Mar 10, 2025 Board of Adjustment

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

HERE AT CITY HALL, THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT AND I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLL.

TOMMY S HERE YOUNG KIM? HERE.

I'M MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

I AM HERE.

JEFFREY BOWEN? HERE.

JANELLE VANETTE.

HERE.

MARGARET ANI? HERE.

BRIAN POTI.

HERE.

MICHAEL VON OLAN HERE.

UH, THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT JOINED THE DAIS, BUT AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ENOUGH TO TAKE AN ACTION.

SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA START, UM, IF YOU COULD, UM, IF YOU COULD TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE OR AT LEAST PUT IT ON SILENT AFTER THE CASE IS OVER.

IF YOU CAN PLEASE TAKE ANY DISCUSSION OUTSIDE TO THE LOBBY.

UH, OR YOU CAN CONTACT ELAINE TOMORROW.

UH, OUR WONDERFUL STAFF PERSON, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON PROCEDURE OR ABOUT THE CASE, UH, WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR CASE, PLEASE ADDRESS THE BOARD AND NOT IF THERE'S LIKE OPPOSITION NOT TO EACH OTHER.

IT IS, UH, WE ARE HERE TO HEAR YOUR CASE.

THE BOARD USUALLY TAKES A BREAK ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES.

AND, UH, IT'S A VERY SHORT AGENDA, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL MAKE IT THROUGH.

UM, AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER, GO AHEAD.

DID I SCREW SOMETHING UP? NO, NO, NO.

AFTER YOU ADMINISTER.

I DIDN'T SCREW ANYTHING UP YET, BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY OUTTA HERE.

UM, SO AT THIS POINT I'M GONNA ADMINISTER THE OATH, SO I'M GONNA ASK EVERYBODY WHO'S GONNA BE GIVING TESTIMONY TO STAND EVERYBODY AT ONE TIME.

YEAH.

EVERYBODY'S GOING TO TESTIFY INTO THE MICROPHONE.

PLEASE STAND.

OKAY.

WE GOT ONE PERSON.

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

SO OUR, OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH I HAVE TO ACTUALLY DON'T USUALLY DO THIS.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY.

I'M GONNA CALL FOR CITIZEN

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ]

OKAY.

VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, RON THROWER.

UH, THIS IS MY MAYA CULPA MOMENT FOR NOT SHOWING UP AT THE LAST HEARING WHERE WE HAD A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.

WE UNDERSTAND THE BUSYNESS OF THE CALENDARS THAT YOU HAVE AND THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT CARRY OVER FROM TIME TO TIME, AND I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION THAT Y'ALL HAD OF THE PARTICULARS OF, UH, THE APPLICANT IN THAT CASE AND EXTENDING IT UP UNTIL MAY.

AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE WAS NO MISGIVINGS, INTENTIONAL MISGIVINGS ON OUR PART, BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

BOARD MEMBERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN.

I JUST WANNA ECHO WHAT RON SAID AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE WHEN OUR CASE WAS ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S NOT TYPICALLY A PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE TO NOT BE HERE.

AND USUALLY WHEN WE'VE ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT IN THE PAST, I'VE BEEN ONLINE IN THE LEAST AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

SO I JUST ALSO WANNA APOLOGIZE TO Y'ALL.

ALRIGHT, SO NEXT WE

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND A SECOND BY OWEN.

DIANE'S DOING THAT.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLL.

TOMMY YATES.

YES.

YOUNG J KIM? YES.

I'M MELISSA HAWTHORNE, AND I SAY YES.

MR. BOWEN? YES.

MS. BENZA? YES.

SHERIFF STAN? YES.

MR. PROTE? YES.

MR. BUN.

AND YES.

MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

[00:05:05]

I I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL

[2. C16-2024-0001 Michael Everett for Rowdy Durham 6320 Ed Bluestein Boulevard SB ]

MICHAEL EVERETT FOR ROWDY DURHAM AT 63 20 AT BLUESTEIN BOULEVARD SOUTHBOUND.

IT'S A PREVIOUSLY POSTPONED SIGNED CASE, IS ONLINE VIRTUAL, AND HE IS ONLINE VIRTUAL.

UH, SO HE WILL NEED TO HAVE HIS PRESENTATION PULLED UP.

AND THIS IS A SIGNED CASE, WHICH IS ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

DOES HE NEED, DOES HE NEED TO HAVE THE OATH ADMINISTERED VIRTUALLY? NO.

MR. EVERETT, ARE YOU THERE? I AM.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN.

SO WE DID THAT.

I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU GUYS.

I APOLOGIZE.

SO WE JUST DID THE OATH BEING THAT YOU'RE GONNA TESTIFY IF YOU COULD LET US YES MA'AM.

IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW, UH, THAT YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

I DO.

OKAY.

SO HE'S GONNA PULL UP YOUR CASE AND WE CAN SEE IT ON THE MONITORS AND IT DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A DELAY.

SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROMPT HIM WHEN YOU WANT HIM TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

AND OKAY.

AND I'M GONNA INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE OUR MADAM CHAIR IS HERE AND WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT A, A EARLY EVENING FOR EVERYONE.

SO WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT STARTED AND GOT THE MINUTES AND CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND EVERYBODY IS SWORN IN.

I'M JUST TRYING TO TELL JESSICA WHERE WE ARE.

SWORN EVERYONE'S BEEN SWORN IN.

AND WE ARE TO THE FIRST CASE, WHICH IS THE SIGNED CASE COMMUNICATION, WHICH WE HAD.

WE TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT SOUTH BY WEEKEND.

SO OUR CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN, IS HERE AND IS NOW ON THE DAIS.

AND, UH, WE'LL CARRY ON.

SO WE ARE NINE MEMBERS OUT OF 10.

AND YOU NEED EIGHT FOR ANY, UM, OTHER THAN THE SIGNED CASE, SIGNED CASES, SIMPLE MAJORITY, THE REST ARE ALL SUPER MAJORITY.

