE GIVES MISLEADING INFORMATION.
UM, AS SOON AS I GOT MY PERMIT AND THE TREES WERE REMOVED TO ENABLE US TO DO THE DEMOLITION OF MY PREVIOUS PATIO AND PULL, UM, AS SOON AS THOSE TREES WERE REMOVED, HE REALLY LIKED THAT VIEW BETTER THAN WHAT HE HAD BEFORE.
SO HE SENT AN EMAIL OUT TO EVERY MEMBER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ENTIRE HOA, AND SAID THAT I WAS STEALING THE VIEW THAT THAT PROPERTY HAD HAD FOR 40 YEARS.
HE ALSO SAID THAT IN HIS PRESENTATION, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES, IF YOU WANNA PULL UP THE, THERE'S A PICTURE IN MY PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WERE TWO BIG, UM, OAK TREES THAT WERE THERE THAT WERE REMOVED.
AND SO HE HAD, HIS VIEW WAS OF TREES.
AND SO MY BUILDING IS, IS NOT GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS OBSTRUCTIVE.
THAT'S ACTUALLY HIS, HIS THREAT LETTER TO ME.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT, NOW, GO BACK TO THE PICTURE, THE COLOR PICTURE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE TREES THAT ARE IN BETWEEN OUR TWO HOUSES, UM, THOSE WERE REMOVED.
AND SO HE TOLD OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I WAS STEALING HIS VIEW AND SAID THAT THE VERY REASON HE BOUGHT HIS PROPERTY WAS FOR THE VIEW THAT I WAS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY.
I WAS ABLE TO WRITE BACK, HAD TO WRITE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK AND SAY, UM, SEND PICTURES AND SHOW THAT THERE WERE TWO TREES THERE, THAT THERE'S NO WAY HE HAD THAT VIEW.
AND HE WROTE BACK TO THAT LETTER, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ANYBODY WOULD RATHER LOOK AT TREES THAN A BUILDING.
SO THAT'S WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR.
AND HE'S ACKNOWLEDGED IN HIS LETTERS THAT THE CITY DOES NOT PROTECT VIEWS.
SO HE'S USING THE PROTOCOLS AND THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE IN PLACE WITH THE CITY WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER.
HE'S USING THAT BECAUSE HE CAN'T PROTECT THE VIEW ANY OTHER WAY.
SO HE'S TRYING TO FIND ANY WAY HE CAN TO MAKE MY PROPERTY LOOK LIKE IT HAS LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER WHEN ACTUALLY HE'S GOT THE SAME SIZE LOT.
OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TO HAVE ONE ACRE LOTS.
HE'S GOT AN ACTIVE PERMIT FOR OVER 15,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND HE'S COMPLAINING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND SQUARE FEET LESS THAT, THAT I HIT.
IT'S, IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT RIGHT.
AND HE'S, HE'S TRYING TO BULLY HIS WAY INTO A VIEW THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS SCOTT BRYANT.
UM, MY WIFE, WHO'S THE OWNER MADE MOST OF MY POINTS.
UM, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST TO GO ALONG WITH SOME OF THE MISINFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN IN, IN THE PRESENTATION.
EVERYONE SAW THE BIG RED BOX THAT WAS DRAWN ON THERE.
THE ENTIRE PROJECT DOES NOT GO OUT THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL DECK.
THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS INFILL OR A SMALL RETAINING WALL WILL BE, UH, A GRASS AREA FOR OUR DOGS IN THE BACKYARD, WHICH IS BELOW THE DECK OF THE, THE LEVEL OF THE POOL DECK.
AND SO NOTHING STICKS OUT OVER THE CLIFF.
THE, THE, UH, THE CABANA AND THE POOL ADDITION WERE PURPOSELY DESIGNED TO STAY WITHIN THE PREVIOUS CANOPY OF TREES.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO MESS WITH ANYBODY'S VIEW.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
WE DESIGNED IT TO STAY WITHIN THE CANOPY OF THE TREES.
UM, HE POINTS OUT THE TREE AND THE FIRE PIT THAT WERE REMOVED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS REMOVED, THE TREES WERE REMOVED, AND THE FIRE PIT WAS REMOVED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE DEMOLITION.
THE FIRE PIT WILL NOT BE REPLACED, BUT THE TREES WILL BE IN THEIR, IN THEIR SAME POSITION.
THE, THE CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT GET TO THE POINT OF WHERE THOSE TREES WERE.
[01:00:01]
PLANTED IN THE SAME SPOT THAT THOSE TREES WERE.UM, THE POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS WHEN, WHEN OUR, WHEN OUR PROJECT IS FINISHED, WE WILL HAVE 1700 OR SO LESS SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE, ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE LOT.
UM, SO IT'S NOT ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER, AS MY WIFE MENTIONED.
IT'S ABOUT A VIEW THAT WAS NEVER THERE.
AND MY LAST POINT WILL BE THAT, THAT WHATEVER NUMBER, EVERYONE, BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS IS AN ESTIMATION.
ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT EXISTED, NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.
THERE ARE NO SET FACTS OR DRAWINGS OR PICTURES OF WHAT WAS THERE.
UM, THE CITY CAME UP WITH A NUMBER.
THE APPELLANT CAME UP WITH A NUMBER, BUT THE CITY GAINS NOTHING BY COMING UP WITH THEIR NUMBER.
THE APPELLANT SIDE HAS A DEFINITE MOTIVE AND IS TRYING TO GAIN SOMETHING BY COMING UP WITH THEIR NUMBER.
IS ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY.
AND GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE.
UM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS.
UM, FROM WHAT I HEARD, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER THAT ESTIMATED POOL IS 600 SQUARE FEET OR 900 SQUARE FEET.
EVERYTHING ELSE IN MCMILLAN'S SURVEY IS ACCURATE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
SO EVEN IF THE NUMBER WAS 11,400 PLUS, I DUNNO, SEVEN, 11,700 INSTEAD OF THE 11,400.
