[00:00:05]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
IS 5:43 PM IT IS APRIL 13TH, 2026.I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL.
HAS EVERYBODY ON THE DESK SIGNED THE SIGN-IN SHEET? YEP.
JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK NOTES FOR THE AUDIENCE.
UH, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES ARE PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.
AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER, PLEASE TAKE ANY CONVERSATION OUT INTO THE LOBBY.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THE BOARD LIAISON TOMORROW VIA EMAIL OR PHONE.
UM, IF YOU'RE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
PLEASE ADDRESS ONLY THE BOARD DO NOT ADDRESS EACH OTHER.
I THINK TONIGHT WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA NEED TO TAKE A BREAK.
IF WE DO, THAT'LL USUALLY BE AROUND EIGHT O'CLOCK.
UM, PARKING, WHEN YOU DROVE INTO THE PARKING GARAGE, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LITTLE TICKET WITH A QR CODE, UM, UP HERE BY THE FRONT.
WHERE YOU WALKED IN IS ANOTHER SMALLER TICKET WITH ANOTHER QR CODE.
WHEN YOU LEAVE THE GARAGE, YOU SCAN THE FIRST ONE YOU GOT WHEN YOU CAME IN.
YOU SCAN THAT ONE AND IT WILL VALIDATE YOUR PARKING.
UH, FOR ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD TONIGHT, I NEED YOU TO TAKE YOUR OATH.
DO DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL BE GIVING TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
UH, THEY WANT ME TO CALL IT D DIFFERENT RIGHT BEFORE WE DO IT.
SO LET'S START WITH THE, OH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.THIS IS ITEM ONE, UH, MINUTES FROM MARCH 9TH, 2026.
A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAUGHN OLIN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.
AND BEFORE, LET'S SEE, QUICK QUESTION.
UH, FOR LEGAL, DO I NEED TO DO THIS NOW OR SHOULD I DO IT BEFORE THE CASE? FOR ALLOWING OUR BOARD MEMBER TO ADDRESS THE ONE ISSUE, UH, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, TO ALLOW THE BOARD MEMBER TO ADDRESS THE, THE RECONSIDERATION CASE? YES.
FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THAT'S WHEN THE BOARD SHOULD BE CONSIDERING THE RECONSIDERATION CASE.
AND THEN THE, UH, BOARD MEMBER SHOULD, UH, SPEAK FIRST.
[2. C15-2026-0003 Luke Caraway for Yair Cohen Hoshen 8506 & 8507 Walhill Cove ]
WITH OUR PREVIOUS POSTPONED CASES.WE'RE GONNA START WITH ITEM TWO.
THERE'S NO POSTPONEMENTS WITHDRAWALS STILL, RIGHT.
LUKE CARAWAY FOR Y 8 5 0 6, AND 8 5 0 7 WALHILL COVE.
[00:05:01]
FRONT.HAVE A SEAT AT ONE OF THE TABLES.
YOU WILL PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HELLO, UH, CHAIR AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT REGARDING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 85 0 6 AND 85 0 7 WALTHILL CO.
THIS REQUEST IS DRIVEN BY UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTY AND IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT AS YOU SEE HERE.
THOSE ARE THE TWO LOTS IN THE PAR PARCEL CAD THERE.
UM, THE HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE IS ROOTED IN THE TOPOGRAPHY OF WALL HILL COVE, UH, OR 85 0 6 WALL HILL COVE.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE BACKSIDE THERE.
THIS LOT IS HEAVILY CONSTRAINED BY SLOPE AND GRADE.
UH, THE GRADE IS APPROXIMATELY 30% SLOPE BETWEEN HOUSE AND STREET, UH, MAKING IT INFEASIBLE TO CONSTRUCT, UH, A COMPLIANT DRIVEWAY THAT PROVIDES SAFE FUNCTIONAL ACCESS FROM THE STREET.
SIMPLY PUT, THE LOT CANNOT REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE ITS OWN DRIVEWAY DUE TO CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE LOT IS EFFECTIVELY LANDLOCKED FROM A FUNCTIONAL STANDPOINT UNLESS ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE JOINT ADJACENT OR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
UH, WHILE MY CLIENT DID, DID CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE ON 85 0 7, THE HARDSHIP ITSELF IS NOT SELF-CREATED.
THE TOP TOPO, THE TOPOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS EXISTED PRIOR TO MY CLIENT'S OWNERSHIP AND, UH, ARE INHERENT TO THE LAND.
MY CLIENT, WHO IS NEW TO AUSTIN, REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT A FUTURE INTERNAL LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOW SHARED ACCESS WOULD BE FEASIBLE.
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS NOT TO REMEDY A SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT DECISION, BUT TO ADDRESS A PREEXISTING PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT IN A PRACTICAL WAY, USING AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENT, THE VARIANCE BEGIN BEING REQUESTED AS MINIMAL.
WE ARE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW ONE AND A HALF FOOT SETBACK ALONG ONE SIDE OF THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE.
THIS IS THE SMALLEST DEVIATION POSSIBLE TO ALLOW A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD ENABLE THE GARAGE TO LEGALLY SERVE 85 0 6 WALL HILL CODE.
AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED BETWEEN THE TWO FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ALLOW JOINT ACCESS OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES ARE BEING ADDED.
NO INCREASE IN DENSITY IS PROPOSED.
THIS IS STRICTLY A TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING CONDITION TO FUNCTION PROPERLY.
WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, 85 0 6, WALL HILL COVE CANNOT REASONABLY FUNCTION AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
IT WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL OFF STREET, UH, ACCESS, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRS ITS USABILITY, LIVABILITY AND VALUE GRANTING THE VARIANCE RESTORES REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY BY ALLOWING SAFE AND FUNCTIONAL ACCESS THROUGH AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED GARAGE, UH, SORRY.
GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING, UH, UH, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT, IMPACT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN FACT, DENYING IT WOULD LIKELY CREATE MORE ISSUES, RESIDENTS WOULD BE FORCED TO RELY ENTIRELY ON, ON STREET PARKING WITHIN A CUL-DE-SAC WHERE SPACE IS LIMITED.
THIS COULD RESULT IN VEHICLES PARKING IN FRONT OF NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING HOMES, CREATING CONGESTION AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONCERNS.
AND IT INTRODUCES A SITUATION WHERE A RESIDENTIAL LOT CANNOT MEET BASIC ACCESS, UH, EXPECTATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE GARAGE AND ADJACENT STRUCTURE WERE BUILT USING MATERIALS CONSISTENT WITH A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED WALL, HELPING MITIGATE CONCERNS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCED SETBACKS.
THERE IS NO CHANGE TO NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, NO ADDITIONAL MASSING AND NO VISUAL IMPACT BEYOND WHAT ALREADY EXISTS TODAY.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WITHOUT OFF STREET ACCESS, A DA ACCESSIBILITY BECOMES EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE.
REQUIRING RESIDENTS OR VISITORS TO PARK ON THE STREET AND TRAVERSE STEEP TOPOGRAPHY TO REACH THE HOME CREATES A SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT ACCESSIBILITY BARRIER.
IN CLOSING, THE HARDSHIP IS REAL AND TIED TO THE UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS.
IT IS NOT SELF-CREATED IN NATURE.
THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND GRANTING IT AVOIDS NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS REQUEST IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION THAT ALIGNS THE LEGAL CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS WITH THE PHYSICAL REALITIES ON THE GROUND.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BECAUSE I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UM, AND I'M GONNA APPROVE THE, THE VARIANCE AS PER ITEM
[00:10:01]
AT THE, THE, UH, JARRING ON ITEM PAGE TWO OF FOUR, THE ILLUSTRATION DEPICTION, AND THE, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE, IT LOOKS WHEN I SCALED IT, ABOUT 35, 40 FEET BEHIND THE GARAGE FOR THAT AREA, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE DOES NOT NEED A VARIANCE.HE, HE MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA.
THAT'S A VERY CONCISE AND VERY GOOD, UM, CASE THAT YOU PUT BEFORE US AND YOU HIT ALL THE PROPER BUZZWORDS AND EVERYTHING.
BUT I'D ALREADY LOOKED AT YOUR PROJECT, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
IT'S GONNA TAKE A SECOND 'CAUSE I'M GONNA JUMP BACK AND FORTH 'CAUSE YOU PUT YOUR FINDINGS ON A DIFFERENT PAGE FROM OUR APPLICATION.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, CAN I JUMP IN REAL QUICK? THIS IS THE LIAISON.
UM, WHAT PAGE WAS THAT? IT IS PAGE TWO OF FOUR OF THE BACKUP OR THE PRESENTATION? THE BACKUP.
ARE YOU TYING THIS TO A PAGE AND I JUST MISSED IT? YES.
BECAUSE, UH, THAT PAGE ACTUALLY SHOWS THE, UH, THE AREA THAT NEEDS THE VARIANCE WHEN THE REST OF THE AREA ARE PAGE TWO OF FOUR AND OUR BACKUP.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE ZONING REGULATION IS CURRENTLY APPLIED DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ITS EXISTING CONFIGURATION.
THE STRUCTURE AT 85 0 6 WALL HILL CODE DOES NOT HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE OR DRIVEWAY, AND IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY RELIANT ON, ON STREET PARKING ALONG WALL HILL GROVE HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT YOU'D THINK I'D HAVE THIS MEMORIZED ALL THESE YEARS UP HERE.
THE PRO THE HARDSHIP IS THE PRIMARY CHALLENGE FOR 85 0 6 WAHE CODES IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITHOUT ONSITE PA PARKING.
IT'S A CUL-DE-SAC UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS THE TOPOGRAPHY, FURTHER LIMITS AVAILABLE PARKING.
THE TWO LOTS EX EXPERIENCE, EXTREME TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES.
AS A RESULT, THE BUILDABLE AREA IS SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED AND THE GARAGE IS BUILT AT THE ONLY LEVEL PLACE THAT THEY CAN LOCATE ON THAT PROPERTY.
THE AREA, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE.
UH, ALTHOUGH EXTREME TOPOGRAPHY EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE GENERAL AREA, AS NORTHWEST HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IS KNOWN FOR ITS ELEVATION IN NUMEROUS CUL-DE-SACS, THE COMBINATION OF THESE CONDITIONS CREATE A UNIQUE HARDSHIP FOR ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF PROPERTIES.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW BOTH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES TO BETTER MAINTAIN ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER.
BY AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
[3. C15-2026-0006 Cole Stewart 4301 Manzanillo Drive ]
ON TO ITEM THREE C 15 20 26 0 0 0 6.COLE STEWART, 4 3 0 1 MENZA NEO DRIVE.
YOU'LL PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE TO TURN IT GREEN.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, CONTINUING FROM LAST MEETING, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR, UH, ALLOWING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
[00:15:01]
I JUST DID A BUNCH OF, UH, MATH THERE.THERE'S A 32 INCH GRADIENT ALONG THE SIDE OF MY PROPERTY FACING THE SIDE STREET AND THE DRAINAGE POND POND.
UH, FOLLOWING LAST MEETING, I REQUIRED MANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
SO I TALKED TO, UH, ALL MY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, EITHER GETTING WORDS OF SUPPORT OR ACTUAL LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THIS MORNING.
UH, I DID REACH OUT TO, UH, AUSTIN RIGHT OF WAY ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS AND WAS REPEATEDLY DIRECTED BACK TO, UH, DSD
SO I WAS DEFINITELY RUNNING IN CIRCLES FOR A WHILE.
UH, SAYING THAT THEY DO NOT OFFER, THEY DO NOT OFFER THAT AUTHORIZATION.
THAT WAS, UH, THEY DO NOT, UH, REQUESTED LAST TIME SIMPLY JUST 'CAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE DENYING IT, THEY'RE JUST SAYING IT'S OUT OF, OUT OF THEIR WHEELHOUSE BASICALLY.
UM, SO I WAS LEFT WITH NOT REALLY SURE WHERE TO, WHERE TO GO FROM THERE, OTHER THAN GET THE BEST SUPPORT THAT I COULD AND GET THE BEST MEASUREMENTS THAT I COULD POSSIBLY GET.
I DO HAVE A SURVEYOR COMING TO MY HOUSE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THE ACTUAL FENCE LOCATION BEING, UH, NOT BEING OVER MY PROPERTY LINES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, COULDN'T GET HERE BEFORE THIS HEARING, SO THAT'S GONNA BE LIKE 10 DAYS FROM NOW.
UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THINGS CURRENTLY STAND.
IF YOU WANNA FLIP THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, I, I, I MADE SOME SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MEASUREMENTS THIS TIME.
I WENT WITH A LASER LEVEL AND WENT, UH, POST BY POST AND DID IT MULTIPLE TIMES AND TOOK AN AVERAGE TO BE EXIST.
UM, AND, UH, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHERE THINGS CURRENTLY STAND.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, YEAH, THERE WERE THINGS, UH, REQUESTED AND I DID THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO GET THOSE THINGS FOR YOU.
UM, IF, UH, CAN YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT SCREEN? YEAH.
SO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT I HAVE ARE FROM THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME, THE HOUSES ACROSS ON MANZANIA AND ALSO ON ASKEW.
AND I'M GENERALLY TALKING TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY, UH, EVEN JUST TALKING TO THEM, I'VE ONLY HEARD WORDS OF SUPPORT AND EVERYONE IS ASKING ME WHERE I GOT THE FENCE DONE,
BUT, UM, ANYWAY, THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE I CAN ADD UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC, UH, QUESTIONS FOR ME OR WANT ME TO REITERATE, UH, ANY PART OF, UH, THE CASE.
THIS PART IS JUST FOR YOU TO PRESENT TO US.
WELL, CAN YOU GO TO THE, UH, NEXT PAGE REALLY FAST? SO I DID, I DID FIND THE SIDE YARD.
UH, THE DROP WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE, A LITTLE MORE I, I BELIEVE THAN I WROTE LAST TIME.
UH, YEAH, 2.67 FEET OF GRADIENT.
IF YOU LOOK IN THE ADVANCED PACKET, THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE THE VERY PRECISE, UH, MEASUREMENTS THAT I DID, AND I DIDN'T FIND THEM APPROPRIATE TO PUT ON THE PRESENTATION.
UM, AND THOSE ARE MEASURED AT EACH POST.
UM, SO I'M TRYING TO HAVE ANYTHING ELSE HERE.
UH, YEAH, SO LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE, UH, ZONING CODE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC CASES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THERE IS A BIT OF AMBIGUITY WHEN THE NEIGHBOR OF THE ADJACENT GRADE IS THE SIDE STREET AND NOT AN ACTUAL HOME.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE AFTER TALKING WITH DSD AGAIN, THAT SEEMS TO BE WHY I GO IN CIRCLES AND THEY DIRECT ME BACK TO HERE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE TODAY.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
WOULD WHERE YOU HAVE AN ILLUSTRATION, IT SHOWS THE, THE STOP SIGN WHERE THAT STOP SIGN
[00:20:01]
IS ON THE CORNER.WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO REMOVING MAYBE TWO PANELS BACK, PULL THAT BACK TWO PANELS AND JUST KEEP THE REST OF IT THE WAY IT IS? OF THE, THE, THE SHORTER SECTION, THE FOUR FOOT SECTION? YEAH.
UH, BECAUSE IT PROJECTS, MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT, THAT ONE SECTION IS THAT IT PROJECTS OUT FAR ENOUGH THAT A CAR'S GONNA HAVE TO CREEP OUT AT THE STOP SIGN TO LOOK TO THE RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU PULL A PANEL BACK, AND THAT'S REALLY, IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
BUT IF YOU CAN PULL A PANEL BACK, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
YEAH, I COULD, I COULD PULL A PANEL.
THERE'S NOT, UH, AN ISSUE THERE.
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST A SAFETY ISSUE FOR YOUR ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
I MEAN, I GUESS I DRIVE, WE HAVE A FORD EXPEDITION AND ANOTHER MID-SIZE SUV, UH, I MEAN, IT'D HAVE TO BE A PRETTY LOW VEHICLE.
YEAH, IT COULD PUT YOU UP VEHICLE TO, TO NOT SEE HIM FOR IT.
UH, BUT YES, WE WOULD, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE, UH, CONDITION THAT HE, HE WILL REMOVE THAT ONE PANEL, PULL A PANEL BACK, I THINK MAY HE RE SECONDING? YES.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? 'CAUSE I DID SEE THAT YOUR HAND WAS UP, OR WERE YOU GOING TO MAKE A MOTION? I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, MR. STEWART, THANK YOU FOR, UM, INDULGING THE ACT OF TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AT LEAST YOU, YOU PROVE SOMETHING THAT I PROBABLY ALREADY KNEW IN THAT GETTING INFORMATION, UH, BASED UPON WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE, IS SOMETIMES LIKE PULLING TEETH WITHOUT NOTE CAN, UH, BUT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS OR THAT NOTICE THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO OR WOULDN'T GIVE YOU PROPER RESPONSE OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS, THAT THAT'S NOT GONNA GIVE THEM AN EXCUSE TO COME BACK AND, UH, HARASS YOU OR LACK, FOR LACK OF A WORD, SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS NOW BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT, UH, UH, YOU'LL NEED A CITY OF AUSTIN LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION.
AND APPARENTLY THEY DON'T SEEM TO KNOW THAT.
BUT I DO WANT TO TELL YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH ALL THE TROUBLE OF GETTING THAT DONE.
AND, UM, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING THIS APPROVED.
YEAH, I TRIED, I I BROUGHT IT MULTIPLE TIMES TO SEE IF I COULD YEAH, NOT RIGHT NOW.