SO YOU MUST HAVE EIGHT VOTES OUT OF 10 IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO PASS.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY AT NINE, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT, YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO DO SO.

WHO ARE WE MISSING? UH, BIANCA, WE'RE ON, I ALREADY CALLED THE SIGN CASE INTO THE RECORD AND HE IS QUEUED UP, READY TO GO.

I DON'T HAVE MY LIST OF SPEAKERS YET 'CAUSE IT'S STILL LOADING.

SO WHO IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THIS? DO WE, DO YOU HAVE YOUR EMAIL PULLED UP? YES.

ONE MOMENT.

OR IF THE APPLICANT CAN JUST COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE HE IS CAROLINE.

HE IS VIRTUAL.

VIRTUAL.

OKAY.

AND IT WOULD BE MR. MICHAEL EVERETT FOR ROWDY DURHAM.

OKAY, MR. EVERETT, GO AHEAD.

YOU'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBERS.

THANK YOU.

AND HAVE A, UM, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH, WE SUBMITTED THE SIGN VARIANCE AND REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN BOTH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HEIGHT FOR PROPOSED MCDONALD'S SIGN AT 63 20 EAST BLUESTEIN ROAD.

SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION, ONE ADDITIONAL ONE, AN ADDITIONAL 25 FEET AND HEIGHT TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE, UH, MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN HEIGHT OF 35 FEET FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 60 FOOT.

OVERALL, WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 210.3 SQUARE FEET IN SIGN AREA TO THE CODE ALLOWED 1 0 4 0.65 FOR A TOTAL OF THREE 14.86 SQUARE FEET.

[00:10:01]

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND COMBINED WITH THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE AND THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES, MEANING THAT THE SIGN MUST SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER AND TALLER TO ENSURE PROPER VISIBILITY FOR DRIVERS TRAVELING ON THE FREEWAY.

WITHOUT THESE ADJUSTMENTS, THE SIGN WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE, PROVIDING NECESSARY VISIBILITY TO ATTRACT ATTENTION TO SERVICE PURPOSE.

THAT'S FINE.

OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE IS THE NEED OF THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE STEMS FROM A, A UNIQUE, EXCUSE ME, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THIS.

ITS EL ITS ELEVATED POSITION RELATIVE TO THE FREEWAY AND THE CHALLENGES THIS CREATES FOR VISIBILITY.

THE HIGHER THE ELEVATION LIMITED THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE SIGN, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR DRIVERS TO SEE AND CLEARLY READ FROM THE FREEWAY.

UNLESS A TAR OR LARGER SIGN IS APPROVED, THE REQUESTED HEIGHT WILL DECREASE IN 25 FOOT AND AREA OF 210.36 SQUARE FEET WILL ENSURE THAT THE SIGN IS SUFFICIENTLY VISIBLE FOR DRIVERS TO EFFECTIVELY FULFILL THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.

ADDITIONALLY, GRANTING VARIANCE WILL NOT N NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA OR CONTRADICT FOR THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE INCREASED SITE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WILL NOT CREATE ANY OBSTRUCTION OF THE TRAFFIC OR SIGNIFICANTLY ATTRACTIVE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO THE SITE'S LOCATION AND ELEVATION.

THE SIGN WILL POSITION BE, THE SIGN WILL BE POSITIONED IN A WAY THAT MAXIMIZES ITS VISIBILITY WHILE MAINTAINING SAFETY AND HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.

WE SET UP A CRANE.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY PRESENTATION HERE, WE SET UP A CRANE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS CLOSE AS WE COULD TO WHERE IT WAS GOING TO GO.

AND ON PAGE ONE, IT SHOWS THE DISTANCES AND THE SETBACKS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.

UM, IF YOU CAN SWITCH TO THE SECOND PAGE, PLEASE.

THIS SHOWS A PICTURE OF THE SIGN ON PAGE TWO THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

PAGE THREE SHOWS THE SIGN AT 65, OH, EXCUSE ME, AT 60 FEET.

ANYTHING LOWER THAN THAT, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THE TREES WOULD COVER IT HEADING NORTHBOUND ON PAGE FOUR, IT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN AS, AS WELL AS A SIGN AT 35 FEET WOULD BE COVERED BY THE TREES HEADED NORTHBOUND.

ON PAGE FIVE IS HEADED SOUTHBOUND.

OTHER SIGNAGE IN TREES WOULD COVER THE MCDONALD'S SIGN, MAKING IT VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE TO SEE.

PAGE SIX IS A PICTURE OF THE SIGN AND APPROXIMATE AREA WHERE IT WOULD GO.

THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT 60 FEET, AND THAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSENSUAL GLARE AND THE BRIGHTNESS.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE PROPOSED SIGN WOULD FULLY COMPLY WITH AUSTIN'S LOCAL LIGHTING REGULATIONS.

INCLUDES, THIS INCLUDES AN HEARING, ANY BRIGHTNESS LIMITS, AND, AND IMPLEMENTING ANY SHIELDING REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT CLEAR OR LIGHT POLLUTION.

WE'RE COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT THE SUN MEETS ALL REGULATORY STANDARDS AND MINIMIZE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SIR, I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT YOUR TIME IS UP.

I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO WRAP IT UP IN ONE SENTENCE PLEASE.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS STUDY, WE'VE MEASURED THE SIGN BRIGHTNESS OF THE OTHER SIGNS AROUND THE AREA, AND IT WILL BE IN LINE WITH WHAT WAS THERE.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEP.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.

BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAN.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO,

[00:15:01]

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT SAFETY ISSUE WOULD EXIST BY PUTTING THE SIGN AT OR BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA? WELL, WHAT WE BELIEVE IS IF, IF THE DRIVER'S TRYING TO COME INTO THE, INTO THE AREA AND HE DOESN'T SEE THE SIGN, SAY HE'S IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE LEFT HAND LANE AND NOTICES THERE'S A MCDONALD'S THERE WITHOUT SEEING THE SIGN, THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS BLOCKING IT OR TREES OR WHATNOT BLOCKING IT.