SO THAT PLUS OR MINUS 300 ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE POOL, THIS PROPERTY IS STILL THREE OR 4,000 SQUARE FEET OVER THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, A DECADE OF UNPERMITTED EXPANSION AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS DOESN'T AFFECT MY VIEWS.
I WOULD NOT BE HERE IF THEY HADN'T CUT DOWN THESE TREES AND STARTED TRYING TO BUILD THIS HUGE, HUGE POOL HOUSE ON TOP OF ALL OF THE EXPANSIONS THEY'VE BEEN DOING.
THERE ARE LEGAL LAWS AND CODES FOR A REASON.
THIS IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR AND NOT THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
THE BRENT LLOYD, THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, IS MAKING CLAIMS THAT THIS IS 25 YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN HE SAYS, YOU CAN'T APPEAL THIS 'CAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF YOUR JURISDICTION.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SUE THE CITY TO TRY TO OVERRIDE SOME OF THIS VESTED RIGHT STUFF.
IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES.
WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST FOLLOW THE RULES, LOOK AT THE PERMITS AND SAY THESE PERMITS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.
THESE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP.
THEY'RE WAY OVER THE EXISTING IC.
IF THEY WANT 13, 14, 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF IC, THEY SHOULD COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE.
INSTEAD, THEY JUST DID YEAR AFTER YEAR OF UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION, LYING, CHEATING, STEALING ON THEIR PERMITS, AND JUST MAKING THIS COMPLETELY CRAZY ARGUMENT.
I FEEL LIKE THE WORLD IS AGAINST ME.
AND ALL PEOPLE NEED TO DO IS JUST READ THE LAWS, READ THESE PERMITS, AND IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.
A LOT OF STUFF ABOUT MISINFORMATION.
I'D LIKE THEM TO SHOW ME ONE THING THAT'S NOT ACCURATE IN ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS OR ANY OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SAID, STEALING THE VIEWS.
AND INSTEAD THEY TORE DOWN OR CUT DOWN A OLD MATURE OAK TREE.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD A TWO STORY BUILDING THAT GOES SO FAR OVER THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF.
IT'S NOT JUST TO RUN THEIR DOGS ON A GRASS FIELD.
THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT AND STABILIZE THE CLIFF BECAUSE THIS IS GOING SO FAR OVER THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF.
THEY CAN'T DO THEIR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE ALL HERE.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN MONTHS AGO BY THE CITY.
I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON LEGAL FEES TRYING TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY VALUES.
WHY CAN'T THE CITY JUST DO THEIR JOB, REJECT THIS PERMIT, AND MAKE THEM SUBMIT PERMITS AND GET VARIANCES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE? THERE'S A REASON WHY WE HAVE WHILE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, LET'S FOLLOW THEM OR CHANGE THEM OR DO VARIANCES.
NOT JUST MAKE THINGS UP, IGNORE ALL THE RULES AND BEND THINGS TO OUR OWN WILL.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
SO ARE WE HEARING FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR THEIR DESIGNEE THAT WOULD'VE FALLEN UNDER THE INITIAL, UH, PRESENTATION BY STAFF, BUT NOW WE CAN ASK FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
SO I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR THAT, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO, WE CAN ASK FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO EXPLAIN HOW
[01:05:01]
THEY CAME TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WAS AWARDED.I MEAN, I, I HAVE A QUITE A FEW THOUGHTS.
I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHICH WOULD PLEASE, I FEEL LIKE THE QUESTION OF VESTED RIGHTS IS LIKE THE GATEWAY ISSUE FOR US, AND THAT COULD HELP, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT ISSUE A LITTLE FURTHER BEFORE WE GET TO THE FACTS OF VESTED RIGHTS ISN'T IN OUR PURVIEW.
I KNOW, BUT SO THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT'S A VESTED RIGHTS QUESTION.
AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHY THEY'RE MAKING THAT ASSERTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
MR. MADO, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT MORE PLEASE? AND WHETHER IT'S 17 0 4, 2 45, I, I MEAN IT'S, LET'S, LET'S HEAR FROM LEGAL, OKAY, BEFORE WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, MADAM CHAIR, JUST FOR ALL OF OUR NEW MEMBERS, UM, IF WE, IF WE DECIDE NOT TO SUPPORT STAFF'S, UH, DECISION, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE FOR IT.
OKAY? NOW IT'S NOT, THIS IS, AND THIS IS, THIS ALSO WOULD MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR BECAUSE I'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT.
THIS IS AN INTERPRETATION CASE.
AND SO IN INTERPRETATION CASES, IF, IF WE FEEL, IF WE DON'T UPHOLD STAFF'S, UH, VIEW, OR IF WE DON'T OUTRIGHT DENY IT, THEN WE HAVE TO PRE BE ABLE HERE TONIGHT, NOT LATER.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE ALTERNATIVE.
AND THEN THAT'S, IT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT YOU, WHAT WE USUALLY DO.
SO I JUST WANTED ALL THE NEW MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS A COMPONENT OF THIS INTERPRET OF THE INTERPRETATION.
MR. MADDOW, IF YOU DON'T MIND, AGAIN, STEVE MADDOX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, TO THE BOA, WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF 25 2 ZONING.
SO THE, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT IS LIMITED TO THAT SCOPE OF THE CITY CODE.
UH, VESTED RIGHTS IS NOT FOUND WITHIN 25 2.
SO THE DETERMINATION FOR THE BOARD DENY IS DID STAFF APPLY THE APPROPRIATE IMPERVIOUS COVER INTERPRETATION FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS? AND IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THAT STAFF DID NOT APPLY IT CORRECTLY, THEN AGAIN, AS, AS BOARD MEMBER MENTIONED, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO, TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION, UM, AND THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, ABSENT THAT, IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN 25 2 THAT THE BOARD FINDS FROM STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, THEN IT WOULD BE TO DENY THE APPEAL.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
COULD WE HEAR FROM, UH, STAFF ON HOW, LIKE, EXACTLY HOW THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, DECISION WAS MADE? GOOD EVENING.
I'M THE DIVISION MANAGER OVER EXPEDITED PLAN REVIEW, AND I'M A DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL.