UH, IT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FIRST TWO SHORT PANELS CLOSEST TO THE CORNER REMOVED, RIGHT? YES.
IS THAT TWO OR ONE, TWO OR ONE? I I THINK THE TWO WOULD BE THE SAFEST CONDITION.
CAN I ADD SOMETHING HERE? UH, THE, THE, THAT SECTION OF THE FENCE WAS THAT HEIGHT SINCE THE EIGHTIES, SO THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE.
I JUST WANNA ADD THAT, BUT YES.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS A CORNER LOCK CONFIGURATION COMBINED WITH OPPOSING GRADE CONDITIONS, THE YARD SLOPES DOWNWARD TOWARDS THE REAR WHILE THE ADJACENT SIDE STREET SLOPES UPWARD, RESULTING IN SIX FOOT FENCE, PROVIDING SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED EFFECTIVE ENCLOSURE HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY THAT IN THAT, DUE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING THE CORNER LOCK CONFIGURATION WITH TWO PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGES, MEASURABLE GRADE CHANGES ALONG THE FENCE LINE AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT CREATING AN OPEN VISIBILITY CORRIDOR BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
THE THE CONDITIONS ARE PERMANENT AND PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE SITE, AND WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MOST SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE INTERIOR LOTS WITH DUAL WITHOUT DUAL STREET IMPLO EXPOSURE AND OPPOSING GRADE CONDITIONS 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 AND WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, UH, LEMME SEE.
THE OVER HIGH PROPORTIONS OF THE FENCE ARE LIMITED IN EXTENT AND LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS BEHIND THE FRONT BUILDING LINE AND DO NOT ENCROACH INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
ALRIGHTYY, AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT THE CONDITION OF THE FIRST TWO SHORT PANELS CLOSEST TO THE CORNER REMOVED, MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OWEN.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STAN, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
TOMMY ES? YES, MATT, MADAM CHAIR.
CAN I INTERRUPT, IS THAT THE STREET SIDE, THE PANELS ON THE STREET SIDE? OR IS IT ON THE FRONT SIDE? YES, THE STREET SIDE.
THE TWO SHORT PA THERE, THERE'S ONLY
[00:25:01]
ONE, ONE PLACE WHERE THE SHORT PANELS RUN.AND IT'S, IT'S UP TO THAT FIRST LITTLE CORNER.
THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING IN THIS NEXT CASE, SO I'M GONNA STEP OUT.
[4. C16-2026-0003 Richard T Suttle, Jr. for Joseph G. Doran 321, 311, 323, 325, 327 W 6th Street ]
FOUR.RICHARD T SETTLED JUNIOR FOR JOSEPH G. DURAN.
3 21 3 11 3 23 3 25, 3 27 WEST SIXTH STREET.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND IT'S REALLY ONLY ONE SIGN.
ALL THOSE ADDRESSES ARE JUST ARRANGED.
IT'S A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE.
I HOPE I CAN GIVE YOU SOME TIME BACK.
UM, THE WAY OUR CODE IS SET UP, WE HAVE TWO CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS.
ONE, DOWNTOWN, THEY WANT YOUR BUILDING CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT TWO, THEY WANT SIGNS BEYOND THE 12 FEET.
AND IF YOU ARE WITHIN THE 12 FEET, YOU CAN ONLY BE 30 INCHES TALL AND OR YOU HAVE TO BE NINE FEET IN THE AIR.
SO WE WALK, OUR SIGN GUY WENT DOWN AND APPLIED FOR A SIGN THAT'S LITERALLY 70 INCHES TALL AND 27 INCHES WIDE.
AND IT'S A TENANT SIGN RIGHT BY THE FRONT DOOR OF THE OFFICE.
AND THEY SAID, WELL, THAT LOOKS GREAT, BUT TECHNICALLY YOU HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.
I'M GONNA RUN THROUGH THIS IS, IT'S ON SIXTH STREET AND, AND GUADALUPE, THIS IS WHAT THE SIGN WILL LOOK LIKE.
THAT LITTLE LITTLE BOX THERE BY THE DOORS.
DIMENSIONS, FIVE FEET, 10 BY 27 INCHES WIDE.
IT'S GONNA SIT THERE RIGHT BY THE FRONT DOOR.
IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER SIGNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE VARIOUS HEIGHTS, BUT ALL OF THEM MORE THAN 30 INCHES AND ALL OF 'EM FREESTANDING.
AND WHY IS MY MACHINE NOT GOING? THERE'S THAT ONE.
THIS IS THE MOST SIMILAR TO IT.
YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT NEXT TO THE DOOR THERE, BUT YOU GET THE IDEA.
WE'RE NOT GONNA AFFECT ANYTHING DOWNTOWN BY HAVING THIS SIGN.
VERY SIMILAR TO, AND I CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON.
SO THE FINDINGS ARE PRETTY SIMPLE.
IN FACT, UM, IF WE MET THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT, OUR BUILDING IS ALREADY WITHIN 12 FEET OF, OF OUR PROPERTY LINE.
SO YOU COULD HAVE NO FREESTANDING SIGN, UH, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND US ALREADY HAS THEM.
WE ACTUALLY CONTACTED ALL OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS ONE.
UH, IT WON'T CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE A SMALL FREESTANDING TENANT SIGN.
IT'S JUST YOU CAN'T HAVE IT HERE IF YOU COMPLY WITH THE REST OF THE CODE AND BRING YOUR BUILDING UP TO WHERE THEY WANT YOU TO BUILD IT UP.
AND IT WILL NOT GRANT US PREFACE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE ALL OVER TOWN LIKE THIS.
I'M GONNA STOP BECAUSE Y'ALL GOT A LONG NIGHT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND O CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD SUPPORT THIS WILDLY EXTRAVAGANT, HUGE SUPER OUS SIGN, BUT IF SOMEONE WERE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I WOULD MADAM CHAIR PROBABLY VOTE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
BOARD, BOARD MEMBER FINAL ONE.
OKAY, WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I HAD TO LOOK TWICE TO FIND THAT SIGN WHEN I WAS DOING THE BACKUP INFORMATION IN THAT PICTURE.
SECOND WITH THE SECOND FOR BOARD MEMBER ANI, ANY DISCUSSION FINDINGS? OKAY.
THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENCY OF AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FINDINGS DESCRIBED BELOW.
IN ORDER TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, THE BOARD MUST FIRST MAKE ONE
[00:30:01]
OR MORE OF THE FINDING DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO, AND THREE BELOW.THE BOARD MUST THEN MAKE THE FINDING DESCRIBED IN ITEM FOUR ONE.
I CONTEND THAT MY ENTITLEMENT TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.
THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING OR TOPOGRAPHY.
BECAUSE PURSUANT TO 25 2 5 94 C ONE, THE MAXIMUM FRONT SET YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES OWNED CBD IS 10 FEET, WHICH PROHIBITS A FREESTANDING SITE ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
SINCE IT CANNOT MEET THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET RIGHT AWAY, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED NEAR THE OFFICE BUILDING ENTRANCE AND ORIENTED TOWARDS SIXTH STREET.
THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC SAFETY.
AND THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED BECAUSE, UH, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT HAVE A FREESTANDING SIGN GREATER THAN 30 INCHES TALL WITHIN THE 12 FEETER STREET RIGHT AWAY.
THAT'S YOUR MADAM CHAIR AND YOUR FINDINGS WERE WELL WRITTEN.
I WISH I COULD TAKE CREDIT, BUT THIS LADY RIGHT HERE WROTE 'EM.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLAND.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ANI, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE.
MELISSA HAWTHORNE IS ABSTAINING YOUNG J KIM? YES.
[5. C15-2026-0001 Samantha Riddell for John Lohr 2205 Quarry Road ]
BE ITEM FIVE.THIS IS NEW VARIANCE CASE C 15 20 26 0 0.
SAMANTHA RIDDLE, OR IS IT RIDELL? LET ME KNOW.
FOR JOHN LORE 2 2 0 5 QUARRY ROAD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND SALLY LORE FOR THEIR PROPERTY AT 2205 CORY ROAD.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THIS STRUCTURE IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER.
IT'S A DETACHED GARAGE AND WE'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON ACCOUNT OF THE TREES IN THE YARD.
UM, WHICH WE'LL ELABORATE ON A LITTLE BIT HERE.
SO WE HAVE A POWER LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE YARD, WHICH COMPRESSES THE AMOUNT OF USABLE BUILDABLE AREA FOR US, AS WELL AS THESE TWO MATURE TREES IN THE CENTER OF THE YARD.
THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID FURTHER IMPACT TO THEM, WE MUST REMAIN TO THE LEFT SIDE HERE.
UM, YOU'LL SEE IT'S A LITTLE CLOSE TO A HERITAGE TREE.
AND IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF THIS HERITAGE TREE, AS WE'VE CONSULTED AN ARBORIST AND WHO HAS CONFIRMED TO US, WE MUST REMAIN IN THIS PREVIOUS FOOTPRINT OF A GARAGE THAT WAS STANDING IN THIS LOCATION.
UM, THIS IS A CITATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, WHICH IS ALLOWING US TO BUILD IN THIS LOCATION AND MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF THE TREE AS WE'VE CONFIRMED WITH THE ARBORIST.
UM, FURTHERMORE FOR THIS HEARING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO NOT ONLY IS THE LOCATION AND THE SIZE OF THIS GARAGE QUITE, UM, TYPICAL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WE ALSO HAVE SUPPORT FROM LOTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS AROUND HERE WHO HAVE SIMILAR BUILDINGS AND SITUATIONS IN THE BACKYARD WITH THE TREES.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE SUPPORT OF THE WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP WHO HAVE REGISTERED THEIR NON OPPOSITION, UM, IN A LETTER FOR OUR HEARING HERE TODAY.
SO WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS BOARD MEMBERS.
I SAW BOARD MEMBER BOWEN FIRST.
UH, YOUR ROOF HEIGHT IS GONNA BE THE SAME AS WHAT YOUR, YOUR PREVIOUS ONE WAS? YES, EXACTLY.
I WAS GONNA MAKE A WELL VICE CHAIR.
HAWTHORNE, I SAW YOUR HAND BACK.
I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, WE'RE SHARING OVER HERE.
[00:35:01]
AND I REALLY WANT TO SAY THAT THE BACKUP WITH THE PICTURE OF THE FIRE OF THE GARAGE.IT'S QUITE AN UNFORTUNATE SCENARIO.
I'M SORRY THAT IT HAPPENED, BUT IT WAS TO HAVE A PICTURE IN THE BACKUP OF THE ACTUAL FIRE.
I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT ONE BEFORE.
ANY QUESTIONS DOWN THIS WAY? VIRTUAL? NO.
ZONING REGULATIONS AFTER THE PROPERTY TO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE AS, UH, THERE WAS A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION.
IT EXISTED, UH, FOR DECADES BEFORE IT WAS DESTROYED BY A FIRE AND CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PRIOR FOOTPRINT.
WITH ALL THE, THE TREES THAT ARE SURROUNDING, THIS IS THE BEST PLACE TO REBUILD THE GARAGE.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IS THE PLACEMENT OF THE MATURE TREE SURROUNDING IT.
AND IT'S ALSO THE LOCATION WHERE THE PRIOR DETACHED GARAGE WAS THERE FOR DECADES.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL, THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE PLACEMENT OF THE TREES AROUND THE ACTUAL GARAGE STRUCTURE AND THE CONSTRAINTS, UH, PROVIDED BY IT, AS WELL AS NOT HAVING VISIBILITY BECAUSE OF THOSE TREES, UH, MAKES IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS THE REBUILT GARAGE WILL MATCH THE FORM, SCALE, AND LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS WITHOUT A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY, UH, WAIT, DID I GET THIS BACKWARDS? BUT YOU MADE THE MOTION.
I GOT IT BACKWARDS AND THEN MY CO MADE BY, BY CHAIR HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY A BOARD MEMBER OF ON ALL IN.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
[6. C15-2026-0009 Wylder Conoly for Mehtaab Brar, Brar Properties 9419 E Parmer Lane]
WILL BE ITEM SIX C 15 20 26 0 0 0 9 WILDER CONNOLLY FOR MEAB BRA.BARR PROPERTIES 9 4 1 9 EAST PALMER LANE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I AM HERE REPRESENTING BROER PROPERTIES ON BEHALF OF THEIR TIM HORTON'S AT 9 4 1 9 EAST PALMER LANE.
UH, TIM HORTON'S IS LIKE A COFFEE SHOP DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, QUICK, QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT.
UH, HERE'S A MORE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S AT THE, UH, CORNER OF HIGHWAY TWO 90 AND PALMER LANE.
THE CODE WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR IS 25 DASH 2 4 92 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THIS IS, UH, JUST A VISUAL OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE IN BOLD WE HAVE THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN THIS HIGHLIGHTED DASH LINE IS THE SETBACK LINE.
SO WE'RE REQUESTING A REDUCTION FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET FOR THE SOUTHERN SETBACK.
THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE, OF THE, UH, SLIDE HERE.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST ANOTHER AERIAL KIND OF CONTEXTUAL, UM, SLIDE SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS IN RED.
AND OUR DASHED, UH, YELLOW LINE IS A SETBACK LINE.
UM, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, UM, OF THIS SLIDE IS A QUICK TRIP.
SO IT'S A RELATIVELY NEW QUICK TRIP.
AND THEN THE OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND OWNED BY ENDEAVOR PROPERTIES.
[00:40:01]
UH, SO WE'RE FACING THREE PRIMARY HARDSHIPS.FIRST OF WHICH IS AN EXISTING POND ON THE FRONT OF THE SITE AND A CIRCULATION ROAD, UH, WHICH RESTRICTS PARKING, UH, SPACES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THERE.
AND THEN ON THE BACK OF THE SITE WE ALSO HAVE A STEEP SLOPE THAT'S RESTRICTING PARKING.
UM, AND THEN I'D SAY THE PRIMARY HARDSHIP IS THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, WHICH IS JUST PRETTY NARROW FOR A COMMERCIAL, UH, BUILDING.
WE'RE DOING AN EFFICIENCY FLOOR PLAN FOR THE TIM HORTON'S.
IT'S ONLY 1400 SQUARE FEET AND, UH, VERSUS THEIR STANDARD 1600 SQUARE FEET FLOOR PLAN.
AND WE'RE STILL HAVING TROUBLE, UM, MAKING IT SAFE AND EFFICIENT.
SO THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE JUST RENDERINGS OF STANDARD TIM HORTON'S DEVELOPMENTS.
HERE'S THE BUILDING AND THEN HERE'S A TYPICAL SITE PLAN.
UM, SO HERE'S THE DESIGN WITHOUT ASSUMING WE DON'T GET BOARD APPROVAL TONIGHT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A 13 FOOT DRY VI.
SO THAT'S THE CODE MINIMUM, WHICH IS PRETTY TIGHT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE SEVEN PARKING SPACES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE ONSITE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES NEAR THE POND.
UM, SO WE HAVE A SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THESE PARKING SPACES, BUT AS Y'ALL KNOW, PEOPLE TYPICALLY JUST USE THE DRIVE AISLE TO ACCESS QUICKEST ROUTE TO THE RESTAURANT.
SO THEY'LL PROBABLY, THE VEHICULAR DRY AISLE WILL PROBABLY ALSO BE SHARED WITH PEDESTRIANS.
SO WE LIKE TO MAKE THAT WIDE AND JUST AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE AND ADD AS MUCH ROOM FOR ERROR AS WE CAN THERE.
UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S JUST KIND OF A LARGE UNUSED SPACE THAT WE CAN UTILIZE IN AREAS THAT MATTER MORE.
SO THIS IS THE DESIGN WITH BOARD APPROVAL.
WE HAVE SEVEN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, UM, AND WE HAVE A GENEROUS 16 AND A HALF FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE.
SO THAT'S PRETTY GOOD FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO KIND OF SHARE THAT.
UM, AND WE ALSO, THAT WOULD REDUCE THE PARKING ON THE EXISTING LOTS THAT ARE, UH, THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ACROSS THE CIRCULATION ROAD AND REDUCE THAT TRAFFIC, UH, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND THE CIRCULATION ROAD THAT'S GONNA HAVE SOME HEAVY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
UM, WE'RE ALSO STILL MAINTAINING THE INTENT OF THE CODE BY PROVIDING OVER A HUNDRED FEET OF SEPARATION DISTANCE FROM THE QUICKTRIP BUILDING AND A MINIMUM OF, UH, A LITTLE OVER 70 FEET SEPARATION DISTANCE FROM THE UNDEVELOPED LOT ONCE THAT'S DEVELOPED.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST KIND OF A SUMMARY SLIDE, UM, REITERATING THE SEPARATION DISTANCE THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING FROM THE NEIGHBORING SITES.
AND WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED SUPPORT LETTERS, UM, FROM ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION TO GETTING THIS, UH, VARIANCE APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VIOLIN.
IF QUESTION, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE IT, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA ON PALM LANE.
GIVING THAT LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA, UH, DISTANCE ON THE DRIVE THROUGH SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
SO I'M MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE 20 FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR REASONABLE ABILITY DUE TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE PROPERTY'S PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S CONSTRAINED BY ON MULTIPLE SIDES, BY A STEEP 30% SLOPE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BOUNDARY, AN EXISTING DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY POND OCCUPYING THE FRONTAGE AND AN UNUSUALLY NARROW LOT WIDTH OF APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERLY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE ADJACENT NEARBY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS POSSESSED SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER LOT WIDTHS AND THEY DO NOT HAVE DETENTION FACILITIES OCCUPYING THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL FRONTAGE AND THEY'RE NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE 30% REAL SLOPE.