WE BELIEVE THAT THEY MAKE A, A, A HASTY DECISION TO QUICKLY PULL OVER AND TO GET INTO THAT LANE.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE SAY IT, IT, IT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE A SIGN IS A, A SAFETY ISSUE.

JUST TO FOLLOW UP, ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE EXISTING QUICK TRIP AND JACK IN THE BOX SIGNS OPPOSED A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE THEY'RE SUFFICIENTLY, I MEAN, THEY'RE QUITE A BIT LOWER THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? I'M SAYING THAT THE, THE EXISTING SIGNS THAT ARE THERE WILL BLOCK THE MCDONALD'S SIGN TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

AND THAT TO ME, IF, IF I'M DRIVING THERE AND I DIDN'T SEE IT AND I WAS IN THAT LEFT HAND LANE AND I WANTED TO MAKE IT, BECAUSE THEN I'D HAVE TO MAKE THE BIG LOOP ALL THE WAY AROUND.

AND A LOT OF DRIVERS DON'T DO THAT.

I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND QUICKLY RECOGNIZE THAT BOARD MEMBER, UH, MEDINA LAYS JOINED US ON THE DIOCESE.

YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS EXCEPT, EXCEPT JUST THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY BIG VARIANCE ASK AND SO FAR I HAVEN'T HEARD, I DON'T KNOW, I, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS SIGN TO BE SO BIG, BUT OPEN TO DISCUSSION BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, I'LL GET YOU NEXT BOARD MEMBER.

.

UH, YEAH, I JUST, UH, BEING THAT I'VE BEEN OVER IN THAT PART OF TOWN SEVERAL TIMES, UM, I'M ALSO HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE AMOUNT OF HEIGHT PLUS THE, THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOOTAGE VERSUS THE REST OF THEM.

UH, MR. EVERETT, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THAT'S A TOLL ROAD AND THAT THE NEAREST EXIT TO EVEN HIT THAT IS BACK OVER THE HILL ON BOTH OF THESE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'RE ON THAT TOLL ROAD COMMITTEE, YOU'VE ALREADY MISSED BOTH EXITS TO EVEN GET TO THAT MR. EVER? YES.

I, I'M SORRY, I DID NOT HEAR THAT.

OKAY.

I APOLOGIZE.

NO, THAT'S FINE.

UM, YOU, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THAT'S A TOLL ROAD AND THAT THE, THE TWO NEAREST EXITS, THE ONE ON THE, THE NORTHBOUND IS QUITE A WAYS BEFORE YOU EVEN CAN SEE THE SIGN, IT'S OVER THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HILL AND THE ONE COMING FROM, IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE NORTHBOUND, UH, IS UP AROUND THE CORNER TO WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE SIGNS.

SO I'M, IT'S, I'M KIND OF, YOU ARE REALLY, YOU'RE REALLY ASKING FOR A WHOLE LOT HERE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE HEIGHT TO SEE, TO BE SEEN OVER THOSE TREES.

BUT EVEN YOUR PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE, UH, PUT IN YOUR PRESENTATION, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY AFTER THE EXITS.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M JUST, I I'M HAVING A HARD TIME ESPECIALLY WITH, UH, THE OTHER SIGNS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA, BEING WITHIN THE REGULATIONS OF WANTING TO GRANT THIS TYPE OF SIZE AND THIS TYPE OF HEIGHT.

SO, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT, THAT THE EXITS ARE FARTHER AWAY? YES, SIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.

MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE GOLDEN ARCHES ARE FAMILIAR WORLDWIDE AND WHAT ALSO WITH THE ADVENT OF CELL PHONES WITH GPS FINDING A MCDONALD'S ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IS A PIECE OF CAKE.

I MEAN, IT'S REALLY, IT'S A BREEZE.

I ALSO FAILED TO SEE WHERE THE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, AS THE APPLICANT STATES IN HIS, HIS APPLICANT, UH, THE STRICTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE LIMITS THE ABILITY TO INSTALL ADEQUATE SIGNAGE WHEN THE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE FOR AND A OF IT ALL HAVE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE AS WELL.

NOW, THE, AND THE FACT ALSO THAT MCDONALD'S IN THE LETTER, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAD A VERY GOOD, THEIR CONTACT TEAM HAD A VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

SINCE IT'S ON THE 12 ROAD, IT'D BE BETTER OFF FOR MCDONALD'S TO GET BETTER RECOGNITION BY

[00:20:01]

AND THAT WAY PEOPLE CAN SEE 'EM MYSELF PERSONALLY, WHEN I, WHEN I TAKE ROAD TRIPS, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THAT SPECIFIC SIGN.

SO I, I REALLY CAN'T SUPPORT THIS EITHER, AND I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

OKAY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY A BOARD MEMBER BOWEN UH, BOWEN.

I'LL GIVE YOU THE NEXT ONE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE AGAIN.

THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY, DENY MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BON OLIN.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.

TOMMY YATES.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

YOUNG J KIM? YES.

BRIAN POIT.

YES.

MAGGIE ANI.

YES.

CONGRATULATIONS, BY THE WAY.

YOU LOOK GREAT.

GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK IN PERSON.

UH, JEFFREY BOWEN? YES.

JANELLE VAN.

VAN ZANT.

YES.

MICHAEL VAN OWEN? YES.

AND BIANCA MEDINA.

LAO, YES.

OKAY.

I'M SORRY, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED.

MOVING ON

[3. C15-2025-0005 Maximiliano Martinez for Death and Taxes 2136 E 7th Street]

MAXIM MILANO MARTINEZ FOR DEON, TEXAS, 2 1 3 6 EAST SEVENTH STREET.

PLEASE STEP TO THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

HELLO, MIKE.

LET'S GET YOUR PRESENTATION.

IS THAT YOUR PRESENTATION? YES MA'AM.

AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU.

I'M MAXIME MARTINEZ HERE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF DEATH AND TEXAS LLC.