I'M STANDING IN FOR TODD WILCOX TONIGHT.
UM, THE DECISION, THE ULTIMATE DECISION IS THAT THE QUESTION, HOW WAS THE ULTIMATE DECISION MADE? THE FINAL DECISION, THE FINAL DECISION ON THE TOTAL? UM, AFTER, AFTER WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD MADE SOME ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN REVIEW, UH, WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND, AND, UH, WELL, AFTER WE REALIZED WE'D MADE SOME ERRORS AND DONE SOME INVESTIGATION, UH, LOOKING AT SATELLITE IMAGERY AND ARROW PHOTOGRAPHS, UH, ON OUR OWN, WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND, UH, CREATE A NEW SITE PLAN, UH, BASED ON WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT, WHAT, WHAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WAS.
UH, AND THEN WE CONVENED A MEETING, UH, WITH, ACTUALLY BRENT WAS NOT THERE.
UH, AND UH, AND THIS WAS AFTER THE VESTED RIGHTS HAD BEEN DENIED.
UH, WE CONVENED A MEETING, WENT OVER THAT SITE PLAN, AND, UH, DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS 12,811 SQUARE FEET OF, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT.
UM, AND THE VESTED RIGHTS, UH, PROCESS HAD INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
UH, AND SO WITH THE, WITH THE ADDITIONAL A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WE ARRIVED AT THE NUMBER OF 13,811.
SO LAKE AUSTIN CASES ARE JUST DIFFICULT AND, AND USUALLY MOST OF THEM END UP AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR SOME KIND OF VARIANCE OR ANOTHER BECAUSE MOST OF THE PROPERTIES WEREN'T LA CAME
[01:10:01]
AFTER.THE PROPERTIES WERE SUBDIVIDED AND SUCH.
SO, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHEN DO YOU GET A DRIVEWAY PERMIT? I'M SORRY? WHEN DO YOU GET A DRIVEWAY PERMIT? WHEN DO YOU GET A DRIVEWAY PERMIT? MM-HMM,
WELL, TYPICALLY IT'S PART OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROCESS THESE DAYS.
YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT TO REDEVELOP YOUR DRIVEWAY IF YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT YOU, YOU JUST ARE TO COMPLY, BUT YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT.
FLAT WORK DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT, BUT YOU'RE STILL, YOU STILL NEED TO COMPLY.
VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
IS THAT A BOARD MEMBER? ANI? YES.
SO, SO FORGIVE ME IF I'M ASKING YOU QUESTIONS THAT ARE TOO BASIC, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KIND OF JUST WALK THROUGH, UM, IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
SO I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE CODE PROVISION THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OF EITHER UPHOLDING Y'ALL'S INTERPRETATION OF OR NOT.
AND, UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PLOTTED.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHETHER IT WAS PLOTTED BEFORE OR AFTER 1982? GOSH, I BELIEVE IT WAS PLATTED AFTER 1982.
MR. LLOYD, DO YOU HAVE A BETTER ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION? BRENT MAY HAVE A BETTER ANSWER THAN I DO.
BRENT LLOYD, DSC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, IT WAS PLATTED, I BELIEVE THE PLAT WAS APPROVED AFTER ANNEXATION OCCURRED, AND IT WAS WITHIN LA ZONING.
BUT FOR PURPOSES OF VESTED RIGHTS, WE LOOK AT THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED.
SO THE APPLICATION FOR THE PLOT APPROVAL WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION, AND THAT IS WHAT SETS THE DATE FOR PURPOSES OF VESTED RIGHTS.
I WANT TO ADD BRIEFLY THAT IF THIS PROJECT WERE DEVELOPING UNDER JUST A TRADITIONAL, UH, DETERMINATION THAT IT'S AN ONGOING PROJECT ENTITLED DIVESTED RIGHTS, THERE WOULD BE NO IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
THE LANDOWNER COULD BUILD VASTLY MORE THAN WHAT IS THERE NOW OR WHAT IS PROPOSED.
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS A, A CITY POLICY THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A LONG TIME THAT ALLOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO WRAP THINGS UP.
AND IT'S A POLICY THAT WE USE SPARINGLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS A MURKY FACTUAL HISTORY OF CASES, AND AGAIN, WHERE CASES WERE COMMENCED AT A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, AS IS THE CASE HERE.
IF I COULD JUST ASK AGAIN, WAS IT PLOTTED BEFORE OR AFTER 1918? IT WAS PLOTTED, I BELIEVE.
I BELIEVE THE ACTUAL PLOT WAS APPROVED IN 84.
THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED WELL BEFORE THEN.
AND THE APPLICATION, AS YOU SAID, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE, WAS ANNEXED? SAYS IT WAS RECORDED IN 82.
PLOT WAS REC, UH, I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT MR. IAN'S, UM, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS THAT THE PLOT WAS RECORDED IN 82.
UM, AND WHEN WE DID OUR RESEARCH, WHICH I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, I DON'T HAVE THE DATES COMMITTED TO MEMORY.
UH, THE PLOT WAS, WAS APPROVED AND RECORDED AFTER ANNEXATION, BUT AGAIN, THE ACTUAL APPLICATION FOR PLA WAS SUBMITTED, UH, PRIOR TO THE CITY, THE PROPERTY BEING WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.
UM, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST LIKE THE EXACT DATE OF WHEN THE PLAT WAS REPORTED, BECAUSE THE CODE SECTION WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT.
MR. ARIAN, DO YOU HAVE THAT DATE? DO YOU HAVE THAT DATE BY CHANCE? I SAW YOU GETTING UP TO I CAN, I CAN LOOK IT UP.
I, I KNOW THAT THE, THE PLAT APPLICATION WAS FILED IN 81.
UH, IT HAD GONE THROUGH ALL THE STAFF REVIEW BEFORE ANNEXATION, BUT IT DIDN'T GET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL UNTIL APRIL OF SOME DATE.
YEAH, I THINK IN LATE APRIL OF 1982.
AND THE ANNEXATION, I'M SORRY.