AS THIS PROPERTY IS 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 REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
BECAUSE THE INTENT OF COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND ENSURE SAFETY AND ALLOW MAINTENANCE ACCESS AND PRESERVE ORDERLY DEVELOPED PATTERNS.
[00:45:01]
APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT.THAT'S IT MADAM CHAIR AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAUGHN OLAND.
SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
[7. C15-2026-0010 David Anderson for Mark A Macaulay 4219 & 4201 S 1st Street ]
SEVEN C 15 20 26 0 0 1 0.FOR MARK E MCCULLEY 4 2 1 9 AND 4 2 0 1 SOUTH FIRST STREET.
PLEASE COME UP, PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE MIC TO MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, ESTEEM BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS DAVID ANDERSON REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
I WANTED TO TALK REAL QUICKLY THIS EVENING ABOUT, UH, PROPERTY AT 42 19 SOUTH FIRST STREET.
GENERAL LOCATION IS AS SHOWN, UH, ON THE SLIDE AND A, UH, ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THE SAME.
YOU'LL NOTICE, UH, SUB SIZEABLE TREES ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE LOT AND THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS UTILITY CORRIDOR ALONG SOUTH FIRST IN THAT AREA.
HERE'S THE ZONING, UH, A QUICK ZONING MAP OF THE AREA AS WELL.
SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT IS A SERVICE STATION.
UH, IT'S THE TYPE OF SERVICE STATION THAT YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF OVER THE PAST, UH, UH, FEW YEARS.
UH, AND IT HAS HAS TO DO, UM, WITH QUEUE WITH THE NUMBER OF, UH, SERVICE PUMPS AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THOSE SERVICE PUMPS.
FROM A SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE, YOU WILL SEE THAT, UM, THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS.
THE SITE, UH, HAS REQUIRED COMPATIBILITY, SETBACKS TO THE NORTH, OR SORRY TO THE EAST NORTH IS TO THE LEFT.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO PRESERVE A HERITAGE TREE AS IS LOCATED THERE.
AND AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE, UM, UTILITY CORRIDOR THERE ALONG THE BOTTOM.
THE REQUEST THIS EVENING IS A VARIANCE FROM 25 2 8 14 3.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OR IS PROPOSING 12 VEHICLE VEHICLE Q LANES.
UH, WHEN THE CODE SAYS THAT, THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT VEHICLE Q LANES, THE Q LANES LISTED AT THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL ALLOWING UP TO 16 PUMPS REQUIRE OUTDATED FUEL DISPENSING CONFIGURATION AND WE'RE REQUESTING A SAFER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE CONFIGURATION.
HERE IS A, AN EXHIBIT A SCHEMATIC THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF QUEUE LANES.
UM, NEWER CONVENIENCE STORES DON'T USE THE INLINE APPROACH BECAUSE IT INCREASES VEHICULAR CONFLICT POINTS, WHICH DECREASES SAFE MANEUVERABILITY.
UM, THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD IS TO ENSURE SAFE CIRCULATION, SAFE VEHICLE STACKING, MINIMIZE CONFLICTS.
AND THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT MEETS THE FUNCTIONAL INTENT OF THE TCM BY PROVIDING CLEARLY DEFINED QUEUE LANES SEPARATING CIRCULATION FROM PEDESTRIAN ROUTES AND REDUCING INTERNAL INTERNAL VEHICLE CONFLICT POINTS.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE ON THE LEFT TCM COMPLIANT Q LANE CONFIGURATION, BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR VEHICULAR MANEUVERABILITY.
THERE'S MULTIPLE POINTS OF VEHICULAR, UH, VEHICULAR CONFLICT, UH, AS WE ARE PROPOSING THEM.
THERE'S ADEQUATE VEHICULAR MANEUVERABILITY, IMPROVES SAFETY, REDUCES CONFLICT POINTS.
AND IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DESIGN A BONUS TO THE WAY THAT THE SITE IS LAID OUT IS YOU'RE TAKING EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH VERY, UH, POOR PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE YOU HAVE GIANT CURB CUTS VERY LONG AND YOU'RE WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A SITE PLAN THAT ALLOWS SAFE PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE.
HERE'S A LIST OF SIMILAR PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, FIVE OF THEM.
AND HERE IS, UH, THE FOLLOWING IMAGES SHOW THE PREVALENCE OF THE PULL THROUGH FUEL DISPENSER CONFIGURATION AS
[00:50:01]
COMPARED TO THE STANDARD LISTED IN THE TCM.THESE IMAGES ARE NOT RELATED TO B-O-B-O-A CASES CITED ABOVE, BUT I WANTED YOU TO SEE THESE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MARKET SAYS TODAY.
SO IN SUMMARY, FROM A REASONABLE USE PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPOSED DESIGN REFLECTS CURRENT INDUSTRY STANDARDS ONLY INCLUDES 75% OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FUEL DISPENSERS ALLOWED AT THE SITE.
IT REDUCES INTERNAL VEHICULAR CONFLICTS, IMPROVES CIRCULATION, EFF EFFICIENCY, AND MAKES THE SITE SAFER AND ACHIEVES THE INTENT OF THE TCM.
FROM A HARDSHIP PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE LACK OF ADEQUATE LOT DEPTH FOR THE USE THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT BY THE CODE, BY THE ZONING CATEGORY.
WE HAVE A LA A LACK OF ADEQUATE LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW, UH, UM, MANEUVERABILITY, ADEQUATE MANEUVERABILITY WITHOUT THE PULL THROUGH DESIGN.
THERE IS A CODE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY BUFFER ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE.
THERE IS REQUIRED STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OF COURSE WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO SAVE THAT HERITAGE TREE AND FROM AN AIRY CHARACTER AND ADJACENT USES PERSPECTIVE, I'LL LET YOU READ THOSE.
AND WITH THAT I WILL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP AND NOPE.
WE ACTUALLY, I ACTUALLY AM HERE IN OPPOSITION.
OH, YOU ARE HERE IN OPPOSITION.
I HATE TO BE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO MY FRIEND DAVE ANDERSON.
UH, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO REOPENING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE.
LET'S REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, YOU WILL HAVE GOT THE TURNED MY PAGE FIVE MINUTES.
SO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH HESS BLACKWELL.
WE HAVE A CLIENT WHO OWNS THE TRACT OF LAND DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TRACK.
THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
HE HAD INTENDED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND HAD A FAMILY SITUATION THAT KEPT HIM FROM BEING HERE.
SO HE WROTE A NICE LETTER, WONDERFUL LETTER.
ACTUALLY, I WAS SUPER IMPRESSED AND SENT IT IN TO THE LIAISON, BUT AFTER THE DEADLINE THINKING THAT YOU ALL WOULD STILL GET IT, OBVIOUSLY YOU AREN'T GOING TO STILL GET IT BECAUSE IT WAS AFTER THE DEADLINE.
AND SO HE ASKED ME TO COME AND READ THAT LETTER INTO THE RECORD.
THE LETTER IS FROM, UH, GO NEW HOLDINGS, GUY OLIVER.
UM, DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 11 41 11 SOUTH FIRST STREET, 7 8 7 4 5, WHICH IS SITUATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF APPLICANT PROPERTY, WHICH IS AT 42 19 AND 42 0 1 FIRST SOUTH FIRST STREET.
LIKE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, I CURRENTLY OPERATE A SERVICE STATION AT MY PROPERTY AND OPERATE SEVERAL OTHER SERVICE STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I'M SO SORRY THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING TONIGHT, BUT I'M WRITING TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
UM, IN AGENDA ITEM SEVEN TO DEVIATE FROM SECTION 25 2 8 14 TO INCREASE THE VEHICLE QUEUE LANES AND FUELING POSITIONS FROM EIGHT TO 12.
ALTHOUGH I AM NOT AGAINST THERE BEING MORE LANES AT THIS LOCATION OR ANY SERVICE STATION LOCATION, THERE IS NO HARDSHIP THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW IN THIS CASE AND THE APPLICANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY FINDING THAT THEY ARE FACING A PROBLEM THAT OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED SITES DON'T ALSO FACE.
AS A RESULT, I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO WORK ON CHANGES TO CITY CODE RATHER THAN GRANTING A VARIANCE TO JUST ONE PROPERTY OWNER OR EVEN FIVE PROPERTY OWNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION.
REASONABLE USE THE EIGHT LANE MAXIMUM DOES NOT PREVENT A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT SIMPLY REQUIRES THE APPLICANT APPLICANT TO CONFIGURE ITS FACILITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERY OTHER OPERATOR IN THE CITY.
THEY COULD ACHIEVE A REASONABLE USE BY HAVING FEWER QUEUE LANES HARDSHIP, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS GRANTED THIS VARIANCE BEFORE.
THE PREFERENCE FOR A PARTICULAR LAYOUT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF UNIQUE HARDSHIP THAT WARRANTS VARIANCE RELIEF, ESPECIALLY ON A SITE THAT IS NOT EVEN DEVELOPED.
VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIRES SHOWING THAT THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT GENERALLY CHARACTERISTIC IN THE AREA WHICH IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THAT STANDARD IS NOT MET HERE.
THE APPLICANT CITES TO FIVE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE BOARD GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM THIS CODE PROVISION TO SHOW THAT THOSE SITES WERE GIVEN THE VARIANCE.
SO HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, LEGALLY THAT ARGUMENT WORKS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE REQUIRED FINDINGS BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS APPLICANT'S CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY AND SHOWS THAT RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO GRANT VARIANCES, THE CITY SHOULD
[00:55:01]
INSTEAD CONSIDER REVISING THE CODE.A HARDSHIP CANNOT BE UNIQUE TO A PROPERTY.
IF THE SAME HARDSHIP HAS BEEN CLAIMED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BY OTHER APPLICANTS, IT'S EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD IN THE CITY MAY FAVOR LARGER SERVICE STATION FORMATS, THEN THE CODE ALLOWS.
AND SO THE CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED.
AND HE WANTED ME TO ALSO POINT OUT, UM, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE MAP ON THE SCREEN.
HIS SITE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS ALSO A SERVICE STATION, ACTUALLY IS A MORE NARROW THAN THE SITE THAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOR.
AND SO AGAIN, HE OWNS MANY GAS STATION SITES ACROSS THE CITY FACES DEALING WITH OUR CODE AND HOW THOSE SITES HAVE TO BE CONFIGURED.
AND ALTHOUGH AGAIN, I HATE BEING IN OPPOSITION TO MY GOOD FRIEND DAVE ANDERSON, HE JUST DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT OR THE REASONABLE USE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT MATTER HAS BEEN MET.
IN THIS CASE, WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY, THE CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT'S AGENT TO TRY TO DO THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN PLACE IF THE CITY FEELS LIKE WE WANT THESE LARGER FACILITIES WITH MORE FUELING POSITIONS.
BUT THE LEGAL STANDARD JUST HASN'T BEEN MET IN THIS CASE.
AND SO WE ASK THE BOARD TO NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN LEAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER WITH YOU.
NO, BUT, BUT IT'S RIGHT INTO THE RECORD.
UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN COME BACK UP.
YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR A REBUTTAL.
BOARD MEMBERS DAVE ANDERSON, AGAIN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
UH, FROM A REASONABLE USE PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, A CONFIGURATION THAT IS REASONABLE, UM, FOR THE SITE.
FROM A HARDSHIP PERSPECTIVE, THE DEPTH, THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, WHILE IT MAY WORK FOR SOMEBODY NEARBY, IT DOESN'T WORK FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
HERITAGE TREE, UM, COMPATIBILITY, SETBACKS, UM, THOSE ARE REAL.
UH, AND THE UTILITY CORRIDORS ALONG THE SOUTHERN, UH, ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE, THOSE ARE REAL LIMITATIONS ON OUR SITE.
UH, AND SO WE STAND BY OUR, UM, OUR HARDSHIP ARGUMENTS.
WE STAND BY OUR REASONABLE USE ARGUMENTS.
UH, AND UM, I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT IT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL OPEN IT BACK UP TO THE BOARD.
SO IF I COULD REALLY QUICKLY, UM, I DID WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE THINGS AS A REMINDER FOR THE BOARD.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS, WE'VE HEARD A COUPLE TIMES TONIGHT, IT IS CORRECT, YOU CANNOT USE OTHER VARIANCES FOR MAKING ANY TYPE OF DECISION.
EACH PROPERTY'S HARDSHIP MUST BE UNIQUE TO THAT PROPERTY, EVEN IF IT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER PROPERTIES.
SO HAVING OTHER PROPERTIES HAVING BEEN DENIED OR GRANTED MEANS NOTHING.
EACH CASE HAS TO BE WEIGHED INDIVIDUALLY.
AND I, I DID WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT, UH, WITH THE UPCOMING CHANGE IN CHAIRS TONIGHT, I HAVE BROUGHT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWICE AND I'M GOING TO PURSUE THIS VERY DILIGENTLY OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO TO SEE IF I CAN MAYBE GET THIS, UH, ONTO A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
UH, WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE FORMER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER FOR THE CITY THAT THIS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AUSTIN'S CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, UH, BECAUSE IT CREATES ADDITIONAL IDLING AND ADDITIONAL CO2 EMISSIONS.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD MAYBE BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM, FIRSTLY, UH, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY THE VOTE, BUT I DO THINK AS LONG AS WE KEEP RUNNING INTO THIS, UNTIL WE CAN GET A CODE AMENDMENT PASSED THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER THE HARDSHIPS OF, OF THE PROPERTY WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING THIS.
AND I SAW I HAD A QUESTION FROM BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN AND THEN BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, I'LL GET TO YOU NEXT.
MADAM CHAIR, I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT.
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO UPDATE THE TCM MANUAL FOR THE PAST 10, 15 YEARS.
THIS IN, UH, SO THIS CASE REALLY, UH, I I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
I DO AGREE THAT HE DOES HAVE, UH, CONSTRAINTS DUE TO A HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND THE, THE HERITAGE TREE.
BUT THE, THE POINT IS THAT, UH, WE WERE, WE HAVE PASSED THESE IN THE PAST SIMPLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE MORE Q UH, ISLANDS ARE MORE PUMPS
[01:00:01]
ON THE, ON THERE, PEOPLE AREN'T LINED UP, THEY DON'T LINE UP INTO TRAFFIC, WHICH SOUTH FIRST IS A HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDOR.THEY DON'T GET BACK TO BACK ON EACH OTHER.
THEY'RE NOT SITTING THERE IDLING.
AND AGAIN, IT, IT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, COMPONENT OF THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED FOR US TO, UH, WHERE IT'S ALLOWABLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE QUEUES SO PEOPLE CAN GET UP THERE AND GAS AND NOT SIT IN THEIR CAR AND JUST IDLE LIKE THEY DO AT COSTCO OR SAM'S.
YOU KNOW, I GO TO SAM'S AND FILL UP AND I'M SITTING THERE, YOU KNOW, I'LL CUT OFF MY CAR, BUT EVERYBODY'S SITTING THERE IDLING.
SO THE ADDITIONAL, THE, AND, UH, PASSING THEM IN THE PAST, THAT IS WHAT WE HAD BASED IT UPON.
WE HAD BASED IT UPON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ALSO A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP.
AND, UH, IT, AND THE, THE ISSUE ABOUT THE TCM MANUAL WHERE, UH, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE IN NICOLE, BUT I MEAN THE, THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE CODE.
AND WE'VE TRIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGH MULTIPLE CHAIRS.
MADAM CHAIR, I APPRECIATE YOU GOING AGAIN.
BUT I MEAN, MULTIPLE CHAIRS HAVE GONE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO TRY TO GET THIS CHANGED.
AND EVEN THE, UH, TRAFFIC, UH, DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO CONCURRED WITH US THAT HAVING ADDITIONAL PUMPS LESSENS THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND IS A SAFER SITUATION.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WHEN I, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGAIN.
I'M GLAD YOU DIDN'T PUT THE DATES ON THOSE, BUT, UM, 'CAUSE I'VE RECOGNIZED A COUPLE OF 'EM FROM MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
UM, BUT, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AGAIN, BUT THAT IS WHERE MY MOTION IS COMING FROM.
I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM AN OUTDATED TCM MANUAL THAT HAS THE OLD CONFIGURATION, THE TRAFFIC CONTROL DIVISION THAT, UH, HAS ALSO SUPPORTED ADDITIONAL PUMPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AS WELL AS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ON SOUTH FIFTH STREET.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD MEMBER, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.
UM, I ACTUALLY, THE, SOMETHING CAUGHT ME, UH, ON THIS HERITAGE TREE AND THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WILL TRY TO SAVE THAT TREE.
AND I, UH, TRYING TO MAKE SURE WHAT IS THEIR, WHAT IS THEIR INTENT BASED ON THE FACT THAT WHEN THEY SAID THEY WOULD TRY VERSUS, IT'S SHOWN AS ONE OF THE ISSUES OF, OF HAVING TO DEAL WITH, UH, ACTUALLY DEALING WITH THAT HERITAGE TREE THAT'S THERE.
SO, UM, I DON'T, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THEM AS TO WHAT THEY'RE COMING UP.
I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR, I, I'M, SEE, I'M HEARING DOUBTS NOW THAT, THAT I MISSPOKE.
UH, THAT HERITAGE TREE WILL BE PRESERVED.
I'M SORRY IF I USED THE WRONG WORDS.
NO, I'M, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
I THINK, UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU JUST YET.