UM, THIS IS A SITE AREA MAP.

IT'S ON SEVENTH STREET AND, UH, NEAR PROSPECT AVENUE.

IT'S HISTORICALLY A RESTAURANT.

IT'S BEEN AS FAR AS THE CITY RECORDS GO.

BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, IT WAS RUN AS THE LOS COES RESTAURANT, AND MY CLIENT IS LOOKING TO REMODEL THE BUILDING AND HAD A SECOND FLOOR, SO IT'LL BE THE SAME USE AS A RESTAURANT.

UM, AND I'D LIKE TO, BEFORE GETTING TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, ESTABLISH WHAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, WHICH IS TO REMOVE ALL OF THE A DA SPACES.

SO THE SECTION OF THE CODE SPECIFICALLY IS REMOVING THE ONE ON SITE REQUIRED A DA SPACE.

UM, WE'RE STILL GOING TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE REQUIRED A DA SPACES NEXT DOOR THAT ARE IN LINE WITH 25 6 4 7 D.

SO I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.

BUT LET ME SHOW YOU THE SURVEY OF THE SITE.

SO YOU COULD SEE THAT IT'S ALONG E SEVENTH STREET.

THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE, AND THEN BASICALLY THE WHOLE BACK PART IS A DRIVEWAY.

THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EAST SEVENTH AND THE ALLEY IS ABOUT 10 FEET.

SO THE RAMPING THAT'S REQUIRED TO GET AN A DA SPACE FROM THE BACK TO THE FINISHED FLOOR, UM, IS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING AND IT NARROWS THAT DRIVE, UH, TOO MUCH AND BECOMING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY CHALLENGING NEED TO DO.

SO WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED TO DO HERE, AND HERE'S THAT SORT OF IMAGE OF THE GRADE CHANGE THERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, IS TO ADD ALL THE A DA SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE RESTAURANT FULL, FULL BUILD OUT NEXT DOOR.

AND ALSO INCLUDE, UH, IN THE PLAN THE A DA SPACES THAT'S CURRENTLY REQUIRED FOR THE THRIFT STORE NEXT DOOR, UM, DEATH AND TEXAS LCS OWNS BOTH OF THESE SITES.

UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, HISTORICALLY THE A DA SPACE IS SORT OF ALREADY BEING USED IN THAT WAY BETWEEN THE TWO SITES AND, AND MOST OF THE PARKING IS, UM, ANOTHER PLUS TO DO THIS IS THAT THE, THE A DA LENGTH, THE, THE PATH LENGTH IS ACTUALLY SHORTER FROM, UH, THE PARKING ALONG SEVENTH STREET THAN WHAT WOULD BE, UH, NEAR THE BACK THERE.

UH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT FAR FROM MY EYES, BUT I DID LIST THE, UM, THE EXISTING SLOPES FROM THE, FROM THE RED, A DA SPACE TO THE FRONT, SEEING IT'S IN EXCESS OF THE 2% RUN OR 5% RUN, SORRY.

MM-HMM .

UM, HERE'S ANOTHER HERE IMAGE HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS SITE WAS PARKED, UM, ALONG SEVENTH STREET AS WELL.

AND IT WAS, I WENT THERE MANY TIMES.

IT WAS CHALLENGING.

SO I THINK REMOVING THESE PARKING SPACES THAT WERE HISTORICALLY USED WILL ALSO HELP THE SITE, UM, MANEUVERABILITY FOR SERVICES, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS, THIS, UM, THIS

[00:25:01]

WE ARE GONNA KEEP THE DRIVEWAY FOR TRASH AND FOR, UH, DELIVERIES FOR THE RESTAURANT, BUT NOT PROPOSING TO PUT ANY PARKING ON THERE AT THIS TIME.

MM-HMM .

AND THAT'S ALL I GOT.

I'LL OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OH, I SEE TWO HANDS ALREADY.

LET'S START WITH VICE CHAIR HOR.

IS THERE ANY DOCUMENT YOU HAVE THAT TIES THE TWO SITES TOGETHER? NO.

NO, THERE'S NO DOCUMENT.

WHAT YOU MEAN LIKE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? JOINT ACCESS MM-HMM .

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT, SOMETHING THAT MAKES THOSE PARKING SPACES BE AVAILABLE FOR THE RESTAURANT.

MM-HMM .

UM, WE LOOKED AT PROPOSING THEM THE WAY THAT THE, THE NEW TRANSPORTATION SECTION IS WORDED.

IT, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A JOINT USE ACCESS EASEMENT, UH, I THINK IT'S 25 6 4 7 1D EXPLAINS THAT THE OFFSITE A DA SPACES MUST BE WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE PROPOSED USE.

UM, IN THE PAST WE WOULD'VE DONE A T PLAN AND, AND HAD A, A, A OFFSITE PARKING AGREEMENT, BUT SINCE THERE'S NO MORE T PLANS AND PARKING'S NOT REQUIRED, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AVENUE TO USE, UM, TO TIE THEM TOGETHER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER VAN OWEN.

FIRST QUESTION IS MM-HMM .

MICROPHONE.

THANK YOU.

FIRST QUESTION IS, IT'S A REMODEL.

SO LOS ES IS COMING BACK? OR IS IT GONNA BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RESTAURANT? IT'LL BE A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT, UNFORTUNATELY.

OH, DUDE, THEY HAD THE BEST CHILI CAVE IN TOWN.

I CAN'T FIND ANYBODY ELSE.

YEAH.

I USED TO OFFICE ACROSS THE STREET AND WE WENT THERE REGULARLY.

WELL, SETTING THAT ASIDE MM-HMM .

UM, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, UH, FIRST OF ALL IS IN YOUR ACTUAL FILING, YOU'RE REQUESTING THE BOARD TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM ON SITE ACCESSIBLE SPACE TO ZERO MM-HMM .

OKAY.

MM-HMM .

USING THE, THE POSSIBILITY OF USING THE WAY YOU HAVE IT LAID OUT THERE USING IT NEXT DOOR.