AND THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, UH, CAME IN, UH, MAY, MAY SEVEN OF 82, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO PLAT WAS APPROVED MAYBE A WEEK OR A WEEK AND A HALF, UH, BEFORE THE ANNEXATION.
BUT, BUT, BUT IT WAS FILED IN 81.
MR. LLOYD, DID YOU FIND THE DATE? DO NOT HAVE THE DI DIRECT DATE.
I CAN GET IT, BUT I WANT TO SPEAK TO, SINCE I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE QUESTION IS COMING FROM, IF I MAY, I WANNA SPEAK TO THE CODE SECTION THAT'S BEING REFERENCED AND BOARD MEMBER, I COMMEND YOU FOR READING THE CODE
[01:15:01]
SO CLOSELY.UH, THE LA ZONING PROVISION HAS BUILT INTO IT IMPERVIOUS COVER THRESHOLDS THAT ARE TIED TO THE DATE THAT PLOTS WERE RECORDED.
NOW, THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED WHEN, WHEN IT WAS SUBJECT TO LA ZONING REGULATIONS.
BUT THE, AGAIN, CIRCLING BACK TO VESTED RIGHTS, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S AWKWARD TO HAVE AN ISSUE TALKED ABOUT SO MUCH WHEN YOU'RE BEING TOLD IT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, BUT IT'S, IT'S JUST PART OF THE, THE CASE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TONIGHT.
BUT THIS CASE WAS INITIATED, UH, THE PROJECT WAS INITIATED PRIOR TO IT BEING SUBJECT TO LA ZONING REGULATIONS.
THE PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD APPLY TO A CASE THAT WAS WITHIN THE CITY'S ZONING JURISDICTION AT THE TIME THE PLOT WAS, UH, FILED FOR.
AND THOSE PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE CITING THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THAT TIE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE DATE THE PLOTS WERE RECORDED, THOSE KICK IN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS WAS A CASE THAT THE PROJECT WAS INITIATED PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN IT WAS WITHIN THE LA ZONING JURISDICTION, IT ORIGINALLY WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THOSE PROVISIONS.
AND THAT IS WHY WE'VE GOTTEN INTO WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN APPLYING THE LIMITED REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, IF WE TREAT IT AS TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO THE CONTINUATION OF ONE PROJECT, THIS EXPANSION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE LA DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING THE QUESTION.
I, I'M ALMOST, SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF, OF THE, OF THE CASE IS THAT WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT THE EXCEPTION OF THE LIMITED REDEVELOPMENT ISSUE, WITHOUT THAT KIND OF PIECE, THE THE WHOLE VESTED RIGHTS THING IS THAT IF IT'S ONE CONTINUOUS PROJECT, THEN WE DON'T APPLY ANY OF THE, OF THE CODE THAT WASN'T IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THAT THE LAND WAS PLANTED OR THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED.
BUT IF WE ACTUALLY SEE IT AS TWO DISTINCT THINGS LIKE THE, THE PROJECT WAS STARTED, IT WAS COMPLETED, IT WAS ANNEXED, AND NOW ALL THE CODE APPLIES AND THEN THIS IS A NEW PROJECT, THEN THOSE CODES WOULD APPLY, CORRECT.
AND IN CONVENTIONAL CASES, IN, IN THE, I'D SAY THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, THAT IS THE POSITION THE CITY GENERALLY TAKES IS ONCE YOU PULL YOUR CO UNDER THE ORIGINAL REGULATIONS, THEN THE ONLY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO WOULD BE COMPLETING ACCESSORY COMPONENTS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
AND I THINK THE CITY'S POSITION ON VESTED RIGHTS HAS SORT OF EVOLVED OVER TIME.
I THINK IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT DAYS OF YOUR, YOU WILL FIND THERE WAS INCONSISTENCIES.
BUT THAT IS THE POSITION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN, UH, VERY CONSISTENTLY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS.
UM, BUT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION EXISTS AS A, UM, AS AN EXCEPTION TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR PROJECTS WHERE, AGAIN, THEY WERE COMMENCED UNDER REGULATIONS THAT HAD NO IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
AND WHERE THERE IS A MURKY FACTUAL HISTORY AS TO THE TRUE EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.
AND THE EXCEPTION, I'M SORRY, I KEEP PULLING YOU BACK, JUST MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO THE, UM, HERE YOU ARE, YOU'RE FINDING RELIED UPON THAT EXCEPTION, NOT UPON THE IDEA THAT IT IS ONE CONTINUOUS PROJECT? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
CHRIS JOHNSON, WHO IS A COLLEAGUE OF MINE, ISSUED THE DECISION THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE AND THAT FURTHER REDEVELOPMENT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CURRENT CODE THAT WAS A CORRECT DECISION TO ISSUE.
UH, AND THEN AT A MEETING THAT, UH, STEVE MENTIONED I WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE AT, I'VE NEVER MET WITH EITHER OF THE LANDOWNERS, UH, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS THIS CASE.
AT THAT MEETING, STEVE AND CHRIS, UH, REVIEWED EVERYTHING AND DETERMINED THAT BASED ON THE FACTORS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, THE LIMITED REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WAS APPROPRIATE HERE.
MAD CHAIR, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT YOU COULD ALSO GO LOOK AT NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURES IN THE, IN THE CODE AND THERE'S ALSO THOSE CODE SECTIONS THAT COULD APPLY.
THAT WAS ALL BOARD MEMBER V NOLAN.
WELL, I WAS GONNA WAIT AND SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
'CAUSE I'M MAY, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION AND I'LL EXPLAIN MY MOTION AT THAT TIME.
LET'S GIVE IT JUST A SECOND TO MAKE SURE ALL OUR NEW MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO YES, MA'AM.
[01:20:01]
I WILL WAIT AND LET TO SEE IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS A QUESTION, BUT THEN I HAVE ONE ON DECK.UM, I WANTED TO ASK, UM, SO THE APPELLANT SAID THAT THE ORIGINAL SURVEYOR IS ON THE CALL OR ONLINE FOR QUESTIONS.