I DON'T THINK, UM, I NEED TO TALK FIRST.
UM, BUT, UH, I THINK WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT WAS JUST THAT HE'S WORKING REALLY HARD TO PRESERVE THE, I THINK HE WAS JUST SAYING THEY'RE WORKING REALLY HARD TO WORK AROUND THE DRINK ANYWAY.
A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID ADDITIONAL PUMPS.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL PUMPS, IT'S JUST ADDITIONAL LANES FOR THE SAME NUMBER OF PUMPS.
INSTEAD OF HAVING THE DOUBLE QUEUE WHERE EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET AROUND EACH OTHER, THEY'RE DOING LIKE THE SINGLE SLOT.
THAT'S WHERE YOU COME IN AND HE'S ACTUALLY GOT LESS PUMPS THAN CODE ALLOWS.
BUT THEN A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID ADDITIONAL PUMPS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.
IT'S NOT ABOUT, IT'S SET UP TWO LANES WITH LIKE PUMP, PUMP, PUMP, IT'S LANE PUMP, BOTH SIDES LANES.
BUT THEN I DON'T, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THEN THE IDLING THING.
LIKE, BECAUSE IF IT'S THE SAME NUMBER OF PUMPS, OKAY, IF THE PUMPS ARE BEING USED, YOU'RE GONNA BE IDLING AND WAITING.
SO LET'S SAY, UH, LIKE THE SHELL BY MY HOUSE IS OLD SCHOOL, RIGHT? AND IT HAS TWO ROWS WITH TWO LANES AND YOU DRIVE IN AND IF YOU DON'T PULL ALL THE WAY FORWARD TO THE VERY FRONT, YOU STOP IN THE MIDDLE OR IN THE BACK, THE CAR'S GETTING STUCK IN THE BACK.
NOW I'M STUCK BEHIND YOU WAITING.
WHEREAS IF YOU HAVE THIS STYLE OF LANE Q, THERE IS ONLY ONE CAR PERIOD NO MATTER WHAT.
AND AS SOON AS THEY'RE DONE, THEY'RE GONE.
SO IF THE, IF THE WHOLE THING IS FULL, YEAH, YOU'LL STILL HAVE IDLING AND YOU PREVENT THAT LIKE RIGHT.
YEAH, THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
ANYTHING DISCUSSION QUESTIONS?
[01:05:04]
UH, REASONABLE USE? NO, HANG ON ONE SEC.MY MIND DID THE THING, I I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.
MAYBE THIS FOR LEGAL, UM, THESE OR MAYBE FOR OR MORE SENIOR, UM, BOARD MEMBERS.
HE DIDN'T SAY OLD, HE SAID SENIOR.
BE NICE, YOUNG AND YOUTHFUL, UM, BOARD MEMBERS.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS THESE, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, CAN WE BRING THESE UP OR IS THIS SOME, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE UP INTO OUR CONSIDERATION ABOUT? OKAY.
SO THAT, THAT HAVEN'T BEEN, HERE'S THE THING, RIGHT.
EVEN CODED YET EITHER TOO, RIGHT? TECHNICALLY, LEGALLY, NO.
THE, THE, THE STATE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER A HARDSHIP.
UM, AND THAT THAT SHOULD BE WHAT THEY HAVE SPELLED OUT, UH, IN THEIR APPLICATION.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD WHERE JUDGE NOT BLACK AND WHITE LIKE AN ATTORNEY, THERE IS ROOM FOR INTERPRETING THE INTENT BEHIND WHAT THE CITY WANTS IN THE CITY'S PLANS FOR ITS, UH, ITS RESIDENTS.
SO I THINK IT CAN'T BE THE SOLE DEC DECIDE LIKE DECIDING FACTOR FOR, FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, BUT IT CAN INFLUENCE IT.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO SAY IT.
LIKE THEY, THEY STILL NEED TO HAVE A HARDSHIP, SO IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE, UH, THAT IT'S HARDSHIP ENOUGH TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
I, I ACTUALLY ALSO THINK THAT THAT'S A DOUBLE-EDGED ARGUMENT ABOUT, I BLAME BECAUSE WHEN YOU, I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE THE LI LIKE THE LITTLE SHELL STATION.
I HAVE ONE KIND OF THAT I GO TO IS THAT THE ONE WITH THE FULL SERVICE STILL HAS THE FULL SERVICE? UH, WELL THAT ONE AND THEN ANOTHER ONE.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHEN YOU HAVE THE DOUBLE LOADED PUMPS LIKE THAT, THERE'S ALWAYS THIS CONFUSION.
AND WHEN, LIKE, I HAVE ONE ON SOUTH OF BARN AND I HAVE ANOTHER ONE, I GO ON BEE CAVES AND YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GETTING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND YOU'RE HAVING THIS FUNCTIONING CONVENIENCE STORE AND YOU TEND TO SIT IN IDLE WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T PULL ALL THE WAY UP OR WHEN ALL THE PUMPS ARE FULL OR, AND THEN IF YOU'RE ON A BUSY STREET LIKE SOUTH LAMAR, WHICH SOUTH FIRST NEAR BEN WHITE AT RAT IS PRETTY BUSY.
UM, AND YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE ON SITE TO CONTAIN VEHICLES THAT ARE TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGHOUT, IT JUST CREATES A DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC IN GENERAL.
SO YOU HAVE KIND OF LIKE THE DOUBLE-EDGED ENVIRONMENTAL, MORE QUEUE, MORE IDLE, BUT MAYBE LESS IDLE BECAUSE IT'S MORE EFFICIENT.
SO IT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A DOUBLE-EDGED ONE FOR ME.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE CITY SHOULD FIND A WAY TO COME UP WITH MONEY FOR TAX INCENTIVES TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO BUY AN ELECTRONIC VEHICLE AND CHARGE AT HOME.
AND WHEN THE GRID FAILS AGAIN AND NOBODY ELSE HAS POWER OR WATER, THEN YOU CAN USE YOUR CAR TO RUN YOUR HOUSE.
UH, YOU KNOW, YEAH, LET'S JUST BOARD MEMBER BOEING LEAVE IT.
UM, BECAUSE I FREQUENT THAT AREA FREQUENTLY.
I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ISSUES RIGHT THERE AT THAT, UH, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE FIRE STATION, WHICH HAS A, AN AREA THAT THEY CAN'T PARK IN FRONT OF TRAFFIC IS AT RA GETS TO BE BACKED UP FROM THE, THE STOP OR THE RED LIGHT THERE TOO.
I MEAN, I HAVE SOME, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS OVER THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE ISSUE HERE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA WITH A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS, AMBULANCES, FIRES, FIRE TRUCKS.
UM, 'CAUSE I DO, I DO FREQUENT THAT AREA QUITE A BIT, AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK.
UM, SO I, I'M, I'M KIND OF TOSSED, BUT THEN AGAIN, IT MEETS WITH WHATEVER THE, THE KIND OF, THE CRITERIA IS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SO, BUT, UH, I DO, I DO ADMIT THAT THAT IS A VERY HEAVILY TRAFFICKED AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FIRE TRUCKS AND THE AMBULANCES THAT GO IN AND OUT GOING INTO, UH, THE HOSPITAL AND FROM THE, UH, FIRE STATION RIGHT THERE TOO.
UH, BOARD, BOARD MEMBER STAN, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IN THE, IN THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, UM, THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT THE LIMITED LOT DEPTH PREVENTS THE CODE REQUIRED DOUBLE STAT CONFIGURATION.
[01:10:01]
UM, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENTATION YOU ACTUALLY SHOWED A DOUBLE STAT CONFIGURATION.LIKE, CAN YOU GIVE US A BETTER SENSE OF IF YOU WERE TO DO THE DOUBLE STACK CONFIGURATION, HOW TIGHT WOULD IT ACTUALLY BE? YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT ARE WE, LIKE THE CAR ISN'T EVEN GONNA FIT THROUGH, OR IS IT LIKE IT'S ONE CAR WIDTH THAT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE COLOR AS TO LIKE, WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT IF WE DID THE, THE STANDARD CODE? UH, CODE DESIGN, THANK YOU.
I THINK, UM, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY IS WHILE PHYSICALLY IT COULD FIT THE SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS, THE REASONABLE SAFETY, UH, THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS FOR A, A SAFE MANEUVERABILITY WOULD, WOULD NOT, WOULD NO LONGER BE THERE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF THE HERITAGE TREE WITH THE, WITH THE, THE 20 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, UM, THAT SHRINKS THAT, UM, THAT LOT WIDTH SUCH THAT, UM, THE COMBINATION OF PULLING THROUGH, PULLING INTO, PULLING THROUGH, GOING TO THE CONVENIENCE STORE, UM, JUST CREATES A RECIPE FOR CONFLICT.
UH, IF YOU THINK ABOUT, UH, WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING YOUR CAR AND GETTING GAS AND THERE'S FOLKS WALKING TO A CONVENIENCE STORE AND WALKING FROM A PUMP TO THROW SOMETHING AWAY, IT'S A VERY UNSAFE, UM, KIND OF SITUATION.
BOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, YEAH, NO, YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THE TABLE.
PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
UH, I'M ACTUALLY WITH QUICKTRIP CORPORATION, UH, AS PART OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PULL UP THAT SLIDE? YES.
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE THE, THE ONE THAT THE BOARD MEMBER WAS QUESTIONING OR HAD A QUESTION ABOUT? IT'S I THINK PAGE NINE, THAT SLIDE, THE REAL SLIDE NINE.
THE REAL ISSUE IS YOU END UP WITH QUEUING ON SOUTH FIRST STREET BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA, SO, SO THE EXAMPLE SET HERE, UH, ON THE RIGHT IS OUR PROPOSAL ON THE LEFT WOULD BE THE QUOTE UNQUOTE, UH, COMPLIANT VERSION.
YOU CAN SEE THE RED HATCHING, THAT WOULD BE THE EFFECTIVE DRIVE AISLE WHERE YOU HAVE TWO-WAY TRAFFIC AS WELL AS TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THE PUMPS, OUT OF THE QUEUE LANES.
THE, THE SITE PLAN DEPICTION ON THE LEFT REDUCES THAT DRIVE VILE BY MORE THAN HALF.
SO YOU EFFECTIVELY HAVE A ONE-WAY TRAFFIC, UH, THAT WOULD THEN ALSO BE CONFLICTING WITH VEHICLES TRYING TO EXIT THE FUELING CANOPY.
SO IT'S, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THAT REDS AND BASICALLY I'M JUST HAVING A, JUST HAVING LIKE A DIMENSIONS PROBLEM.
SO LIKE, IS IT, IS IT LIKE A CAR, LIKE A CAR WIDTH ESSENTIALLY, OR TWO CAR? I, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
BUT, BUT THE, THE RED HATCHING AREAS, WHICH WOULD BE THE DRIVE ISLES IN BETWEEN, UH, THE CANOPY WOULD BE ROUGHLY ONE WAY TRAFFIC.
SO 12 TO 15 FEET WITH, ON WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS MORE LIKE 30 FEET.
PLUS YOU HAVE THE, THE PEOPLE PULLING THROUGH OUT OF CORRECT.
AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE BACKING OUT FROM BEING PARKED AT THE, THE CONVENIENCE.
VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HOR.
SO IF YOU COULD READ THE FINDINGS, PLEASE.
REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE.
REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE REASONABLE USE BECAUSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE Q LANE CONFIGURATION ILLUSTRATED IN THE TCM WOULD PREVENT THE SITE FROM FUNCTIONING SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY AS INTENDED.
THE TCM ILLUSTRATION DEPICTS CONFIGURATION THAT DOES NOT REFLECT MODERN FUELING OPERATIONS AND WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED VEHICULAR CONFLICT POINTS, REDUCING REDUCED MANEUVERABILITY AND REDUCED VISIBILITY.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VA VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.
AND TO THAT, THIS PROPERTY IS A SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS DUE TO CONFIGURATION, INCLUDING LOT, UH, LIMITED LOT DEPTH THAT PREVENTS CODE REQUIRED DOUBLE STACK CONFIGURATION, LIMITED LOT WIDTH, WHICH LIMITS SAFE MANEUVERABILITY AND, UH, REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE AND REQUIRED STORM WATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG THE WEST.
THE HARDSHIP HERITAGE TREE OH, AND THE HERITAGE TREE, WHICH HE'S GONNA KEEP THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE COMBINATION OF SITE CONSTRAINTS UNIQUELY LIMITS THE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ON THIS PROPERTY 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 REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
BECAUSE THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS ARE COMMERCIAL,
[01:15:01]
THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION WILL IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND VEH VEHICULAR SAFETY BY REDUCING CURB CUTS AND ADDING SIDEWALKS.THAT'S IT, MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT.
CAN WE FRIENDLY CONDITION, UH, PUTTING, KEEPING THE HERITAGE TREE IN THE CONDITION AS MOTION APPROVE? YES.
AND IT WILL BE CONDITIONED ON PRESERVING A HERITAGE TREE.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION OF KEEPING THE HERITAGE TREE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER BY NOLAN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
MIGHT WE, MIGHT WE BREAK BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE NEXT CASE? UH, I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT.
SO HERE, HERE'S WHAT I WAS GONNA PROPOSE.
UM, AS A REMINDER, EVERYONE FOR ITEM EIGHT, WHICH
[8. C15-2026-0005 Peter Journeay-Kaler – Appellant JBD CR Holding, LLC (Leonid Murashkovskiy - Owner 205 E 34th Street (Part 1 of 2)]
WE'LL BE HEARING NEXT, THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION CASE.SO THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS.
WE FIRST HAVE TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER WHETHER WE DO RECONSIDER OR NOT RECONSIDER.
UM, WE CAN EITHER TAKE A SHORT RECESS NOW AND TAKE BOTH OF THOSE AT ONCE, THE VOTE TO RECONSIDER OR NOT, AND THEN HEARING THE CASE IF WE DO, OR WE CAN VOTE NOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE PICK UP THE RECONSIDERATION.
AND IF WE DO, THEN TAKE A SHORT RECESS BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A LONG ONE.
IF WE DO SO, WE CAN MAKE, YOU'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE CASE.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE'LL TAKE A BREAK.
WE'LL TAKE A BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL ACTUALLY HEAR THE CASE.
WE WON'T BE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS WE RECONSIDER THE CASE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO RE RECONSIDER.
SO BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I DO NEED TO ALLOW ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO SPEAK ABOUT THE CASE, UH, MR. PORTEE.
SO IN REGARDS TO THE RECONSIDERATION, I HAVE A BRIEF STATEMENT.
UM, I LIVE IN THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD AND I ATTENDED ONE OF THE REGULAR NORTH LOOP PLANNING CONTACT MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 11TH.
THE APPELLANT GAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION THAT COVERED THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE.
I DID NOT TAKE PART IN THE BRIEF DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED, AND I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN WITH THE APPELLANT OUTSIDE OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
THE NORTH LOOP PLANNING CONTACT TEAM DID NOT TAKE A VOTE OR ACT ON THE MATTER.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOARD MEMBER POTI? OKAY, SO THE NEXT CASE WILL BE ITEM EIGHT C 15 20 26 0 0 5.
WE ARE FIRST GOING TO TAKE A VOTE WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER THE CASE OR NOT.
TOMMY AND TOMMY'S GOT A QUESTION.
UH, ON THIS CASE, UM, I BELIEVE I'M GONNA HAVE TO RECUSE, UM, MY, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, THEY TOOK A POSITION ON IT AND I, UM, AND I JUST REMEMBERED THAT.
SO I, I THINK I NEED TO RECUSE, UH, UH, RECUSE OR ABSTAIN.
IS THERE A FINANCIAL TYPE? NO, WHITE FINANCIAL TYPE.
SO, UM, YEAH, RECUSE AND I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, UM, PARTICIPATE IN THE, THE LETTER THAT THEY SENT, BUT, UM, OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I, I THINK I SHOULD JUST RECUSE.
DOES THAT NEED TO BE A, A LEGAL RECUSAL ATTORNEY, LOPEZ, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? THAT WOULD BE AN ABSTENTION, SO IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE UNDERLYING VOTE COUNT.
UH, SO IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED, I THINK, YEAH, I MOVED MOTION TO, I THINK I, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER SECOND.
WAS THAT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? OKAY.
BUT I BELIEVE, UH, BOARD, BOARD MEMBER HAD HIS HAND UP AS WELL.
MY QUESTION WAS JUST FOR THE RECONSIDERATION, HOW MANY VOTES, UM, DOES IT TAKE TO, TO RECONSIDER? MAJORITY.
SO THIS IS WHY, UM, WHETHER OR NOT BOARD MEMBER RATES, UM, RECUSED OR ABSTAIN.
SO THAT WOULD AFFECT HOW MANY THAT IS THAT I, I SUPPOSE DON'T
[01:20:01]
GIMME THE LINE.RECONSIDERATIONS, MAJORITY, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO GET THE RECONSIDERATION, WHICH IS WHY IF WE GET THERE, WE'LL DO THAT FIRST AND THEN TAKE A SHORT BREAK.
I HAD A LEGAL QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
IS THE RECONSIDERATION, IS THAT LIKE, IS THAT STANDARD ANY DIFFERENT TO RECONSIDER? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS LIKE A CINTEL OF EVIDENCE TO UPHOLD, OR, OR IS IT JUST THAT THERE'S, IS IT DE NOVO KIND OF, YOU BELIEVE THERE'S NEW EVIDENCE? OKAY, THAT'S A NEW EVIDENCE.