MM-HMM .

UH, I USED TO EAT AT THAT RESTAURANT QUITE FREQUENTLY WHEN I HAD MY BUSINESS OFF EAST FIFTH STREET AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS OR SO.

SO I KNOW THE FALL FROM THE ALLEY TO THE FRONT IS VERY, IT'S, IT'S A DRAMATIC FALL.

10 FEET, PROBABLY BETTER.

AND, UH, I SEE.

WHERE YOU CANNOT GET AN A DA PARKING ON THAT PROPERTY, PER SE.

CORRECT.

UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS THERE, YOU'VE GOT TWO OPTIONS WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS.

ONE IS, UH, I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT THERE'S, I I, I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO PUT THE CAVEAT ON THERE THAT THERE HAS TO BE EITHER A, A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR A JOINT SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A EASEMENT USE WITH THIS OTHER PROPERTY MM-HMM .

BECAUSE I'VE PARKED WHERE THAT TRUCK WAS PARKED.

YEAH.

AND I HAVE COME OUT AND GOT NASTY, NASTY SIGNS ON MY TRUCK WHEN I HAD MY BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, UH, FROM THE TREASURE PLACE, THE TH SAYING, YOU'RE IN MY PARKING LOT.

NEXT TIME I'M GONNA TOW YOU.

MM-HMM .

OKAY.

BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY POPULAR RESTAURANT, VERY GOOD FOOD.

BUT, UM, SO BEING IS THAT THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES, AND I, MY BUSINESS WAS ONLY FEW BLOCKS ON EAST FIFTH STREET.

I KNOW HOW THOSE PROPERTIES ARE GOING, AND I CAN FORESEE THAT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR IS GONNA GET SOLD WHEN IT GETS SOLD.

THERE'S NO A DA MM-HMM .

THERE'S NO A DA PARKING ON THAT SITE.

MM-HMM .

ONE OF THE OPTIONS, THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT I SAW THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE OBTAINED IS IF YOU COULD PULL UP, UH, HIS SITE WHERE HE'S GOT THE RED LINES FOR THE, FOR THE A DA PARKING, PLEASE.

IT'S SHEET NUMBER FOUR.

MAYBE THAT ONE.

THAT'S ONE.

THAT ONE.

OKAY.

ON THAT PARTICULAR SITE, IF YOU, IF THAT IF THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT, THAT A DA, UH, UH, PARKING COULD STAY THERE, AND I, BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT SITE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO, IF THEY WOULD, CAN RUN A SIDEWALK, A DA, UH, SIDEWALK FROM THAT HASH OUT AREA TO THE FRONT DOOR.

'CAUSE THE FRONT DOOR ACTUALLY FACES THE PARKING LOT NEXT DOOR.

YEAH.

MM-HMM .

THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, LEAVE THAT, THAT A DA PARKING SPOT.

BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING IN WRITING WITH THE PROPERTY.

AND I KNOW THE OWNER OWNS 'EM BOTH.

I KNOW THAT.

OKAY.

CURRENTLY, YES.

BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT THAT SIDE ACCESSIBILITY SIDEWALK WOULD REMAIN OR THAT, THAT A DA PARKING SPACE IS GONNA REMAIN.

OKAY.

AND,

[00:30:01]

CLEARLY.

IT'S LEGITIMATE.

IT'S, IT IS LEGITIMATE.

UM, BUT, UH, I DO THINK YOU CAN, YOU CAN BE ABLE TO PUT ONE IN THE BACK LIKE THAT IF YOU HAD A SIDEWALK THAT CAME OUT ONTO THE GREEN AREA, THE GRASS, AND THEN CAME FORWARD TO THE FRONT, TO THE FRONT DOOR.

MM-HMM .

MM-HMM .

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE I'M AT ON IT.

UH, UH, I'M GONNA LET THE OTHER MEMBERS TALK.

THEY MAY HAVE A, WE HAVE ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WHO HAS A GOOD IDEA THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP AS WELL.

YES.

BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.

WELL, UH, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS HAS TO DO WITH, UM, HOW ARE YOU GONNA GET AROUND THE OTHER A DA LAW REQUIREMENTS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND ALSO THE FEDERAL, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE AN A DA SPOT ON YOUR, BECAUSE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GOING, YOU WANNA PUT IT OVER HERE? IT'S A SEPARATE PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT A DA TYPICALLY SAYS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SPOT.

MM-HMM .

SO I MAY HAVE TO REACH OUT TO MY LEGAL COHORT OVER THERE AND SAY, , I COULD JUST GET YOU TO STEP AWAY FROM THE GUIDANCE.

PLEASE.

IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR, IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS WHEN, IN MY RECOLLECTION, IN, IN MY TIME, I'VE ALWAYS HAD TO FILL OUT A PERMIT WITH THEM AND HAVE MY A DA REQUIREMENTS REVIEWED.

SO HOW CAN WE PROVIDE A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD THEN VIOLATE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW? ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

SO THE A DA PARKING SPACES REQUIREMENTS ONLY KICKS IN IF THERE IS REQUIRED MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO AS A RESULT OF THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES, THERE ARE NO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THE CITY STILL KEPT IN A REQUIREMENT FOR AN A DA SPACE.

SO THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ARE, UM, ASKING, SEEKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR.

BUT THAT'S PER PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES.

IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT.

WE WANNA PUT IT ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNERSHIP IS THE SAME, AT SOME POINT, EITHER ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE SOLD.

YES.

EACH SITE IS EVALUATED ON ITS COMPLIANCE.

CORRECT.

WITH CITY CODE.

UM, SO THIS PROPERTY, THE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING, UH, RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE A DA SPACE.

OKAY.

'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT, BASED UPON BEING A, I GOTTA TEND TO DO SOME REMODELING AND DO ALL THESE TYPE OF THINGS OF HAVING TO MAKE SURE THAT MM-HMM .

I MET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

BECAUSE AT ANY TIME THE STATE CAN COME CHECK THAT MM-HMM .