I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD ASK HIM A QUESTION.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, UH, MICHAEL MCKEN? YES.
GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME DISPUTE BETWEEN, UM, THE APPELLANT AND THEN THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE DECKING WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND THE POOL.
UM, AND THERE'S DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THE SURVEY ACTUALLY SHOWED.
I WAS WONDERING WHAT, UM, MR. MCIN, UM, COULD HE SPEAK TO WHETHER THE DECKING WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND THE POOL ACCORDING TO HIS SURVEY, AND, AND I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
IT WAS NOT COMPLETE WHEN I DID MY SURVEY IN JUNE OF 89, I BELIEVE THE PERMIT WAS STARTED FOR THIS POOL IN OCTOBER OF 89.
AND THAT COPY OF MY SURVEY THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WHILE AGO, THAT HAS THE POOL HAND DRAWN ON THERE, THAT IS PART OF THE PERMIT DOCUMENTS FROM 1989 WHEN THEY WERE GONNA BUILD THE POOL.
UH, I MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO IT BASED ON
AND, UH, SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE I CAME UP WITH THE CONFIGURATION THAT I USED.
UM, I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE DRAWING THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT PERMIT PROCESS WAS ACTUALLY WHAT THEY CONSTRUCTED.
THE, THE SHAPE OF THE POOL SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND THE SHAPE OF THE DECKING DID AS WELL.
BUT IN THE AERIALS I SAW WITH FREE COVERAGE AND SO FORTH, I COULD NOT REALLY MAKE OUT ANY DECKS AROUND THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF THE POOL, UH, TOWARD THE, UH, THE, THE LEFT SIDE OF THE LOT, THE, I GUESS THAT'D BE THE WESTERN WEST SIDE OF THE LOT.
AND I'M SURE THIS IS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT DID, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT TREES WERE OBSTRUCTING THAT IN YOUR MEMORY OR WAS IT, WAS IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO DECKING THERE, THERE, THERE, THE, THE IMAGE, OKAY, AGAIN, I, I NEVER ACTUALLY SAW THE POOL ITSELF.
THE POOL WAS NOT BUILT WHEN WE WERE ON THE GROUND.
IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER WE WERE THERE WHEN WE DID THE FINAL SURVEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THEY, THE, THE, THE AERIAL PHOTOS THAT ARE, UH, THAT I FOUND WERE, WERE KIND OF FUZZY AND IT WAS KIND OF HARD TO MAKE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN PLACES.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, AGAIN, HAVE ANOTHER ONE, BUT I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE GO.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY JUST, IT'S JUST ME.
EVERYONE, EVERYONE ELSE'S MIND IS MADE UP.
WELL, I HAD A QUESTION FOR, UM, THE REP, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER, UM, MR. IAN.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU SPEAK, UM, TO THE, YOU MADE A BIG POINT OF THE DECKING AROUND THE POOL.
COULD YOU JUST SPEAK IN LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT, THAT WHETHER THE DECKING WAS THERE OR NOT, WHAT DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES TO YOUR CASE? WELL, MR. CONWELL IS SAYING THERE WAS NO DECKING AROUND THE POOL.
HE'S REALLY LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN 2014 WHEN A PRIOR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. DICKSON DICKINSON, DICKERSON DICKERSON, UM, UH, DECIDED THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE HAVING ALL THAT DECKING BEHIND, UH, ON THE CLIFF.
AND HE TOOK IT OUT AND HIS STATEMENT IS, IS PART OF YOUR PACKET OF INFORMATION.
IT HAD DECKING THAT WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND AND I TOOK IT OUT.
AND HE DID, HE, HE ADDED MORE DECKING TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE POOL.
BUT THE POINT IS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS THERE IN, IN 20 OR IN 1989, NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN ALL THE, WITH ALL THE, THE THREE OR FOUR ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT INTERVENED BETWEEN 89 AND 2020 WHEN, UH, MS. MAY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.
[01:25:01]
OKAY.BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN, I THINK YOU HAD A MOTION.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY, I KNOW IT'S A VERY EMOTIONAL CASE AND IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED CASE.
UM, I THINK SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE, WHICH HAS BEEN A LONG TIME EXCESS OF 15 YEARS, IT'S PROBABLY THE, MAYBE THE SECOND TIME VESTED RIGHTS HAVE EVER EVEN COME UP.
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE VESTED RIGHTS ISSUE AND, UH, LEGISLATURE LE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT REGARDING VESTED RIGHTS.
AND I DO KNOW VESTED RIGHTS ARE NOT UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
THEY WEREN'T THE LAST TIME, AND I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY 12 YEARS AGO, MAYBE I, I'M JUST SHOOTING FROM THE HIP ON THAT ONE.
BUT, UM, WE HAVE HAD THESE CASES COME BEFORE US BEFORE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN MULTIPLE PRIOR OWNERS, A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED BY PRIOR OWNERS OR PROPERTIES THAT HAD A LOT OF WORK DONE THAT WERE NOT, WAS NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE THE CITY HAD NOT ANNEXED THAT PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.
AND, UH, CITY STAFF HAS ALWAYS DONE, UH, UH, THE BEST THAT THEY COULD WITH THE VEHICLES THAT THEY HAVE IN ORDER TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE, UH, UH, HAVING CITY STAFF GO BACK AND OPEN UP SOME OF THESE PANDORA BOXES AND BRING THEM UNDER THE CITY.
WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE BEST THAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE, WHAT THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH UNDER THE CITY, UH, ALLOWS US AS A CITY TO BRING THEM INTO CODE AND TO HAVE, UH, WORK THAT'S, UH, HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED IN THE PAST.
INSPECTED HEALTH AND SAFETY, THINGS OF THAT NATURE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, UH, THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE, UH, PROPERTY.
UH, WELL BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION, ONE LAST THING IS WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT ESD TO DO ANYTHING.
SO JUST, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE THAT, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AND WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT DSD TO NEVER USE VESTED VESTED RIGHTS BECAUSE THAT IS A VEHICLE THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM IN ORDER TO CORRECT SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ON THE VARIANCE TYPE ISSUES.