SORRY, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
SO, UM, I WOULD POINT TO THE, UH, RECONSIDERATION, UM, SECTION IN YOUR RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT TALKS ABOUT THE STANDARD.
SO, UM, UH, BASICALLY A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, UM, WILL BE FILED IN WRITING AND THEY WOULD MUST STATE HOW THE BOARD AIRED IN ITS DETERMINATION STATE, WHY THE ACTION SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED, AND THEN BE SUPPORTED BY EITHER NEW OR CLARIFIED EVIDENCE.
AND THEN YOU GUYS, UM, MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD, THE WRITTEN RECORD, UM, TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO RECONSIDER THE CASE.
AND THEN, UM, ONCE, IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO RECONSIDER THE CASE, THEN THE PREVIOUS CASE IS WIPED CLEAN, AND THEN YOU WOULD HEAR THE CASE AGAIN AS IF IT WAS NEW.
AND THE ORIGINAL STANDARD OF, AND THIS, SINCE THIS IS AN INTERPRETIVE APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION, IT WOULD BE NINE VOTES THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO OVERTURN CITY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE ALSO YOUR OWN, UH, CLARIFICATION OF CODE AND CASE LAW AND LEGAL.
ARE YOU REFERENCING THE ITEM THAT A NUMBER NINE THAT IS POSTED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? UH, YES, YES.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, I, I THINK THAT THE NEW EVIDENCE, UM, RIGHT NOW THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO WHETHER TO RECONSIDER THE CASE, UM, BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO, UH, TO THE BOARD.
UM, AND THEN IF THE BOARD, UH, INTENDS TO RECONSIDER THE CASE, UM, AND THE BOARD DECIDES TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ASK ME LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE, UM, IN A CLOSED SESSION THAT THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T HEAR.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN AND VICE CHAIR.
DID I SEE YOU SECONDED IT? OKAY.
AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THIS FIRST, UH, BOARD MEMBER EATS WILL BE ABSTAINING.
SO WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THIS.
WE WILL BE CON RECONSIDERING THE CASE.
UH, THE TIME IS 7:07 PM WE ARE GOING TO RECESS UNTIL 7:17 PM 7:20 PM I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BACK TO ORDER INTO THE GENERAL SESSION.
I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR CITY LEGAL AND I WAS, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE TAKE INTO, UH, OR WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THIS FIRST.
SO I'M GOING TO TAKE, UH, THE PRIVILEGE OF THE CHAIR AND MOVE ITEM NINE UP ONE TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE ITEM EIGHT.
ITEM NINE IS, UH, DISCUSS THE REQUEST TO RECONSIDER CASE NUMBER C 15 2 2 6 0 3 5 AND THE APPEAL BY PETER JORDAN KALER, THE APPELLANT AND OTHER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL WHERE THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING THE APPROVAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND RELATED
[01:25:01]
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.NUMBER THREE, UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.071 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.THE BOARD WILL DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, DISCUSS THE REQUEST TO RECONSIDER CASE NUMBER C 15 20 26 0 5, AND THE APPEAL BY PETER J. TAYLOR AND OTHER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL WHERE THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING THE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 2025 DASH 1 4 0 2 0 1 PR AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE AT 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 5, WHICH IS OWNED BY JBD CR HOLDING LLC.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION ON THE ITEM ANNOUNCED IS THAT ITEM ITEM NUMBER NINE IS FOR THE CLOSE HEARING NONE, THE BOARD WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS NOW 7:23 PM MY VIRTUAL MEMBERS TO COME BACK ON, PLEASE.
OKAY, WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS 8:40 PM ENCLO SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM NINE, DISCUSS THE REQUEST TO RECONSIDER CASE NUMBER C 15 20 26 0 0 0 5, AND THE APPEAL BY PETER J. TAYLOR APPELLANT AND OTHER LEGAL QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL WHERE THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING THE APPROVAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT 20 25 1 4 0 2 0 1 PR AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE AT 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 5, WHICH IS OWNED BY JBD CR HOLDING LLC.
[8. C15-2026-0005 Peter Journeay-Kaler – Appellant JBD CR Holding, LLC (Leonid Murashkovskiy - Owner 205 E 34th Street (Part 2 of 2)]
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT ON TODAY'S AGENDA.BOARD MEMBERS, OH, I DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS PART BECAUSE WE ALREADY MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
SO WE VOTED TO RECONSIDER IF I COULD GET THE CITY STAFF TO COME UP.
WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO A RECONSIDERATION OF CASE C 15 20 26 0 0 5.
PETER KEELER IS THE APPELLANT G-B-D-C-R HOLDING, LLC LEON NED MASH.
KOKI IS THE OWNER, 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET, STARTING WITH REPORT FROM CITY STAFF, UM, BRENT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UM, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE PARTICIPATED IN A, UM, A RECONSIDERATION THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN, UH, A CASE THAT'S BEEN OPENED UP.
AND SO RATHER THAN, UM, ENTERTAIN YOU WITH A POWERPOINT FROM ONE OF THE PRIOR SESSIONS, I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THE HIGH, HIGH POINTS OF OUR STAFF REPORT THAT WE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 2ND.
THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN, I THINK, WELL VETTED IN PRIOR, UH, IN THE PRIOR MEETINGS ON THIS CASE.
UH, BUT I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY IT COMES DOWN TO THE MAIN ISSUE BEING THE POINT, THE FAR LIMITS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO A THREE UNIT USE.
UM, IT IS THE APPELLANT'S POSITION AND OF COURSE THEY'RE HERE TO MAKE THEIR CASE THAT, UH, THE 0.4 FAR LIMIT THAT'S STATED IN THE NCCD FOR DUPLEX USES SHOULD APPLY.
OR ALTERNATIVELY, UH, THE 0.5 FAR LIMIT, UM, FOR MULTI-FAMILY USAGE SHOULD APPLY.
[01:30:01]
POSITION THAT THREE UNIT USES ARE NOT SPOKEN TO IN THE NCCD.THEREFORE, WE DEFAULT TO THE CITY CODE.
AND THE CITY CODE IS THE HOME ORDINANCE AS CODIFIED IN 25 2 7 73.
THAT PROVIDES FOR THREE UNIT USES THAT ARE A, THAT ARE 0.65.
I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT THE CITY STAFF TAKE GREAT CARE IN APPLYING THE NCCS.
WE, UM, WHEN THE NCCS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE CODE, WHEN THE CODE DOES NOT PROVIDE CONTRARY DIRECTION TO THE NCC DS, WE DEFINITELY APPLY THE NCC DS.
THE NCC DS IS, I THINK ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SAID THE LAST HEARING ARE MORE SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE NCC D THAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS A GENERAL ENACTMENT.
THE NCC DS ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO PARTICULAR DISTRICTS AND IN SOME CASES, PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS SETBACK AVERAGING PROVISIONS OF THE NCC DS.
WE APPLY THOSE, UM, TO USES THAT ARE COVERED BY IT.
WE ALSO, UM, IF A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE, UH, WHICH IS REGULATED BY THIS NCCD, IF THOSE COME IN FOR REVIEW, WE APPLY THE NCCD REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE THE NCCD IS THE MORE SPECIFIC ENACTMENT.
SO THE CITY STAFF DOES VERY CAREFULLY APPLY THE NCC DS, BUT IN THIS CASE, THREE UNIT USES ARE NOT ADDRESSED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE, BY THE NCCD.
SO WE APPLY THE CITY CODE PROVISIONS, AND THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF HOW WE INTERPRET CCDS AND SIMILAR ENACTMENTS WE HAVE, THE CITY HAS A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ORDINANCES AND OTHER SPECIALIZED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS THAT APPLY TO PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIES.
AND SO HAVING TO SORT OUT WHAT CONTROLS OVER WHAT AND HOW THEY RELATE AND HOW THEY SPEAK TO EACH OTHER IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON THE DAILY.
THEY, THEY HAVE MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES IN HOW THEY'RE WORDED ACROSS THE DIFFERENT, UH, THE DIFFERENT ONES.
UM, BUT WHAT I'VE SAID, UM, AS FAR AS THE FAR IS, IS SPECIFIC, IS APPLICABLE TO HOW WE INTERPRET THIS.
A SEPARATE ISSUE WAS RAISED REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, UM, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BEDROOM COUNT EXCEEDS A LIMIT FOR, UH, IS INTER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE REVIEW.
WE WENT THROUGH IN OUR STAFF REPORT HOW THE CITY APPLIED THAT REQUIREMENT.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO, THIS WAS NOT IN MY STAFF REPORT, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO A SPRINKLER REQUIRED.
UM, AND IT'S OUR POSITION AND THAT THAT IS NOT A ZONING QUESTION, THAT'S A TECHNICAL CODE QUESTION.
AND SO WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD NOT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, BUT WE CERTAINLY PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION FOR OUR POSITION.
UM, SIMILARLY, SAME, SAME BASIC STATEMENT FOR THE FIRE CODE ISSUES.
WE ALSO DID ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN OUR STAFF REPORT AND WILL BE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING THAT I'VE SAID.
AND THEN APPLICATION COMPLETENESS, UM, SIMILARLY THAT IS A ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, PROCESSING REQUIREMENT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING REGULATION.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S, UM, IT'S A ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND IT'S OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED EXACTLY WHAT STAFF NEEDED TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THEIR APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH CODE.
UM, THE CODE ITSELF SAYS THAT STAFF, THE DIRECTOR, CAN ALLOW OMISSION OF GENERALLY REQUIRED MATERIALS FROM APPLICATIONS IF IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THE APPLICATION, UH, TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION.
UM, AND STAFF, UH, IS CONFIDENT THAT WE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT WE OBTAINED THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS IN SOME, SOME INSTANCES TO ASSESS WHETHER IT COMPLIES.
UM, SO I THINK THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPEAL.
WE, OF COURSE, ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION, AND WITH ME TONIGHT IS, UM, LINDY GARWOOD AS WELL AS LEAH HILTON, WHO IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY.
AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING, UH, THE MATTER BEFORE YOU, AS WELL AS THE CITY'S REVIEW PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO NCCD OR OTHER PRO OR PROJECTS COMING IN UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE.
AND, UH, I'M GLAD YOU'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR MY LAST NIGHT AS CHAIR.
[01:35:02]
OKAY.NEXT WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THEIR LEAD REPRESENTATIVE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME LIMIT OF 10 MINUTES WITH NO DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED.
I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT, UM, BEFORE YOU GUYS WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THAT, I WOULD NEED TO, UM, ABSTAIN ON YEAH.
UH, THIS ITEM DUE TO, UM, MY INVOLVEMENT WITH, UM, FRIENDS OF HYDE PARK AND NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION ON THE BOARD, AND THEY TOOK A POSITION.
SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO, UH, STEP AWAY AND I WILL COME BACK AFTER, UH, THE BOARD HAS MADE, UH, TECHNICATION.
I BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM, WHICH WAS ELECTIONS.
UH, DO YOU WANNA, DO YOU WANNA DO THAT FIRST? SO DO YOU WANNA ACTUALLY DO THAT? WE'VE, WE GOT REPORT FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
WE'VE GOT THE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT OFFICER ELECTIONS, UH, APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO BOA RULES, PROCEDURES FOR TIME LIMITS FOR REGISTERED SPEAKERS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM A DISTRICT COURT RULING AND THEN DISCUSSION ON THE APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ON THE AGENDA IN ADVANCE WITH SPECIFICS.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF SO TOMMY COULD FADE AWAY.
HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE END.
I THEN COME BACK IF, IF HE'S GONNA WELL WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ALREADY INTO IT.
I WAS ABOUT TO SAY LET'S, SORRY, TOMMY, KEEP SEE YOU LATER.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THEIR LEAD REPRESENTATIVE WITH A TIME LIMIT OF 10 MINUTES, NO DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED.
CAN I GET IT SET TO 10 MINUTES ON HERE? THANK YOU.
OH, THEY PUT 'EM OUT THERE FOR US NOW.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT, UM, IN THIS CASE THAT YOU'VE SEEN SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE.
I THINK THE GOOD NEWS FOR DENIED IS THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN REALLY NARROWED DOWN TO, UH, REALLY THE ZONING INTERPRETATION, UH, ISSUES THAT ARE IN DISPUTE.
UM, AGAIN, THE, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AREA NCCD IS A ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT WAS A ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, PROTECT, UH, INTENDED TO PROTECT THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE THREE ISSUES THAT WE WANT YOUR ATTENTION ON TONIGHT.
UH, ONE OF 'EM THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED AT THE LAST TIME, IT IS A PROVISION THAT ORIENTS THE FRONT OF A BUILDING TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
UM, THE SECOND ONE IS RELATES TO THE FAR 0.4 FAR.
THAT IS CLEARLY WITHIN PART SEVEN OF THE NCCD ORDINANCE.
UM, THERE WAS INDICATION LAST TIME, UH, THAT PART FIVE LANGUAGE IS RELEVANT INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS 0.4 STANDARD.
I'M GONNA GO INTO THAT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF, I WANNA REALLY HIGHLIGHT THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT PART SEVEN OF THE NCCD ORDINANCE.
AND THEN THE, THE LAST PROVISION, UM, THAT WE'RE GONNA GO INTO HAS TO DO WITH LARGELY THE ZONING USE.
SO WHEN THIS SITE, WHEN THIS BUILDING PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU, IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH 12, UH, IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH 12 BEDROOMS. IT DID NOT GET REVIEWED WITH 12 BEDROOMS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONGREGATE LIVING USE UNDER THE ZONING CODE.
WHEN THEY'VE, UH, MODIFIED THE SITE, THEY MODIFIED THE BEDROOMS TO KEEP IT THEORETICALLY UNDER A FIVE BEDROOM THRESHOLD.
BUT AS WE LOOK AT THE SITE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE STILL REMAINS MUCH MORE THAN FIVE BEDROOMS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE AKIN TO A CONGREGATE LIVING USE, UM, UNDER THE ZONING CODE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SF THREE ZONING OR THE NCCD.
SO THE FIRST ISSUE THAT I MENTIONED WAS, UM, THE BUILDING ORIENTATION.
IF YOU LOOK AT PART THREE OF THE NCCD, IT DEFINES THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AS THE SIDE OF A BUILDING THAT INCLUDES THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
THE PART SIX OF THE NCCD REQUIRES THAT A BUILDING SHALL FRONT ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT DEFINED AS THE STREET FRONTAGE.
UM, THE, THE BUILDING IN THE BACK, THE ONE THAT YOU REVIEWED LAST TIME AS, AS ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER DUPLEX OF A FOURPLEX ON THE LOT, UM, THAT HAS NOW BEEN TURNED INTO THE CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY THAT IS FACING THE ALLEY.
AND IT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CCDS PROVISIONS FOR THE FRONT FACING OF THE BUILDING.
THE, UM, THE MEAT OF THE APPEAL, UH, IS THE, IS THE FAR LIMIT THAT YOU WILL FIND UNDER
[01:40:01]
PART SEVEN OF THE NCC D CODE.AGAIN, THE NCCD IS A COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCE.
IT GOVERNS DEVELOPMENT IN THE, IN THE NUNA AREA.
UH, IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL AREA OF THE CITY, SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD, UH, BE OF A PRECEDENT TO THE REST OF THE CITY.
UM, WHEN THIS CASE WAS DEC UH, CITED LAST TIME, UM, THE PART FIVE OF THE ORDINANCE WAS READ, AND I WANNA JUST BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT THAT LANGUAGE SAYS.
IT SAYS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, WHICH IS REFERRING TO PART FIVE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE.
THAT PART IS REFERRING TO WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED IN THE CODE.
IT'S ONLY WHEN YOU GET OVER TO PART SEVEN OF THE ORDINANCE WHERE YOU FIND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND THE INTENT OF THE NCCD IS TO PROTECT THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE ESTABLISHED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SOME OF THE OLDER MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES WERE BUILT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING, ORIENTATION, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATION.
AND THEN UNDER THAT, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE TABLE SEVEN CHART, AND YOU HAVE THE SF TWO AND SF THREE ZONING CATEGORIES, WHICH ARE, UH, HAVE THE FAR 0.4 UNDER THAT, AND THEN THE REMAINING ZONING CATEGORIES.
THE LARGEST YOU GET IS TO 0.5.
SO ANYWHERE FROM A SINGLE, UH, UH, A TRIPLEX UNDER SF ZONING OR A 100 UNIT BUILDING WOULD ALL BE SUBJECT TO AT LEAST A 0.5 FAR.
SO NOTHING, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO BE, BE ESTABLISHED ABOVE THAT UNDER THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO, UM, TO GOVERN.
AND THEN YOU'LL SEE, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN TWO INSTANCES IN THE ZONING OR, UH, THAT WERE KNOWN THE NUNA NCCD HAS BEEN AMENDED AND THEY INVOLVE TRIPLEXES.
AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE UNDER PART SEVEN, ITEM SEVEN IS THAT THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF THAT TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE 0.4 FAR BEING APPLIED TO A TRIPLEX.
THIS IS THAT THIS IS THAT PROPERTY THAT'S BEING IDENTIFIED UNDER ITEM SEVEN, PART SEVEN.
AND WHAT IT IS, IS A TRIPLEX WITH 0.36 FAR.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INTENT, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE, IT'S THE NCC ISN'T SILENT.
THE NCCD SAYS THAT IT'S INTENDED TO GOVERN THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE, UH, 0.4 FAR, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, IT'S, UH, IT COVERS 0.1% OF THE CITY.
SO IT'S 0.2% OF THE CITY, CITY, LOUIS CITY, SINGLE FAMILY ZONING LOTS.