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

MM-HMM .

SO, BUT YOU HAVEN'T REACHED OUT TO THE STATE AND TALKED TO THEM YET? NO.

NO.

I THINK, LIKE, I, I MEAN, I'M JUST FOLLOWING THE RECENT TRANSPORTATION CHANGES TO THE LDC AND IT STATES THAT YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE SPACES OFFSITE, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE ONSITE.

UM, IF YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY, UM, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY, YOU DON'T NEED AN ONSITE SPACE PER THE SECTION.

BUT BECAUSE WE NEED THAT ACCESS FROM SEVENTH FOR DELIVERIES AND FOR, UH, TRASH, UH, WE'RE DECIDING TO KEEP IT.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE'RE OPEN TO DO A JOINT USE ACCESS, UH, EASEMENT.

THAT COULD BE A, A REQUIREMENT.

WE WEREN'T AGAINST IT.

WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

SINCE THE T PLANS ARE GONE.

MM-HMM .

BOARD MEMBER STAN, UM, WHAT'S THE STREET PARKING SITUATION LIKE IN THAT AREA? THERE'S NO, NO STREET PARKING ON EAST END.

NONE AT ALL.

AT ALL.

YEAH.

HMM.

YEAH.

THERE'S A BIKE LANE BETWEEN THE, THE LANE AND THE SIDEWALK.

OKAY.

MM-HMM .

VICE CHAIR.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS WE POSTPONE THE CASE AND ALLOW YOU TO BRING SOME KIND OF DOCUMENT THAT GETS FILED AT THE COUNTY THAT TIES THE SPACE TO, TO THIS USE MM-HMM .

TO THIS BUILDING.

AND THAT, WITH THAT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PREDICAMENT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAY, I MEAN, BUT YOU DO NEED TO GET, UH, SEVENTH STREET IS REALLY BUSY.

MY OFFICE IS ACTUALLY ON EAST SEVENTH DOWN DOWN THE ROAD MORE BY THE STATE CEMETERY.

MM-HMM .

BUT IT IS, PEOPLE ARE GOING FAST.

IT IS NOT A, IT IS, IT IS DEFINITELY AN ARTERIAL.

IT IS, IT IS

[00:35:01]

UH, SO I GET THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE DELIVERY TRUCKS OFF AND, AND I THINK THAT'S VERY VALID IN TRASH TRUCKS.

AND IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH WHETHER THAT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE ONE SPACE, A JOINT USE, I, I, I AM NOT TIED TO EITHER, BUT IT WILL NEED TO BE TO BE FILED.

YEAH.

AND WITH THAT, IS THAT A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

DO YOU THINK THAT A MONTH IS ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO DO THAT? NO WAY.

NO.

.

SO, UM, I THINK THE MAY AGENDA MAY 12TH, I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TO BE HONEST IN JUNE JUST BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO GET MEETS AND BOUNDS AND WE'D HAVE TO GET LEGAL TO REVIEW IT TAKE A WHILE.

SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE JUNE 9TH FOR THE SPECIFIC SPACE.

YOU'D HAVE TO GET MEETS AND BOUNDS.

IF IT'S GONNA BE AN EASEMENT, IT'LL HAVE TO BE A SURVEYOR TO CREATE THE MEETS AND BOUNDS.

OKAY.

I'LL HAVE TO CREATE THE DOCUMENTS.

WHY WOULD YOU POSTPONE IT TO THE JUNE 9TH, NINTH AGENDA? MM-HMM .

CHAIR, SECOND MANAGER CHAIR.

CAN I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK? YES.

UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF IT'S MORE THAN 60 DAYS OUT, YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY A REIFICATION FEE AND IT'LL HAVE TO GET RENO, EVEN IF IT'S THE SAME VARIANCE.

SO I, I CAN POSTPONE IT TO THE MAY CASE, AND THEN YOU CAN ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT THAT WORKS AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE IT.

OKAY.

SO THE MAY 12TH, I WOULD LIKE TO ALTER MY MOTION TO THE MAY 12TH AGENDA.

IS THAT CORRECT DATE? YES.

MAY 12TH.

MY SECOND.

I WILL, I WILL SECOND THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'LL GET YOU THERE.

I THINK, UH, ALWAYS EXCITED TO SEE NEW THINGS TO EAT ON SEVENTH STREET, BUT THAT IS A, THAT IS A FAVORITE.

I KNOW.

WELL, I'M HEARTBROKEN 'CAUSE THEY ALSO HAD HOMEMADE GOING DO.

SO HOW MANY QUESTIONS FROM MY VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.

SO THIS IS A MOST, A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE MAY 12TH, 2025 MEETING MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BON OLAND.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

TOMMY YATES.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

YOUNG JEW KIM? YES.

RYAN POTE? YES.

MAGGIE SHERIFF STONEY? YES.

AND I WOULD ACTUALLY APPROVE IT NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE VOTES YET.

THANK YOU.

JEFFREY BOWEN? YES.

JANELLE VAN ZANT.

HE IS MICHAEL VAN NOLAN? YES.

AND BIANCA MEDINA.

LEAL? YES.

OKAY.

THIS IS POSTPONED TO MAY 12TH.

THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS GOOD PRESENTATION.

MOVING ON TO ITEM

[4. C15-2025-0006 Jennifer Hanlen for David and Stephanie Goodman 3706 Meadowbank Drive ]

JENNIFER HANLIN FOR DAVID AND STEPHANIE GOODMAN.

3 7 0 6 MEADOWBANK DRIVE.

PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM CHAIR OVER HERE ON YOUR LEFT.

AH, YES.

I BELIEVE SHE WASN'T HERE WHEN YOU SWORE IN WITNESSES EITHER.

SHE WAS NOT.

OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU TO TAKE YOUR OATH BEFORE GIVING TESTIMONY REAL QUICK.

PLEASE.

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

OKAY.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

SURE.

GOOD EVENING.

BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JENNIFER HANLIN AND I AM THE APPLICANT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT 37 0 6 MEADOW BANK HERE REPRESENTING BOTH THE OWNERS AND THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR CURRENT PLANS, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED AND PAID AS OF LAST FRIDAY, MARCH 7TH.

YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I'M GONNA CO JUST GO THROUGH EACH OF THE POINTS, UM, AND TALK MOSTLY VERSUS RELY ON THE PRESENTATION.

I'M GONNA COVER ALL THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AND THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT HAS GONE INTO THE DESIGN.

THE CURRENT PLANS THAT ARE NOW IN REVIEW AS OF LAST FRIDAY, HAVE BEEN IN THE MAKING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

AS AN EXPEDITOR WHO HAS HANDLED HUNDREDS OF CASES, I'M NOW SEEING PROLONGED DESIGN PLANS MORE THAN OFTEN THE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THESE DAYS.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY DUE TO SEVERAL REASONS, BUT TO NAME A FEW, IT'S COVID.

THE EFFECTS OF COVID CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND DEMANDS HAVE CERTAINLY INCREASED AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO BE IN A GROWTH SPURT.

I WANNA REITERATE THAT OUR PLANS REFLECTING THE INCREASE OF 1.3 AND FAR HAVE INDEED ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED AND PAID.

WE DID THIS AS OF LAST FRIDAY IN ORDER TO AVOID AN OLD OR VARIANCE AS THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2024 OF EXPIRING.

IT ACTUALLY EXPIRES TOMORROW.

THIS VARIANCE IS ALLOWING FOR THE GARAGE TO BE CLOSER AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE BUILDING, THAN

[00:40:01]

AGAIN, THE THIS VARIANCE PASSED BACK IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR.

ON THE FIRST MEETING DISCUSSION OF THE TWO EXTREMELY LARGE HERITAGE LIVE OAKS CAME INTO PLAY CAUSING MAJOR HARDSHIPS TO THIS LOSS, TO THIS LOT.

EXCUSE ME.

THE OWNER PAID OVER $4,000 FOR THAT VARIANCE AND NOW HAS PAID ANOTHER $4,000 FOR THIS APPLICATION.

NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTLESS HOURS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE CURRENT DESIGN PLANS.

TO EXPLAIN FURTHER, WE ARE HERE TODAY, NOT ONLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR CLIENT'S FINALIZED PLANS, BUT ALSO DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THEY WERE COMPLETED, THE STANDARD PARKING EXEMPTION WAS STILL IN EFFECT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IN THE LAST CASE.

WHILE AS OF TODAY, THAT PARTICULAR EXEMPTION IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE.

THIS IS UNFORTUNATE WITH THE DESIGN TEAM HAVING PAID TWO PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW MEETINGS WITH AN EXPEDITED REVIEW STAFF MEMBER WHO HANDLES ZONING.

THIS PARTICULAR PERSON HAS BEEN IN THEIR ROLE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THIS POTENTIAL CHANGE.

AND THE CODE ALSO ADVISED THE ARCHITECT OF IT SO THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF IT, BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

THESE ARE DOCUMENTED MEETINGS TOO.

AND AGAIN, MORE MONEY INVESTED FROM THE OWNER TO ENSURE ALL BASES WERE COVERED AND THAT THEIR PLANS WOULD BE APPROVED.

REMOVING THE PARKING EXEMPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT HONESTLY DOES, DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO MANY OF US.

PARKING AND ACCESS ARE MAIN FEATURES AND THOUGHTS THAT GO INTO DESIGNING A NEW HOME.

AND PARKING IS OBVIOUS NEED.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NEED TO REMOVE IT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.

THIS LEADS ME TO BRING UP THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION THAT IS DATED 11, THAT'S CURRENTLY DATED 11 8 20 24.

PAGE THREE SUBCHAPTER SECTION THAT STILL TO THIS DAY LIST THE EXEMPTION ON THE APPLICATION.

THIS IS SECTION 3.3, 0.2 DASH B NUMBER ONE, WHICH STATES IN THE CODE UP TO 200 SQUARE FEET OF AN ATTACHED PARKING AREA.

IF IT IS USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIREMENT OR IT GOES TO NUMBER TWO.

THIS IS VERY CONFUSING TO BOTH OWNERS AND ESPECIALLY DESIGNERS AND FOLKS WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF THE, THAT THESE EXEMPTIONS WOULD'VE BEEN AROUND FOR MANY DECADES, ARE NO LONGER IN APPLY.

I'LL ALSO SAY THAT WE'VE GONE THE EXTRA MILE OF COLLECTING NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT ALONG WITH THESE, THE APPROVALS OF THE WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP.

ALL THIS BEING SAID, THE AMOUNT OF TIME, MONEY, A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME, WE DO ASK YOU UNDERSTAND THE OVERALL SITUATION, OUR REQUEST, AND HELP THESE OWNERS NOT ONLY TO NOT HAVE TO REDESIGN THE PLANS YET AGAIN, HAVING WASTE NOW TWO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

UM, THE DESIGNERS HERE IN ATTENDANCE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MRI THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M JUST GOING TO REMIND THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT FINANCES AND THE CODE PER STATE LAW CANNOT BE USED AS A HARDSHIP.

SO OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.

MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS GONNA GO.

FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A NEW SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION.

UH, THE APPLICANT STATED THE PLANS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BUT YET WAS JUST PAID LAST FRIDAY.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE WASTED, UH, TWO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.

I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S SELF-INFLICTED.

THAT'S NOT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY IN THE APPLICANT APPLICATION ON THEIR HARDSHIP.

BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY STATE LAW OPERATES, THEY DO NOT HAVE A HARDSHIP.

A THEY SAID THE FINANCIAL INABILITY TO REDESIGN THAT IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

WE CANNOT, WE CAN'T TAKE THAT.

B STATES THE OWNER, IT IT, WELL THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE QUOTE UNQUOTE ASSUMED ANYTHING.