NORMALLY, IF SOMEBODY WAS TO COME INTO US WITH HIS AND WANT TO ASK US FOR A VARIANCE AND SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, I WANT A VARIANCE FOR IC, BUT I'M GONNA ALSO DO A BRING DOWN THE IC BY 1700 SQUARE FEET.
EVERYBODY THINKS THAT'S GREAT.
AND SO I PERSONALLY, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S, UM, INTERPRETATION.
I, I RE RESEARCHED THIS PROJECT THE LAST MONTH AND THEN AGAIN THIS MONTH.
AND EVEN BEFORE I HEARD ANYBODY'S TESTIMONY WITHOUT, WITHOUT EMOTION, I HAD ALREADY PRETTY MUCH, UH, DECIDED THAT, UH, THAT STAFF'S DECISION IS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO CLEAR UP ALL OF THESE UN THIS UNPERMITTED WORK AND ALSO TO BE ABLE TO, UM, THE MISSTEPS OF THE PROJECT AND BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND IF THEY'RE GONNA USE VESTED RIGHTS IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEN AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERTHROW THAT, UH, OR, OR TO TELL THEM NOT TO USE THE VESTED RIGHTS.
SO THEREFORE, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
I THINK, UH, IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF WE DID IT AS A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
UM, IS THAT A BOARD MEMBER POTE? YES.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS, YES, IT'S NO AND NO IS YES.
AND DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY BEFORE YOU CALL LETTER? YES.
JUST TO CLARIFY IF YOU'RE VOTING.
THIS IS TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION IF YOU VOTE NO, IT IS TO THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE, WE'LL HAVE TO COME UP, UP WITH ANOTHER MOTION.
SO HE WOULD TELL ME ITS WAS A YES.
JUST WHEN YOU GO YES IS NO AND NO IS YES.
SOMETIMES YOU JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS AS JOE HAWTHORN.
BECAUSE AS A BOARD, WE HAVE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED THE PORTION OF THE CODE THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO OPINE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS FOLLOWED.
[01:30:01]
UM, I VOTE NO.SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY REAL QUICK, THIS WAS A REALLY HARD CASE.
WE DON'T GET A LOT OF INTERPRETATION APPEALS AND THINKING INTO THIS ONE WAS REALLY KIND OF MESSY, UH, GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE ORIGINAL PERMITS THAT WERE REQUESTED, AND I HAD A LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN THE BEGINNING, BUT ULTIMATELY, I, I KNOW THAT STAFF, AT LEAST HISTORICALLY, HAS DONE THEIR BEST TO TRY TO DO A GOOD JOB TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT THEY FEEL IS FAIR.
AND IN THIS ONE TIME, I'M GONNA HAVE TO SIDE WITH THEM.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR GREAT PRESENTATIONS.
MOVING BACK ONTO THE AGENDA, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM
[3. C15-2024-0026 Ryan Scurlock 4812 Palisade Drive ]
THREE C 15 20 24 0 0 2 6.RYAN SCURLOCK FOR 4 8 1 2 PALISADE DRIVE.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES.
I THINK WE GOT IT'S SUPER, LET'S GET THAT PULLED UP AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? FIVE MINUTES.
I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 48 12 PALISADE DRIVE.
I'M TRYING TO INSTALL A SMALL RESIDENTIAL POOL IN MY BACKYARD.
IT'S A SEVEN BY 16 TINY POOL IN THE BACK LEFT CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN THERE ON THE PLOT PLAN.
UH, EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE.
IT'S JUST A LOT OF DIRT FROM, UH, MY DOG IN THE TEXAS HEAT KILLING ALL THE GRASS.
UH, THE VARIANCE IN REQUESTING IS RELATED TO LA IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, UH, HIGH LEVEL SUMMARIES.
I'D LIKE TO INSTALL THE POOL WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE ANY DRASTIC CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL HOME.
UH, AN OVERVIEW OF OUR PERMITTING ATTEMPTS TO DATE.
UH, INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT THE PERMITTING WOULD GO VERY SMOOTHLY.
THE CURRENT AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY SITS AT 34.1%, AND THE ZONING ON MY PROPERTY WAS THOUGHT TO BE PUD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 45%.
BUT, UH, IT WAS FOUND DURING RESIDENTIAL REVIEW THAT THE ZONING ON MY PROPERTY HAD BEEN WRONG ON THE CITY WEBSITE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, INCLUDING WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME.
UH, SO WE ORDERED A CITY ZONING CERTIFICATION LETTER AND CONFIRMED IT TO BE LA AND, UH, GOT THAT UPDATED.
UM, BUT THAT WAS A PRETTY IMPACTFUL CHANGE.
UH, SO WE HAD A TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY DONE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE LA AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE.
UH, BUT THAT UNCOVERED, UH, THAT LA ZONING ONLY ALLOWS FOR LESS THAN 28% IN PREVIOUS COVERAGE ON MY PROPERTY, UH, WHEN THE CURRENT OR ORIGINAL HOME SITS AT 34.1.
SO THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT, UH, NON-COMPLIANCE IN THE, UH, MULTIPLE SLOPE REGIONS.
UH, SO THIS MOTIVATED FURTHER RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND, UH, HOW MY NEIGHBOR WAS ABLE TO PULL UP THEIR PROJECT SINCE I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THAT SINCE I MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THIS IS THE ONLY POOL PROJECT, UH, THAT'S OCCURRED SINCE I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THREE YEARS EXCEPT 46 0 1 PALISADE DRIVE IN 2022.
UH, SO JUST RESEARCH THEIR PERMITTING DETAILS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO PERMIT THEIR POOL SINCE THEIR HOUSE IN THEIR POOL.
REALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO.
UH, AND IT QUICKLY BECAME CLEAR THAT THEIR LOT SIZE WAS JUST MUCH LARGER THAN, UH, MINE, APPROXIMATELY 50% AT 13,325 SQUARE FEET COMPARED TO JUST OVER 9,000 FOR MINE.