AND IT'S AN AREA THAT'S VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
IT'S AN AREA VULNERABLE TO THE DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE UNITS THAT WERE, THAT WERE BEING DISPLACED IS EXACTLY THIS.
THE SMALLER UNITS THAT CAN BE AFFORDED BY THE PEOPLE THAT THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS, IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE, UH, THE USES THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO, UH, DEVELOP UNDER A 0.4 FAR.
I COULD BE A LITTLE BIT OFF ON THAT, BUT IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE THAT EACH ONE OF THOSE THREE UNITS WOULD BE LARGER THAN THE HOUSE THAT I GREW UP IN.
YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE A TRIPLEX ON THIS LOT UNDER THAT 0.4 FAR AND THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SHOW YOU THAT.
UM, THE LAST, UH, ZONING, UH, ISSUE IS REALLY A, AS A ONE OF USE, JUST LIKE LAST TIME WHEN YOU SAW WHAT LOOKED LIKE A DUCK, WAS A DUCK OF WHAT LOOKED LIKE A, A FOURPLEX WAS A FOURPLEX.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
AGAIN, IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONFIGURATION THAT WAS APPLIED FOR BEFORE.
WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY LOWERED THE, THE ATTIC, THEY PUT THE BUILDING THE BEDROOMS ON THAT, ON THAT FIRST FLOOR.
SO THEY TURNED WHAT WAS THE, UM, WHAT WAS LABELED AS A, UH, A WET BAR INSTEAD OF A KITCHEN, UM, INTO THE BEDROOMS OVER HERE.
AND THEY HAVE THE, THEY SUBMITTED THIS AS A 12 BEDROOM CONFIGURATION THAT WOULD BE CONGREGATE LIVING UNDER THE, UNDER THE CITY'S, UH, ZONING CODE.
WHEN THAT ISSUE WAS RAISED BY CITY STAFF IN THEIR COMMENTS, THEY MODIFIED THE LABELS OF THOSE AREAS.
THEY MODIFIED ONE OF THE BEDROOMS TO BE A PANTRY WITH A WINDOW WHICH WOULD CAUSE FOOD SPOIL SPOILATION.
THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY SOMETHING YOU'D FIND IN THE PANTRY.
THEY RELABELED ONE OF THE BEDROOMS AS AN OFFICE OR STUDY, AND THEN THEY REMOVED, UH, A PARTITION, UH, FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN ORDER TO GET FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE PANTRY, YOU
[01:45:01]
ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO UP A LEVEL ON THE, THE TOP FLOOR.WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY MOVE REMOVED, UH, NON LOAD BEARING WALLS BETWEEN, UH, SOME OF THE BEDROOMS. THEY CHANGED CLOSETS TO THESE REALLY LARGE CHASES THAT, UM, ARE VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT THE INTENT IN HERE IS TO GO BACK IN AND FILL THESE SPACES IN AND CREATE NEW BEDROOMS AFTER THE FACT.
THESE CODE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT THAT ADDRESS CONGREGATE LIVING ARE, ARE A SAFETY ISSUE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT.
THE LABELS OF THESE, THE, THE, THE PLANS HAVE CHANGED IN A WAY.
WOULD IT BE REALLY EASY AND VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE LATER.
UM, UNDER A ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION, I WANTED TO SHOW SOME OF THE SCALE SLIDES THAT ARE ALSO IN, IN THIS, UH, PRESENTATION.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A VERY CONSISTENT TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
SO IF PART SEVEN MEANS ANYTHING, PART SEVEN IS NOT SILENT.
PART SEVEN IS, IS IS GUIDING THE CITY THAT WHEN THESE BUILDING PERMITS ARE, UH, ARE SUBMITTED, THEY NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU HAVE A 0.33 FARA 0.3 FARA 0.28 FAR.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT'S, THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP WITH EACH OF THESE SITES THAT CAN GET YOU UP TO 0.4.
SO THE NEIGHBOR CAN ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL UNITS BY EXPANDING SOME OF THESE SITES AND GIVING, UH, OPTIONS FOR AFFORDABILITY THAT YOU CAN'T JUST GET WITH DEMOLISHING THE SITE.
AND THEN BUILDING BACK WHAT WAS A DUPLEX IN THE FRONT.
THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH THE DUPLEX IN THE FRONT.
THE ISSUE IS THAT BACK UNIT THAT IS TRULY A CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY.
THAT IS NOT THE SCALE OF WHAT WAS INTENDED UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE, NOR WAS IT INTENDED UNDER THIS NCCD.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT, UH, LOOK BACK.
WE'LL NOW HAVE COMMENT BY THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL THREE MINUTES EACH WITH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED.
ALL RIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, THE FIRST PERSON WE HAVE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL IS PAM BELL.
TO ERICA WEB LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
BEFORE YOU, UH, MOVE ON TO GENERAL SPEAKERS IN FAVOR AND GENERAL SPEAKERS AND OPPOSE OF THE APPEAL, DID YOU ALSO WANNA GIVE THE, UM, PERMIT HOLDER THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION AS WELL? THE ORDER I HAVE WAS APPEALING PARTY COMMENT BY SUPPORTING PRESENTATION BY RESPONDENT OR REPRESENTATIVE COMMENT BY THOSE OPPOSING, AND THEN REBUTTAL THAT THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT ORDER.
UM, I WOULD SUGGEST FOLLOWING THE ORDER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE RULES AND PROCEDURES WITH THE, WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY WITH THEIR LEAD REPRESENTATIVE.
THEN YOU HAVE THE REPORT FROM CITY STAFF, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DONE.
AND THEN, UM, SINCE THIS APPEAL CHALLENGE IS APPROVAL OF A PERMIT HOLDER, THE PRESENTATION BY THE PERMIT HOLDER BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE GENERAL, UM, OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT THE CHAIR HANDBOOK MAY NEED TO BE UPDATED.
I WILL DO THAT BEFORE IT GETS PASSED ON.
UH, HELLO IS, I CAN'T FIND IT, SO WE'LL JUST GO WITH THAT THEN.
SO LET'S DO THE PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE, LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES WITH NO DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED.
I'M, UH, MY NAME IS LEON MURKOWSKI.
I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE OWNER OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, AS YOU REMEMBER AND KNOW, THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME THIS MATTER IS BEFORE YOU, THE SECOND TIME WITH ME.
I'M VERY HAPPY THAT WE FINALLY BOTTLED IT DOWN TO TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
THE ISSUE NUMBER ONE IS OF COURSE, THE FAR AND THE ISSUE NUMBER TWO
[01:50:01]
IS WHETHER THIS IS EVEN AN ISSUE AT ALL.SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE NIDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN BETWEEN.
IT IS CLEAR, AND YOU ALL KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE MANY, MANY TIMES, INCLUDING NOW THAT THE HOME ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AFTER THE HDDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT HOME ORDINANCE IS THE CONTROLLING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT WAS DECIDED IT IS A WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
IT IS A POLITICAL DECISION OF THE PEOPLE AFTER NCDS.
IT HAS CLEARLY MADE A VERY SPECIFIC CHANGE TO THE WHOLE CITY.
IT ADDED A SEPARATE USE, A THREE UNIT USE, WHICH WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED, WRITTEN, DISCUSSED, OR EVEN A PART OF THE PRIOR NCCD ZONING.
THAT USE HAS VERY CLEAR, SPECIFIC IDENTIFIABLE FAR, WHICH IS FOLLOWED HERE.
MY OPPOSING SITE DUMPED NEARLY 400 PAGES OF SOMETHING THAT I COULD NOT EVEN READ ONTO THIS BOARD.
AFTER ABOUT 17 PAGES INTO IT, I LOST THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS CONVERSATION WILL CLEAR THIS UP.
400 PAGES TO EXPLAIN TO THIS BOARD SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN NATURE AT LAW.
THIS BOARD KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON, AND YET FOR SOME REASON, YOU CONTINUE TO ENTERTAIN MY OPPONENTS.
EVERY SINGLE OPPONENT THAT'S GOING TO, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR TONIGHT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT FOR THE APPELLANT ITSELF, YOU'VE HEARD FROM NEARLY A DOZEN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS ABOUT HOW, HOW YOU SHOULD MAKE A DECISION.
BUT NEITHER ONE OF THEM ADDRESSED THE LAW.
THEY TALKED ABOUT WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO THEM, CONSULTED THEM, OR ANYTHING ELSE.
AND THE LAW IS CLEAR, IS EXTREMELY CLEAR.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT ELSE I CAN PRESENT TO YOUR CASE.
THE CITY STAFF IS PERFECTLY ON POINT.
MY OPPONENT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY LOSS TO YOU.
THE NCC DS USE THE LANGUAGE SHOULD, BUT NOT SHALL EVEN IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THIS BOARD WOULD EVEN CONSIDER THE NCC DS EVEN APPLY FOR A THREE UNIT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE 17 POINTS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP, TWO OF WHICH WERE NEVER BROUGHT UP BEFORE, WHICH IS A TOTALLY MATTER, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA GO THERE.
BUT I, I WOULD LIKE THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER THE TIMING OF THE HOME ORDINANCE, THE POLITICAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE, THE TIME OF NCCD AND THE PLAIN LANGUAGE.
THE COURT ACROSS THE STATE HAVE MADE THEIR RULINGS THAT A CITYWIDE ORDINANCES TRUMP AS SPECIFIC ORDINANCES FOR A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS ON TOP OF THE FACT THERE IS A TIMING ISSUE.
IT'S CLEARLY WHICH ONE PRESIDES OVER WHICH, GOING BACK TO THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL, THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME WE HERE.
EVERY SINGLE TIME THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE BOMBARD THIS BOARD WITH DOCUMENTS AND NONE OF THEM COME TALK ABOUT SPECIFICS.
SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MY OPPONENT SIZE FOR WHATEVER REASON, THIS IS AGAIN, THE SECOND TIME I'M HERE.
THEY BRING OUT THIS 12 UNIT, UH, 12 BEDROOM THING.
BASICALLY, THEY WANNA LEGISLATE MY POSSIBLE FUTURE USE.
NOW, BASICALLY THEY'RE TELLING THE BOARD THAT, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE HE MIGHT, YOU KNOW, CONVERT THIS INTO A 12 UNIT, THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO BUILD, PERIOD.
I MUST SUBMIT TO THIS BOARD THAT THE CHANGES WERE MADE TO THESE PLANS WERE BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THEY WERE MADE SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND, AND THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE STAFF.
I CANNOT POSSIBLY PHANTOM HOW THIS BOARD CAN ENTERTAIN SUCH AN OPTION WHERE YOU SHOULD MAKE A DECISION NOW ON MY POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE CODE LATER, IS THIS 1984 AGAIN, GOING BACK TO
[01:55:01]
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS CLEAR, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD UNDERSTANDS THAT WE COMPLY TO EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE IDENTIFIABLE ISSUE ON THIS PLAN WITH THE CITY STAFF.THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH CITY BUILDING CODES.
THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH CITY FIRE CODE.
THIS IS, AGAIN, FOURTH TIME YOU'RE HERE, AND FOURTH TIME THE CITY SUBMITS A REPORT THAT THEY HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THIS PLAN.
AND YET WE ARE HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AND I HEAR ABOUT THIS 0.04 FAR.
WHAT ELSE CAN I POSSIBLY SUBMIT TO YOU? THAT THIS F OH FOUR A FIRE DOESN'T APPLY TO MY BUILDING.
THE CODE SAYS, SO THE PRESIDENT SAID SO, AND YET YOU SIMPLY FINDING A WAY NOT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THIS VERY SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE AND SIMPLY APPLY THE LAW AS IT STANDS.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THIS, THAT EVERY SINGLE OPPONENT OF MINE THAT IS ON THAT SIDE IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN THAT.
THESE ARE THE MEMBERS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
THESE ARE THE MEMBERS OF, THESE ARE THE MEMBERS OF, UH, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION THAT DON'T BELONG TO MY PROJECT.
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
AND THIS, WHAT YOU HEAR IN YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR TACTICS.
NOT IN MY BACKYARD IS VERY MUCH ALIVE IN THE CITY, AND I FEEL LIKE I'M A VICTIM OF IT.
I HOPE IT IS MY WISH THAT THIS CONS SIMPLY CONSIDERS THE FACTS.
AND HONESTLY, AND I PLEASE EX EXCUSE MY FRUSTRATION, I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY, A, A COUNTRY THAT I ESCAPED THIS ORIAN REALITY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
AND THIS IS NOT ME ADDRESSING YOU.
EVERYONE SINGLY, THIS IS MY FRUSTRATION.
400 PAGES OF NONSENSE SUBMITTED TO YOU, DOZENS OF PEOPLE TALKING, AND NOBODY TALKS ABOUT THE LAW.
HOME ORDINANCE IS THE RULING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT SPECIFICALLY PERMITS THREE UNIT UNITS AND AUTHORIZES 6.065 A IR GOING BACK AND TRYING TO REDO THIS TO CCDS AND TALKING ABOUT SECTION FIVE, SECTION SEVEN.
IT CONFUSES YOU, AND IT SIMPLY DOESN'T TALK.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEEN CHINA.
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PROPERTY.
I HOPE YOU DON'T TAKE MY FRUSTRATION PERSONALLY, BUT SEE IT AS A EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE OPPONENTS CAN DO TO A SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER TAKEN SIX MONTHS TO AGREE AND COMPLETE.
AND HERE I AM, SIX MONTHS LATER, STILL CANNOT START ON A VERY SIMPLE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE CITY AND APPROVED BY THE, BY THE LAW ITSELF.
AND WE GO IN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AND IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE NOTICED, I HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING NEW TO THIS SPORT, THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED.
EVERYTHING I'VE TOLD YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED MY PRESENTATION HAVE NOT CHANGED APPEAL AFTER APPEAL, AFTER A CONSIDERATION.
THIS, THAT THEY EVEN BROUGHT UP A POSSIBILITY OF, OF A MEMBER OF BEING, UH, CORRUPTED BY THE FACT THAT THEY, HE VISITED SOME KIND OF A MEETING, WHICH BY THE WAY, THE OTHER PARTY WAS PRESENT AND NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE.
SO THE ONLY PERSON THAT WAS PREJUDICED BY THIS WAS POSSIBLY ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
OKAY, WE WILL NOW HAVE COMMENTS BY CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
[02:00:01]
QUICK, QUICK QUESTION FOR LEGAL.SO WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ADOPTED THE NEW RULES YET.
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LATER ON THE AGENDA FOR THE TIME LIMITS FOR SPEAKERS, BUT SHOULD THAT STILL BE WHAT WE FOLLOW WITH THE INITIAL, OR IS IT THREE MINUTES FOR EVERYBODY? UH, ERICA LO LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS, YOUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, UH, SUGGEST THREE MINUTES.
SO I WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND JUST KEEPING THE THREE MINUTES FOR, UH, THESE SPEAKERS.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON.
I'M PAMELA BELL AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WILL THOSE WHO LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PLEASE STAND? THANK YOU.
THESE ARE ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE PART OF NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR NUNA.
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR NCCD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
SOME OF YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE AN NCCD.
IN 2003, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS FRUSTRATED BY ALL THE CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COMING FORWARD REQUESTING TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BECAUSE THEY WERE SUDDENLY BESIEGED BY DORMS AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS TRYING TO RISE UP TO GO AROUND THE UNIVERSITY AND GO DEEP INSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IN 2003, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED THE SEVEN CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS TO GET TOGETHER AND DEVELOP A PLAN.
NORTH UNIVERSITY MEMBERS VOTED TO SUBMIT AN NCCD SIMILAR TO THAT OF HYDE PARK, OUR HYDE PARK NEIGHBORS.
WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD PROTECT OUR CHAR ITS CHARACTER.
ALMOST EVERY NEIGHBOR WAS INVOLVED.
WE HAD TO DESCRIBE OVER 450 PROPERTIES.
WE HAD TO DESCRIBE THEM, WRITE THE NCCD LANGUAGE AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY.
I KNOW IT WAS A HERCULEAN EFFORT BECAUSE I CHAIRED THE, UM, THE BLOCK BY BLOCK EFFORT OF DESCRIPTIONS.
OUR NCCD WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IN 2004.
MY CONCERN IS THAT PLANNING STAFF SHOULD NOT BE PICKING AND CHOOSING FROM THE NCCD REQUIREMENTS TO MEET DEVELOPERS' NEEDS.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE STEWARDS OF THE NCCD.
VARIATIONS FROM THE NCCD SHOULD BE NOTICED.
THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC INPUT INVITED, AND THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY N-C-C-D-N-P STILL STANDS IN CITY CODE.
YOU'VE HEARD THAT NUMEROUS ASPECTS OF THE NCCD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
THE BUILDING PERMIT GRANTED SUMMARILY DISREGARDS THE NCCD, IT WILL START THE BULLDOZERS AND DEVELOPERS AND LEAD TO DESTRUCTION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER.
IF THIS STANDS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO STRIKE DOWN THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR 2005 EAST 34.
AND GUYS, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE SPEAKING, LET, LET'S COME UP, UH, TWO AT A TIME.
ONE PERSON TALKING, THE OTHER PERSON WAITING, AND THAT WAY WE COULD JUST JUMP FROM ONE TO THE OTHER.
UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE GREEN BUTTON OR THE GREEN LIGHT ON YOUR MIC IS ON.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UH, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HANCOCK DAVID ASSOCIATION AND THAT ASSOCIATION'S BOUNDARIES IS TWO AND A HALF BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY.