AND IT'S NOT THE STAFF'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMMUNICATE OR ADVISE ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES.

THEY DON'T, THEY CAN'T STICK THEIR NECK OUT LIKE THAT.

IT'S THE APPLICANT AND THEIR TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS TO STAY ABREAST OF CODE AND ZONING CHANGES.

CODE NEXT HAS BEEN GOING ON.

WE'VE HAD CODE X CODE SON OF NEXT AND CODE UNCLE OF NEXT, AND GOD KNOWS WHO ELSE WE'RE GONNA CALL IT CODE X FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS IT'S BEEN GOING ON.

AND SO THE CODE CHANGES HAVE BEEN, HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

EVERYBODY'S BEEN AWARE OF IT.

SO I I REALLY, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS ONE.

I'LL LET THE OTHER, UH, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY, BUT I'LL LET THE OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBERS SPEAK.

I JUST DON'T, THERE'S NO HARDSHIP HERE THAT WE CAN LEGALLY HANG OUR HAT ON.

BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, WHEN DID THE PARKING, I MEAN THE PARKING ISSUE WAS 2023, I BELIEVE IT WAS PASSED

[00:45:01]

OKAY.

LATE 2024.

SO 24 FROM LATE 2024 YOU JUST SUBMITTED.

AND I KNOW PARKING WAS AN ISSUE 'CAUSE I'M ONE OF THOSE THAT DIDN'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR THAT EITHER, BUT IT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

AT WHAT POINT EVERYBODY ELSE KEEPS UP WITH THE STUFF.

SO MY QUESTION IS, Y'ALL COULDN'T FIND 200 SQUARE FEET IN THAT MASSIVE PLACE TO BE ABLE TO START WHILING DOWN TO GET, TO GET UNDERNEATH THE, THE FAR WELL, I, AND I'M, I I CAN LET MATT SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE.

OKAY.

THAT'S A DESIGN QUESTION, I GUESS.

YEAH, SURE.

I THINK THE ISSUE WE HAD WITH NOT GOING TO REDESIGN WAS WE NEVER GOT A CLEAR ANSWER IF THIS WAS APPLICABLE OR NOT APPLICABLE.

THE 200 SQUARE FOOT EXEMPTION WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME, THE APPLICATION HAD IT AS APPLICABLE AND THEN IT WAS GONE, IT WAS GRAYED OUT AND NOW IT'S BACK ON AS APPLICABLE.

SO IT WAS JUST VERY CONFUSING ON, IS THIS IN OR IS IT OUT? AND I HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF AND GOT, WELL, IT'S PART OF THIS CODE, IT'S PART OF THIS CODE, IT'S PART OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.

NO, IT'S PART OF THE, UH, LOSING PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO I NEVER GOT A CLEAR ANSWER ON IF THIS WAS IN OR OUT AND I COULDN'T GO TO MY CLIENTS.

I DIDN'T HAVE A BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER FROM MY CLIENTS.

IT WAS JUST VERY CONFUSING ON WHAT WE COULD DO OR WHAT WE COULDN'T DO.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY CODE, THE CODE HAS BEEN EVOLVING SO MUCH.

IT'S UM, AND I THINK THERE WAS JUST, THERE WASN'T A, UM, BETWEEN THE APPLICATIONS AND WHAT, LIKE SHE CAN FIND OUT ON THE END TALKING TO CERTAIN REVIEWERS THAT I HAVE TO PAY TO TALK TO.

WE JUST COULDN'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER ON IF THIS WAS APPLICABLE OR NOT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE NEVER REDESIGNED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS.

ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION, ANYONE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

I WE CAN'T HANG OUR HAT ON THE FINANCIAL INABILITY TO BE DESIGNED.

NOT I'LL SECOND .

THAT'S NOT LEGAL.

I'LL SECOND THIS ONE.

I GUESS I'D LIKE TO STRESS THAT THE HARDSHIP IS LESS ABOUT FINANCIAL.

IT'S MORE ABOUT JUST THE CODE NOT BEING CLEAR, THE APPLICATION'S NOT BEING CLEAR ON IF IT'S SOMETHING'S APPLICABLE OR NOT AS AN EXEMPTION OR NOT.

OKAY.

I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S LITERALLY THE TWO THINGS WE CAN'T GIVE A VARIANCE ON.

BUT THERE'S FIVE THINGS, BUT IT'S TWO OF THEM.

UH, OKAY.

SO THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ANI.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

TOMMY YATES.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

BUT YOU CAN APPEAL WITHIN 10 DAYS IF YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

NEW EVIDENCE.

SPECIFICALLY YOUNG J KIM? YES.

RYAN PETITE.

YES.

MAGGIE ANI.

YES.

JEFFREY BOWEN.

YES.

JANELLE VAN.

IS THAT? YES.

AND I'LL SAY I DO FEEL EMPATHETIC TO THE, THE PLIGHT THAT YOU'RE ALL IN, BUT I, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WE JUST DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION, UM, AS IS PRESENTED.

BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN? YES.

BIANCA MEDINA.

AL? YES.

OKAY.

THAT VARIANCE IS DENIED AGAIN.

SO YOU CAN APPEAL WITHIN 10 DAYS, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO PROVE OR PROVIDE NEW EVIDENCE.

I MIGHT SUGGEST CHANGING THE HARDSHIP.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

MOVING

[5. Discussion of the February 10, 2025, Board of Adjustment activity report On-Line Link: ITEM05 February 10, 2025-MONTHLY REPORT ]

ITEM FIVE, DISCUSSION OF THE FEBRUARY 10TH, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.

THANK Y'ALL VERY, VERY MUCH.

IT IS AWESOME AND BEAUTIFULLY WELL MAINTAINED, UH, DOCUMENT THAT I LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

I DO.

WE LOVE OUR STAFF, WE LOVE OUR STAFF AND YOU KNOW, WE JUST DENIED TWO CASES TONIGHT, WHICH DOUBLES OUR YEAH, I WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY WE WERE DOING REALLY WELL.