SO I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE BASED OFF THE HARDSHIP OF MY LOT SIZE.
IT'S ONE OF THE SMALLEST LOTS IN THE CLIFF OVER LAKE AUSTIN SUBDIVISION, AND IT'S JUST TOO SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR LA ZONING TO, UH, PERMIT THE POOL WITHOUT VARIANCE.
AND THEN AS FAR AS, UH, IMPACT TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT.
UM, MY ONLY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR IS GENEROUSLY ALLOWING US TO, UH, REMOVE PART OF OUR SHARED FENCE AND COME ONTO THEIR PROPERTY TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION.
AND SINCE I DON'T HAVE A POOL, VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THEM AND THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN BEING ABLE TO USE THE POOL AS WELL.
UM, THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANNA KNOW IF YOU'RE GONNA LET YOUR DOG IN THE POOL.
I HAVEN'T DONE HIM AND BUY HIM SWIM GOGGLES.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[01:35:01]
HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.LET'S, UH, I KNOW WE SHOWED MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS LIST? YEAH.
I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE WITH THE JOINT POOL.
I JUST, I JUST WANT THE DOG TO BE ABLE TO SWIM.
THE REST OF IT CLEARLY NEVER HAD TO CLEAN UP AFTER A DOG IN A POOL.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY, WAIT, WAS THE BOARD MEMBER OF VAN OR WAS THAT YOU VICE CHAIR? REASONABLE USE WAS BOARD MEMBER VAN.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY IS UNAL ALTERED FROM WHEN THE HOME WAS PERMITTED AND BUILT IN 1984.
UNDER LA ZONING HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT DUE TO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT, THE APPLICANTS ARE UNABLE TO BUILD SINCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LIMITS DID EXCEED LIMITATIONS WHEN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1984 UNDER LA ZONING.
AND THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW ANY ADDITIONS ON THE LOT.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE SMALLEST PROPERTIES IN CLIFF OF LAKE AUSTIN SUBDIVISION SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE LA ZONING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE CLIFF OVER LAKE AUSTIN AS MANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES HAVE POOL AND IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THEM.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLIN.
SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
[4. C15-2024-0028 Peterson Haim Joseph Mahlof (Green Bay Remodeling, Inc.) for Wendy Jo 1406 S 3rd Street ]
ITEM FOUR C 15 20 24 0 0 2 8.HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T BUTCHER THAT TOO BADLY FOR WENDY JOE.
LET'S GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP, AND IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT TODAY.
UM, UM, SORRY, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT ONE SECOND.
COULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER? DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE NOISE.
I'M THE CONTRACTOR, UH, REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER, WENDY.
UM, SHE'S CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, SO I'M PRESENTING HER FOR A PROJECT.
UM, WE CAN MOVE INTO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO TODAY I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT IN A, IN A BRIEF SCOPE, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING THERE, UM, TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON THE DESIGN, OUR OBJECTIVE, AND HOW WE REACH THIS, UH, FINAL DESIGN.
UH, SO QUICK PROJECT OVERVIEW.
THE CURRENT HOUSE STANDS AT 1600 SQUARE FOOT.
THE CURRENT LIFE SIZE IS ABOUT 2200 SQUARE FOOT.
THE EXISTING HOUSE INCLUDES TWO BEDROOM, TWO AND A HALF BATHROOMS, UM, SMALL CARPORT.
OUR PLAN IS TO, TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND LAY OUT THE HOUSE AND EMBRACING THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE.
OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE AN OUTDOOR SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE GROWING FAMILY.
SO THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS, UH, HAS ONE CHILD.
SHE'S LOOKING OBVIOUSLY, UM, IN THE PROCESS OF EXPANDING AND LOOKING TO COME BACK FROM OUT OF STATE, FROM GERMANY BACK INTO AUSTIN.
BUT BEFORE SHE COMES BACK, SHE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE CONSTRUCTION DONE.
SO OUR GOAL IS OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE IT THE HOUSE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACIOUS FOR THE HOMEOWNER.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME MORE OUTDOOR SPACE.
THE REASON WE CAME UP WITH THIS, UM, OUR PROJECT, WHICH IS A SECOND STORY DECK, UM, WAS TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THIS OUTDOOR SPACE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, GIVEN THAT THE HOUSE IS, UM, ALREADY MAXIMIZING ALMOST THE LOT SIZE.
[01:40:02]
UM, NEXT SLIDE.SO THIS IS THE DECK, JUST TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW.
CURRENTLY, UM, THE HOUSE IS ABOUT 15 FOOT FROM THE SETBACK LINE, AND WE ARE LOOKING TO BUILD THE DECK ABOUT 10 FOOT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND ABOUT 10 FOOT INTO THE CURRENT SETBACK LINE.
UM, WE, NEXT SLIDE, UM, UNDERNEATH IT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A GARAGE, AND THAT IS GETTING CONVERTED TO, THAT'S OUR PART OF THIS PERMIT.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED ANY VARIANCE FOR THAT.
SO OUR MAIN FOCUS IS GONNA BE THE DECK.
UM, GIVEN THAT THE HOUSE IS STARTING SO, UH, A BIT MORE DEEPER, I WOULD SAY THAN MAJORITY OF TIMES, THEN THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY, UM, LIMITING US WITH THAT SETBACK LINE.
SO THE PROJECT VARIANT, THE SECOND STORY DECK, UH, WITH, UH, STAIRCASE LEADING TO THE DOWN, UH, DOWNSTAIRS SIZE, THE DECK IS GONNA BE 350 SQUARE FOOT, ADDING TO THE EXISTING, UH, ADD ADDITION TO EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT 15 FOOT SETBACK TO 10 FOOT, UH, TO FIVE FOOT.
SO THE DECK VARIANT, JUST CREEK, UH, UM, OVERVIEW.
THE CURRENT RESIDENT OCCUPIES, UM, 1600 SQUARE FOOT.