YOU'LL EXCUSE ME IF A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS IN HANCOCK REALLY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
UM, WE, WE DO NOT HAVE AN NCCD IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE FOR, FOR TWO REASONS, MOSTLY HAVING TO DO WITH THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT PEOPLE CAN EXPECT THINGS TO HAPPEN A CERTAIN WAY AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THINGS BE DEFINED SEMI RANDOMLY.
UH, SO THERE ARE TWO MAIN ISSUES FOR US.
ONE OF THEM IS FROM ALL THE READING WE'VE DONE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PAPER, LET ALONE HUNDREDS OF PAGES.
UH, AND I CAN POINT YOU TO JUST ONE, UH, PLACE IN THE LAW.
PART SEVEN, FIRST COLUMN, THIRD ROW.
IT SAYS THAT FOR SF TWO N SF THREE, THE FAR IS 0.4.
[02:05:01]
DUPLEX RIGHT THERE.THIS HAS HISTORICALLY ALWAYS BEEN APPLIED TO, UH, SINGLE UNITS, TWO UNITS, THREE UNITS WITHIN THOSE ZONING CATEGORIES.
FOR EVERYONE I'VE TALKED TO WITHIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THE INTENT WAS.
UH, MADAM CHAIR EARLIER TALKED ABOUT QUASI-JUDICIAL AND, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND HOW THIS RULE APPLIES.
ADDITIONALLY, UM, THERE, THERE'S SOME TALK ABOUT POLITICAL INTENT.
UH, OUR, WE'RE IN DISTRICT NINE AND I'M WELL FAMILIAR WITH THE DISTRICT NINE OFFICE AND COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND HE HAS SAID SEVERAL TIMES ON THE RECORD THAT HIS INTENTION, AND HE WAS ONE OF THE, THE SUPPORTERS OF HOME, WAS THAT, UH, HOME DOES NOT SUPERSEDE NCCD.
SO OVERALL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THIS INFORMATION, WHICH IS NOT SUPER EXTENSIVE AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION.
THE SECOND ISSUE WE HAVE IS THE PROCESS.
SO AGAIN, HAS TO DO WITH FAIRNESS.
THE PERMITTING PRO PROCESS IN AUSTIN AND IN MOST OTHER CITIES IS RELATIVELY COMPLEX.
PEOPLE GO THROUGH A LOT OF WORK TO MAKE IT WORK, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPECT THAT WHAT THEY'RE HELD TO IS ALSO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE HELD TO.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT HAD AN INTENTION TO BUILD A CERTAIN THING, AND THE RIGHT WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT WOULD'VE BEEN TO GET THE ZONING CORRESPONDING TO THAT CERTAIN THING.
AND HERE YOU HAVE AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS WHEREBY TWEAKING, UH, WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING, BUT NOT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO, BUT NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO.
THEY END UP GETTING THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE WOULD NOT GET IN THE SAME SITUATION.
SO FOR FAIRNESS, I WOULD ASK YOU TO, UH, SUPPORT THE APPEAL.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT'S ON.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN FOXWORTH.
UH, I AM HERE REPRESENTING, UH, TWO IN ENTITIES.
I'M REPRESENTING HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF NUNA ACROSS GUADALUPE.
I'M ALSO HERE AS A MEMBER OF KPAC, UH, WITH THE, THAT'S THE PLANNING TEAM FOR THE UNIVERSITY AREA.
I WAS AN ORIGINAL, UH, CAN PACK PERSON THAT I HELPED, UH, KICK THROUGH THE FIELD GOAL, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, AND, UH, WE, WE ARE BOTH IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL.
WE FEEL THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT HAPPENED BEHIND THE SCENES THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY UPFRONT, UH, WHEN THE ORIGINAL DECISION WAS MADE.
UM, WE, WE ARE NOT ANTI DENSITY.
WE, WE HELPED CREATE UNO, WHICH PROVIDED FOR A VERY DENSE WEST CAMPUS, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO WHERE I LIVE.
I, I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OFF 29TH STREET FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS, AND WE ENCOURAGE MORE DENSITY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE.
AND THAT'S NOT JUST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THAT'S ALL AROUND THE UNIVERSITY.
AND THE PART OF THAT PLAN WAS, WAS, UH, NUNA GETTING THEIR NCCD.
AND I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH FOR THIS BOARD TO, UH, SIDE WITH THEIR, THEIR WAY, THE WAY THEY SEE IT, THE WAY NUNES SEES, UH, THEIR NCCD AND WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO CREATED IT AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.
I'M KIND OF ENVIOUS OF IT AS, AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND I KNOW IT WAS A LOT OF HARD WORK.
SO, UH, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE TWO ENTITIES, I, I, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL AND THINK YOU SHOULD, UH, SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IT.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN I JUMP IN? WE HAVE A VIRTUAL, UM, SPEAKER FREDERICK ALAMA.
OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A AFTER THIS ONE, I'M SORRY.
WE'LL TAKE HIM AFTER THIS ONE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, BUT YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
COME ON UP AND SIT IN THE CHAIR.
I'M THE CO-PRESIDENT OF HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR BLOCKS NORTH OF, UM, OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, DEAR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT ITS MARCH 2ND, 226 GENERAL MEETING, THE HAR PARK NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION VOTED TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE APPEAL AND THE BO OA CASE.
UM, CONCERNING THE 200, UH, 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET OF ALL THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE, UH, NORTH UNIVERSITY NUNA CONSERVATION MINING DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE HYDE PARK.
THIS CASE RAISES BIG CONCERNS AND ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO HYDE PARK AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT RELY ON CCDS AS ADOPTED CITY ORDINANCES THAT REGULATE DEVELOPMENT, HYDE PARK CONTAINS TWO.
[02:10:01]
A LONG HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, CREATION OF STEWARDSHIP OF CCDS IN AUSTIN.MUCH LIKE PAM SAID, UM, WE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ESTABLISHING THE M-C-D-N-C-C-D FRAMEWORK.
DURING THE 1985 REWRITE OF THE AUSTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND NEIGHBORHOOD VOLUNTEERS WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE CITY TO DEVELOP AND ADOPT HYDE PARKS NCCD NCC NCCD REPRESENT SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN TIME AND EFFORT BY RESIDENTS AND THE CITY TO CREATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT RESPECT ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHILE ACCOMMODATING NEW DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT FROM H HP A'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS CASE RAISES CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT NC OF NCCS.
ALONG THIS CASE RELATES THE TO THE NUNA NCCD HY PARK RESIDENTS HAVE A STRONG INTEREST AND CONCERN, UH, IN ENSURING THAT ALL SET NCCS ARE APPLIED AND ADOPTED.
UM, AT THE MARCH 19TH HEARING, THE BOARD DENIED THE APPEAL THROUGH A DECISION THAT RAISED ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL CONCERNS, INCLUDING THE PERSISTENT PARTICIPATION OF A BOARD MEMBER WHO SHOULD HAVE RECUSED AND PROVIDED DECIDING VOTE AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT BY THE MEMBERS VOTING TO DENY THE APPEAL.
WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED FOR THESE REASONS, HPA RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT RECONSIDERATION AND SUSTAIN THE APPEAL.
DOING SO WOULD REPRESENT A NARROW RULING SPECIFIC TO THE, UH, NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD, WHILE REINFORCING THE IMPORTANCE OF APPLYING CCDS AS ADOPTED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA PAUSE RIGHT THERE FOR ONE SECOND AND LET'S TAKE THE VIRTUAL CALLER.
ACTUALLY, WE, HE'S NOT ON, HE'S NEVERMIND.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UH, I THINK I HAVE A TIME DONOR ALSO.
UH, UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND FAMILY FRIEND OF THE JOURNEY, KELLER FAMILY.
UH, BOB KELLER WAS MY FIRST EMPLOYER WHEN I WAS A GRADUATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE.
UH, LET ME BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE WITH THIS, UH, THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS IS A STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT WITH BEDROOMS RENTED TO INDIVIDUALS BY THE MONTH.
THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT WROTE TO THIS BOARD, THE DESIGNER'S TASK WAS TO MAXIMIZE BEDROOM COUNT.
TECH REVIEW STAFF REJECTED THE PROJECT ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2025, NOTING BUILDING TWO CONTAINS 12 BEDROOMS AND SHALL BE REVIEWED AS AN R THREE OCCUPANCY UNDER THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS A CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY.
THEIR INSTRUCTIONS SUBMIT A COMMERCIAL APPLICATION FOR THE R THREE OCCUPANCY.
THE APPLICANT THEN RESUBMITTED PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL THAT ALLEGEDLY SHOWED ONLY FIVE BEDROOMS IN BUILDING TWO.
AFTER DELETING SOME WALLS AND RELABELING BEDROOMS AS PANTRY AND OFFICE STUDY.
CHAFF STAFF CHOSE NOT TO PUSH BACK ON THESE MODIFICATIONS AND THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED WITH BUILDING TWO REVIEWED AS A ONE FAMILY DWELLING.
THE RESULT IS THAT THE CITY APPROVED A HIGH OCCUPANCY COMMERCIAL CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY WITH NONE OF THE SAFETY COMPONENTS REQUIRED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, CREATING A HAZARDOUS SITUATION FOR THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT WHO WILL HAVE NO IDEA THE BUILDING IS UNSAFE FOR ITS ACT ACTUAL USE.
YOU'VE SEEN THE MODIFIED PLANS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A STRETCH TO SAY THAT ANYONE LOOKING AT THE REVISIONS WOULD ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WILL BE SLEEPING IN THE PANTRY OR THE OFFICE SLASH STUDY.
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WALLS WILL BE BUILT TO RESTORE THE FOUR DELETED BEDROOMS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT.
THIS ISN'T A HARMLESS LITTLE WORKAROUND BEING USED BY THE APPLICANT WITH JUST ONE MORE BEDROOM COUNTED THE PANTRY, FOR INSTANCE, BUILDING TWO WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY UNDER THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS A COMMERCIAL USE AND THE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR THIS TYPE OF HIGH OCCUPANCY DWELLING ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE STRINGENT THAN FOR A ONE FAMILY DWELLING PER THE LIST BELOW.
ADDITIONAL FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE LIVING FACILITIES UNDER THE IBC CODE CODE INCLUDE MORE STRINGENT SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS THAN REQUIRED BY IRC OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATIONS NOT REQUIRED BY IRC EXIT LIMITATIONS THAT MAY REQUIRE UPGRADES TO FIRE EXITS.
RATED FIRE SEPARATIONS BETWEEN SLEEPING UNITS AS INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS ARE RENTED AS AS SLEEPING UNITS IN A CONGREGATE FACILITY.
THEY'D NEED TO HAVE RATED FIREWALLS, RATED FIRE DOORS ON THE SLEEPING UNITS WITH AUTOMATIC CLOSERS AND SMOKE SEALS.
INTERCONNECTED SMOKE ALARMS REQUIRED IN EVERY SLEEPING UNIT, UH, WHICH OF COURSE WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED IN A PANTRY OR AN OFFICE SLASH STUDY.
I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHY REVIEW STAFF DIDN'T PUSH BACK ON THIS ISSUE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.
BUT TONIGHT, YOUR BOARD HAS ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA HAVE TO PAUSE, UM, BECAUSE WE, WE NEED, WE'RE, WE NEED KNOWLEDGE.
COULD YOU TELL ME WHO WAS DONATING YOUR TIME SO WE CAN VERIFY THEY'RE IN THE ROOM.
AND JANET ADAMS, IS THEY ON THE LIST? YES.
[02:15:01]
YOU.I CAN, MY BREATH AND I DID PAUSE YOUR TIME.
UM, TONIGHT YOUR BOARD HAS ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE STUDENTS WHO WILL SLEEP IN THESE ROOMS. NO ONE SHOULD DIE FROM FIRE OR SMOKE INHALATION BECAUSE THEY SLEEP IN A PANTRY.
HERE'S WHERE I'M GONNA DISAGREE WITH BRENT LLOYD.
BRENT AND I HAVE DISAGREED ONCE OR TWICE OVER 15 YEARS.
UH, HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO ZONING? IF THE BUILDING HAS MORE THAN FIVE BEDROOMS, IF JUST THE PANTRY IS CONSIDERED A BEDROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE USE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE BUILDING CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY, WHICH HAS TO BE SUBMITTED AS A NEW APPLICATION TO THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF DSD COMMERCIAL REVIEW WILL START THE PROCESS OVER BEGINNING WITH ZONING REVIEW.
DOES A COMMERCIAL CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY CONFORM TO SF THREE NCCD ZONING IN AN NCCD THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS CONGREGATE LIVING ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS? THE USE CLASSIFICATION CHANGE PUTS THE ZONING REVIEW FRONT AND CENTER IN THE PROCESS, I ASK THAT YOU CONCLUDE THAT THIS PROJECT HAS MORE THAN FIVE BEDROOMS AND SEND IT BACK TO ZONING REVIEW.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, PARTICULARLY MADAM CHAIR.
I KNOW YOU'RE, THIS IS YOUR FINAL MEETING AS CHAIR.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IF WE TRY, AS WE'VE ALL TRIED TO COME TO A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION.
SO ELAINE, WHY DON'T YOU CALL JUST TO JUST SEE IF THIS COULD HELP SPEED THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT.
HAVE, HAVE YOU BEEN KEEPING TRACK OF WHO'S GONE ALREADY? YES.
AND SINCE YOU'RE SITTING THERE, WHY DON'T WE LET HER GO FIRST? WHAT'S YOUR NAME? DID WE HAVE THE VIRTUAL PERSON? NO, HE'S NOT ON.
UH, I LIVE AT 2 0 4 EAST 34TH STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, 2 0 5.
SO I SEE IT EVERY SINGLE TIME I WALK OUT OF MY FRONT DOOR, WHICH IS TOO MANY TIMES A DAY 'CAUSE I HAVE A DOG.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH HERE.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE, UM, APPEAL.
WE'RE REALLY JUST ASKING FOR ZONING LAWS AND REGULATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S SUCH A BIG ASK.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY, AND I WORRY ABOUT THE, UM, INDIVIDUALS THAT COULD END UP LIVING IN THIS PROPERTY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GOD FORBID SOMEBODY DIED IN A PANTRY, THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE AND I WOULDN'T SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT, HENCE ME SPEAKING HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF POTENTIAL PEOPLE LIKE THAT.
UM, TO SAY THAT THE NCCD JUST SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED, I THINK I DON'T HAVE A LAW DEGREE, BUT YOU KNOW, I'VE, THEY EXIST FOR, FOR MANY REASONS THAT PAM BELL ALREADY MENTIONED.
BUT IT'S FOR SAFETY, IT'S, IT'S FOR SECURITY.
AND I JUST ASK THAT THAT BE FOLLOWED.
TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE SO MANY BUILDINGS WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WITHIN OUR, LIKE TWO BLOCK RADIUS.
EVEN I COULD LOOK KITTY CORNER AND THERE'S A MASSIVE BUILDING THAT HOUSES SO MANY PEOPLE, AND I LOVE THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S NOT WHAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH, BUT IT'S THE FACT THAT THE NCCD GUIDELINES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED AND THAT I THINK THAT COULD CAUSE REALLY UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT CHAIR COHEN BROUGHT UP EARLIER, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, REGARDING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF RELATED PRECEDENCE AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF, MAYBE THIS IS A MOOT POINT, BUT I FEEL LIKE I WANNA BRING IT UP ANYWAY, WHICH IS THAT APPROVING THIS AND ALLOWING THIS TO MOVE FORWARD GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT THIS COULD IMPACT DOWN THE LINE.
LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS IN OTHER AREAS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS AND SAY, OKAY, COOL, I DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW ALL THESE GREAT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND THIS, THIS ENDANGERS A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE FUTURE.
YOU KNOW, LUCKILY SLASH UNLUCKILY, DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE OF THE COIN YOU'RE ON, WE ARE A COMMUNITY THAT CARES DEEPLY, CARES A LOT.
ALSO A COMMUNITY THAT HAS ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS TIME, ENERGY, AND RESOURCES TO BE DEDICATED TO THIS.
HENCE US BEING HERE FOR THE FOURTH TIME NOW, WHICH I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE ALL SICK OF.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S ALSO SAD AND EXPENSIVE FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
I RECOGNIZE THE, YOU KNOW, OTHER, THE, THE PERMIT HOLDERS THAT'S ALSO EXPENSIVE FOR THEM.
AND I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO COME TO A SOLUTION THAT FOLLOWS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE, INCLUDING THE NCCD.
UM, HOW MANY MORE DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP?
[02:20:01]
I, I HAVE FOUR, BUT THERE'S ON HERE THERE'S A NOTE THAT THERE'S POSSIBLY MORE.UM, WHY DON'T WE GO THROUGH THE FOUR THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED UP ALREADY.
THE NEXT ONE I HAVE IS MICHAEL RILEY.
HE'S A RESIDENT OF NORTH UNIVERSITY.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME? UH, AARON GONZALEZ.
HEY, WHO'S ON HERE? YOU HAVE BOTH OF THEM? MM-HMM
WHY DON'T YOU START, AARON, THEN WE'LL COME TO YOU NEXT.
UM, I, FIRST MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY COMMISSION.
UM, I'M A RENTER, UH, THAT LIVES RIGHT ACROSS THE, UH, STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY.
UH, I CAN ASSURE YOU I AM NOT PART OF ANY OTHER GROUPS OR NONPROFITS.