WE GOT 2200 SQUARE FOOT LOT, UH, LEAVING US VERY MINIMAL OUTDOOR GATHERING, UH, OUTDOOR SPACE FOR GATHERING AND EVENTS.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION IS TO BASICALLY HAVE MORE FAMILY ACTIVITIES OUT OUTSIDE.
AND, UM, THIS WAS OUR BEST DESIGN THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH WITHOUT, UM, GOING CRAZY.
UM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE TRIED, UH, WE TRIED KNOCKING AT THE NEIGHBOR'S DOOR IF THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD NO, THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY I BELIEVE HAS A CONTACT TEAM OR NO, SO WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THAT.
THAT IS, UH, THAT IS A VERY SMALL LOT AND IT ALREADY HAS A HOUSE ON IT.
AND AS YOU SAID, THE HOUSE TAKES UP THE LOT.
I DON'T THINK I'M COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING WITHOUT SOME KIND OF CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND ACTUAL CONVERSATION HAVING OCCURRED.
SO MY INCLINATION IS TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING.
GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UM, THAT WASN'T A QUESTION.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST A LOT ON, ON A LOT AND WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE, BUT YOU'RE MAKING EVERYBODY ELSE'S OPEN SPACE.
YOUR OPEN SPACE BY TAKING ALL THE MINUTE OPEN SPACE THAT'S THERE AND MAKING IT THEN SOMETHING ELSE.
AND, AND I, I REALIZE THAT THAT MAY NOT BE A POPULAR POSITION, BUT, UM, IT'S MINE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR TIME TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, VALENTI OR A SECOND? UH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION OR, UM, ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS? I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY, ISN'T THIS IN BOLDEN, RIGHT? THE, I SEE THE BOLDEN CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE BOLDEN CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
UM, JUST, UH, SINCE THERE'S SO MANY AND I DIDN'T TELL HE KNEW SHARING THE CONTACT TEAM, ONE OF THE TWO DIDN'T SOUND LIKE HE KNEW.
SO I, IT JUST SOME KIND OF, I I, I SPOKE TO COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY, THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.
I CAN TELL YOU I'M INCLINED TO ALSO SUPPORT THE POSTPONEMENT.
I WAS GONNA MAKE THE MOTION IF SHE DIDN'T, UH, IF YOU COULD TRY AGAIN, PLEASE TO REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR WHO FILED THE OPPOSITION LETTER.
UH, SEE IF MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT.
OH, UH, YEAH, IT WAS FILED TODAY.
THERE'S AN OPPOSITION LETTER FROM THE NINTH FROM PHONE'S NOT OVER.
IT IS IF YOU HAVE, IT WAS IN SUBMITTED AS LATE BACKUP TODAY IN OPPOSITION, JOHN CHRISTENSEN, SIX 14 WEST MONROE.
YOU CAN FIND IT ONLINE@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV SLASH BO.
A CLICK ON THE DOCUMENTS LITTLE ICON, IT'LL TAKE YOU.
[01:45:01]
CAN ASK ELAINE TOMORROW.SHOW YOU, YOU CAN ALSO ASK THE ELAINE TOMORROW, EMAIL IT TO YOU.
WHO'S THE BOARD LIAISON? BUT I, I DIDN'T HEAR A SECOND FOR MY MOTION SECOND THERE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT COMES FROM.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A DATE VICE CHAIR? I DON'T, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU COULD GET IT DONE BY THE NEXT MEETING, BUT IF YOU WANT IT LONGER, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
I, I WAS JUST GONNA POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING AND, AND SHOULD THAT NOT HAPPEN AND WE COULD ALWAYS POSTPONE IT AGAIN.
SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 14TH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT? OKAY.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 14TH, MID BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN.
AND THIS TIME WE'LL START AT THE BOTTOM.
THIS IS POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER 14TH.
REMEMBER, TRY TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BOLDING CREEK OR THEIR CONTACT TEAM, AND IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE BACKUP AND SEE IF YOU CAN REACH THE NEIGHBOR AND MAYBE COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
AND, UH, NEIGHBOR NODE IS ONLINE.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ASK ELAINE TOMORROW.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU STARTED AT THE BOTTOM.
I THINK YOU JUST STARTED AT THE OTHER SIDE AT THE YEAH, WELL, IT'S, YEAH, IT, IT GETS OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE I CHANGE IT EACH TIME DEPENDING ON WHO'S HERE AND WHO'S NOT.
SO I THINK THAT WRAPS UP PUBLIC HEARING CASES.
[6. Discussion of the August 12, 2024, Board of Adjustment activity report]
SIX, DISCUSSION ITEMS, DISCUSSION OF THE AUGUST 12TH, 2024 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.FEELING GUILT? I'M FEELING GUILT.
WERE YOU LATE? THE COMMENT DISCUSSION? WERE YOU LATE AGAIN OR STILL YOU DID THE REPORT, RIGHT? I DIDN'T DO THOSE.
I'M I'M GONNA GO HOME AND DO IT RIGHT NOW.
YOU HEARD IT HERE? WE'RE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FOLLOW.
I'M GONNA, YOU DID GO, YOU DID GO TO CHICAGO.
SO, UH, I FORGIVE YOU NOW, UH, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO ASK WE TABLE SEVEN AND EIGHT AGAIN UNTIL WE CAN HAVE A FULL BOARD HERE.
AND IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE WATCHING, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS ONE THING.
I HAVE NEVER, NEVER IN THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, MISSED A SINGLE MEETING.
THERE ARE THINGS LIKE PREGNANCIES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T GET AROUND HEALTH ISSUES.
BUT WE ONLY HAVE 12 MEETINGS A YEAR.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TRY TO BE HERE.
UH, ITEM 10, WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO TABLE THAT AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, WE'LL JUST TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME AND JUST HOW ABOUT, HOW ABOUT IF I JUST MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AND WE TABLE EVERYTHING HERE AT THE END THAT YOU I AM 100% OKAY WITH THAT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN NOW? OKAY.
IT IS 7:34 PM I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ELAINE, THE SUMA LIFE WILL BEAT YOU DOWN.