UM, BUT, UH, AS THE CHAIR OF THE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY COMMISSION, I PASS SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL AIMED AT INCREASING AFFORDABILITY, ECONOMIC MOBILITY, AND PROTECTING THOSE MOST VULNERABLE.
UH, AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, I WAS HERE BEFORE THIS, UH, BEFORE THE DAIS, UH, GETTING A, UH, POLICY PASSED TO EXECUTE ON THOSE AIMS, UM, WITHIN A ONE BLOCK RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY, UM, WHICH I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE 10 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT HOUSE, AND BY MY PERSONAL ESTIMATE, ANYWHERE FROM A HUNDRED TO 120 PEOPLE.
UM, THE APPEARANCE, THEY HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE THEY WERE KIDS.
AND MANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO HERE HAVE ALSO LIVED THERE SINCE A VERY YOUNG AGE.
THEY HAVE SEEN THE AUSTIN CHANGE.
THEY HAVE SEEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE.
UM, BUT THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN COLLABORATIVE AND WORKED WITH THE PEOPLE LOOKING TO, UH, TO BUILD.
AS AUSTIN HAS GROWN, UH, THEY HAVE BEEN RECEPTIVE TO THOSE CHANGES.
UM, WITHIN OUR PROPERTY, AT THE ONE THAT I LIVE AT, IT IS, UH, ZONED FOR, WE LIVE AT A 0.28 FLOOR AREA RATIO.
UM, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, THE, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE PROPOSED PROPERTY DOES NOT COMPLY, UM, WITH THE FLOOR AREA RATIO THAT IS WITHIN, UM, THE CODE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, IN TERMS OF HAVING THE IMPACT OF THIS, OF COURSE THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
AND IT, IT IS CONCERNING, UM, BECAUSE A LOT OF BEYOND A LOT OF THESE GROUPS WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, WELL WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? WE DEFINITELY WANT TO GROW AUSTIN AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO, UH, HAVE PEOPLE BE ATTRACTED TO MOVE HERE.
AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO BUILD, BUT NOT BUILD AT ALL E AT ALL, YOU KNOW, EXTENTS AND WITHOUT, UM, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.
SO, UM, IW WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE, UH, NOTE IS THAT BEFORE THIS PROPERTY WAS, YOU KNOW, DEMOLISHED AND CLEARED, THERE WERE THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THERE.
UM, THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, THEY WERE PRICE AT $1,700.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH I RECOGNIZE IS NOT CHEAP, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY, UH, THEY WERE REMODELED 1986 AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE DISPLACED WERE SAD THAT THEY HAD TO LEAVE.
UM, SO AS WE CONSIDER ANY FUTURE ITEMS, I, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THIS HAS.
NOT ONLY ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, UM, BUT ENSURE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH LAWS IN PLACE.
THREE MINUTES, LIKE A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE OVER MY RIGHT SHOULDER.
YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT YOU HAVE A COLLECTION OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVE AT 2 0 9 EAST 34TH STREET.
THAT IS TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE, I'M GUESSING ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET.
UH, I'M NOT A MEMBER OF, UH, NONPROFITS TO SPEAK OF.
I'M HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'VE LIVED THERE OVER 20 YEARS.
WE RAISED OUR KIDS THERE AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT PLACE TO US FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PERSPECTIVE.
THE REASON YOU'RE SEEING A GOOD NUMBER OF FOLKS OUT IS WHAT WILL GET THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GOING IS STEALTH DORMS. SOMEBODY DROPPING A BUILDING THAT IS EXTREMELY DENSE IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, MAKING A CASH GRAB AND SENDING THAT CASH SOMEPLACE ELSE.
RENTING OUT THE ROOMS FOR LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY PER ROOM FOR STUDENTS THAT, I DON'T WANNA SAY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
UM, PER THE COMMENTS EARLIER, IF IT WALKS LIKE A GO DUCK, QUACKS LIKE A DUCK.
WE'VE SEEN THE PLANTS, YOU'VE SEEN THE SHIFTS IN THE PLANTS, YOU SEE THE PANTRY, YOU SEE THE WINDOWS IN THE ATTIC AS IT USED TO BE DRAWN.
YOU SEE THE DOWNLOAD BEARING WALLS AND THE DOORWAYS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH LOAD BEARING WALLS THAT MAY NOT BE THERE IN THE FUTURE.
UM, THIS CALLS INTO QUESTION THE
[02:25:01]
INTEGRITY OF THE PINE AND THE INTEGRITY, THE INTENT.AND, UH, AS NEIGHBORS, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ADHERED BECAUSE WE DO WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE WANT CHANGE, WE'RE WILLING TO CHANGE.
BUT WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS GONNA BE A BLIGHT AND A TIDAL WAVE THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND THE BLOCKS SURROUNDING, WE COME OUT BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BROADER GROUPS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ARE REPRESENTING TONIGHT 45TH STREET DOWN TO ABOUT 32ND STREET, LAMAR OVER TO RED RIVER.
THAT'S A HUGE CHUNK OF CENTRAL AUSTIN IN THAT PART OF TOWN.
AND YOU'VE GOT REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL THOSE GROUPS HERE BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT GOOD DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
NOT BLOCKING DEVELOPMENT, BUT GOOD DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT HERE AND WE'RE ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER.
HOW MANY DO WE GOT LEFT ON THE LIST? SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TWO, UM, THE LAST ONE BEING PETER J. TAYLOR WITH DONATION OF TIME FROM TWO PEOPLE.
HI, MY NAME IS MADELINE BRUER.
IS SHE ON THE LIST? I THINK SHE'S GOOD TO GO.
HI, MY NAME IS MADELINE BRUER.
I LIVE WITHIN 500 FEET CADY CORNER FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
UM, AND I AM HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
I'M A PHD STUDENT STUDYING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION AND A FORMER K THROUGH 12 TEACHER.
AS A GRADUATE STUDENT AND TEACHER, I'VE ALSO BEEN A RENTER FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS.
UH, PREVIOUSLY LIVING IN HYDE PARK AND NOW LIVING IN NORTH UNIVERSITY.
LAST BOARD MEETING, SOME GENERALIZATIONS WERE MADE ABOUT WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS SAID REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
TO BE CLEAR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS RESPONSIBLE AND ETHICAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED PLAN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR ETHICAL FOR THE HOUSING CONDITIONS OF FUTURE TENANTS WHO WILL OCCUPY THE BUILDING.
THE REVISED PLAN CLEARLY DISGUISED ARBITRARY BEDROOMS INTO PANTRIES PLANS, WHICH ALTER FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A FIRE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND THERE'S A TENANT IN THAT BEDROOM? OR EVEN WORSE, WHAT IF THEY'RE ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WITH A LACK OF ACCESS TO A STAIRWELL AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE ALLEY THAT IS THE SUPPOSED EMERGENCY VEHICLE EX FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, I CAN TELL YOU THE ALLEY CAN BARELY ACCOMMODATE SUV VEHICLES, LET ALONE EMERGENCY VEHICLES FOR 20 PLUS RESIDENTS.
AS PART SEVEN OF THE NCCD STATES, QUOTE, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING, ORIENTATION, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATION.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED PLAN INTRODUCES A BUILDING ORIENTATION FACING AN ALREADY PRECARIOUS ALLEYWAY, WHICH I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM LAST MEETING.
DISPLACEMENT AND RED LIGHTING WERE TERMS THAT WERE ALSO THROWN AROUND.
HOWEVER, THIS LANGUAGE DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL LIVED EXPERIENCES OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FORMER TENANTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPLACED FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT AS A RESIDENT TEACHER AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER, I'M CONCERNED THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CREATE MORE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR FUTURE TENANTS.
WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS IS AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT PROPOSED PROJECT HAS NOT MET THOSE NEEDS THROUGH A RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL, AND COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY.
FOR THESE REASONS, I ASK YOU TO RE SUPPORT THE APPEAL AND I DONATE ANY REMAINING TIME TO PETER.
THANK YOU SO MUCH AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THE END OF BEING CHAIR
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11 O'CLOCK.
ANY OBJECTION? AND YOU'RE GONNA BE SAD NOT TO BE CHAIR.
I PICKED A HELL OF A ONE TO GO OUT ON, DIDN'T I? MM-HMM
YOU, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN SMARTER
UH, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AND SUPPORT? DO WE NEED TO, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON EXTENDING THE HEARING OR NO? I ASKED ANY OPPOSITION.
HEARING NONE EXTENDED TO 11, UH, SPEAKERS, UH, IN SUPPORT? YEP.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND, AND THEN THERE'S ONE MORE AFTER THIS WITH DONATION OF TIME, RIGHT? TWO.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS JANET JUNA AND I'M SPEAKING FOUR.
UM, AND I WANTED TO BRING UP THE DUPLEX VERSUS TRIPLEX, WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE KIND OF A KEY POINT ON ALL OF THIS.
I REALIZE THAT THE NCCD, WHICH I THINK WE ALL AGREE, ACTUALLY, IS A ZONING OVERLAY WHICH APPLIES AND SUPERSEDES HOME.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
I BELIEVE IF YOU READ THE NCCD, IT WILL SAY IN SECTION SEVEN THAT THE 0.4 FAR SHOULD BE
[02:30:01]
THE THING THAT IS APPLIED.BUT IF YOU DO NOT THIS, UH, POSITION THAT BECAUSE THE NCCD DOES NOT SPEAK TO TRIPLEXES AND THEREFORE HOME SHOULD APPLY, UH, I THINK DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
THERE IS A LEGAL TERM THAT IS CALLED SUBSTANCE OVER FORM.
THAT IS WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO LOOK PAST ANY TECHNICALITIES THAT MAY BE IN THERE THAT MAY BE INCORRECT.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DOCUMENT, THIS DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN AT A TIME WHERE ALL YOU COULD HAVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX TRIPLEXES WERE NOT CONSIDERED.
IT WAS NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE THOUGHT OF.
YOU CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE NOBODY THOUGHT OF IT, THAT THEN THE RULES WILL NOT APPLY TO THAT.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAME UP WITH AN NCCD TO PRIORITIZE WHAT THEY WANTED BUILDING TO BE LIKE IN THAT AREA.
HAD THEY KNOWN TRIPLEXES WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED, I'M SURE THEY WOULD'VE MENTIONED TRIPLEXES.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE SUBSTANCE OVER FORM COMES IN.
TRIPLEXES WEREN'T MENTIONED THE DOCUMENT IN MY MIND WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN, IF THEY HAD KNOWN THE BUILDING CODE WAS GOING TO CHANGE.
UM, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL LISTENING TO THIS CASE FOR THE FOURTH TIME.
IT'S BEEN A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ME TO SEE THIS.
UM, I APPRECIATE IT AND I WILL DONATE ANY EXTRA TIME TO PETER JNE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.
I THINK I'VE KIND OF TAKEN A DIFFERENT TANGENT EACH TIME I'VE SPOKEN TO Y'ALL.
AND ONE THING READING THROUGH THE APPEAL THAT MY BROTHER SENT, I FORGOT.
MY NAME IS STEPHANIE STANFORD.
UM, SURE SHE NEEDS TO STATE HER NAME, PLEASE.
I JUST, I BACKED UP AND DID STEPHANIE STANFORD.
UM, MY PARENTS AND MY BROTHER LIVE AT 2 0 7 EAST 34TH STREET.
I'VE ACTED AS A DEVELOPMENT A DEVELOPER'S AGENT, UM, MOST OF MY CAREER.
I JUST WENT THROUGH A PROJECT WHERE WE WERE ON THE SIXTH REVIEW FROM AN APPLICANT'S SET OF PLANS.
AND YES, AGAIN AND AGAIN WE GO BACK THROUGH BECAUSE PLANS CHANGE, THINGS GET MISSED, WE'RE HUMAN.
UM, BUT WHEN YOU FAIL TO ADDRESS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU JUST GET TO HAVE THE PERMIT.
IT MEANS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
AND THE VISIBILITY IS IN THE HOME ORDINANCE.
IT COINCIDES WITH THE NORTH UNIVERSITY'S ACCESS TO THE STREET.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S JUST SOMETHING Y'ALL ARE JUST GOING TO BLATANTLY IGNORE.
I KNOW THE MUELLER COMMUNITY I LIVE IN IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT THAT UNITS HAVE VISITABILITY AND, AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY ABOUT THAT.
THE PERMIT HOLDER IS OUR NEIGHBOR, NOT OUR OPPONENT.
AND AS A NEIGHBOR AT ONE POINT POSTED THAT THE FRONT UNIT WAS GOING TO BE RENTED AT $14,000 A MONTH IN THE BACK UNIT AT $12,800 A MONTH.
THAT'S $4 AND 6 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT IN RENT.
I PAY A DOLLAR 56 PER RENT IN MUELLER FOR A VERY NICE FOUR BEDROOM WALKING DISTANCE TO HEB.
THE $1,700 PER UNIT DUPLEX THAT WAS TORN DOWN, UH, WAS AFFORDABLE.
AND WE'VE HAD LOVELY NEIGHBORS LIVE THERE OVER MY ENTIRE LIFE THAT ARE NOW LIFELONG FRIENDS OF MY PARENTS.
IF YOU WANT AFFORDABILITY, YOU DON'T CRAM DENSITY DOWN OUR THROATS.
YOU WORK WITH US, YOU CREATE A COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING Y'ALL TO CONSIDER IS THIS IS ABOUT COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCES THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN.
[02:35:01]
OKAY.AND I BELIEVE WE GOT ONE MORE AND WHO'S GONNA BE DONATING TIME TO YOU? SO WE HAVE PETER JORDAN TAYLOR WITH, UM, ROBERT TAYLOR DONATING HIS TIME, AND RANDY THOMPSON DONATING HIS TIME.
OKAY, BOTH OF Y'ALL RAISE YOUR HANDS BEFORE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UH, MY MOTHER WANTED TO SPEAK AND I FEEL I SHOULD GIVE HER SOME OF MY TIME IF WE ARE.
I UNDERSTAND WE'VE BEEN GOING FOR, DID WE MISS SOMEBODY? THE BUSH? UH, YEAH, APOLOGIES.
WAS SHE SIGNED UP OR, UH, I, I HAD INTENDED ON YOUR SPEAKING NOTES TO INCLUDE ONE THING THAT SAID ADDITIONAL PEOPLE HAVE HER COME TAKE MIDDLE SEAT.
I'M ASSUMING YOU WANNA FINISH LAST? YES, MA'AM.
MY NAME IS, UH, CAROL RENEE, AND IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, I WAS ACTUALLY THE APPELLANT WITH, ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND IN THE FIRST CASE WHEN YOU HEARD THIS, UH, THE FIRST TIME.
AND, UM, IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION AT THAT TIME IN OUR FAVOR, IN PART BECAUSE THE PERMIT DID NOT CONSIDER OUR NCCD FOR A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
SO I JUST WANT THAT ON THE RECORD.
UM, IT HAS BEEN A VERY COMPLEX, COMPLICATED, UM, LIFE CHALLENGING SITUATION SINCE LAST JULY.
UH, IT'S BEEN, UH, JUST AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT THING TO DEAL WITH, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'VE HAD SO LITTLE SUPPORT OR CARE FROM THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.
AND THEY HAVE NOT EVEN ON THIS LAST APPLICATION, THEY DID NOT INCLUDE THE NCCD AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT, UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES IF, UH, IF YOU'VE READ MY STATEMENTS THAT I SENT IN PREVIOUSLY, UM, I, I'VE ACTUALLY SORT OF SERVED AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, HOUSE MOTHER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS TO NUMEROUS STUDENTS WHO HAVE LIVED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'RE OFTEN KNOCKING ON MY DOOR, ARE BRINGING BROWNIES ARE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO STUDENTS.
WE ACTUALLY TRIED BACK IN THE EIGHTIES TO HAVE THE CITY INCLUDE MORE, UH, GARAGE APARTMENTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AT THAT TIME, ZONING DID NOT ALLOW IT.
WE'VE ACTUALLY WORKED HARD PREVIOUSLY TO GET MORE DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE'RE ALSO, PEOPLE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY LOVE ABOUT IT IS THE STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE OLD CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSES.
THERE'S SOMETHING VERY, UM, THOSE HOUSES WERE DEVELOPED IN THE TIME WHEN THERE WAS A BACK TO NATURE SORT OF MOVEMENT, PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT.
SMALLER HOMES, YARDS WHERE WE CAN GARDEN, GROW FOOD.
UM, AND WE ALSO LIKE TO HAVE STUDENTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE LEARN FROM THEM, THEY LEARN FROM US.
WE'VE SHOWN, I THINK THAT WITH THE, WITH THE 0.4 THAT WE CAN INCREASE DENSITY STEEL.
AND WE HAVE HAD ON MY BLOCK THERE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN NUMEROUS.
AND THERE ARE AT THIS POINT WHERE, UH, KELLY AND ERIN LIP, THERE ARE THREE UNITS ON THAT BLOCK.
THERE ARE THREE UNITS, UH, ON THE CORNER AS YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMMENTS ON HOW LONG THIS PROCESS HAS TAKEN AND WHY WE ARE STILL HERE.
UM, THAT I DO NOT THINK REFLECT THE RECORD AND I ALSO THINK ARE SUBSTANTIVE TO WHY.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO APPEALS ON THIS.
SO I WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THOSE.
UH, BEFORE I CIRCLE BACK ON SOME FINAL COMMENTS.
UM, WE WERE ALL TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST APPEAL, UM, WHERE WE SAW THAT THE REASON FOR THAT APPEAL WAS THAT THE PROJECT VIOLATED NCCD SETBACK RULES AND IT ALSO VIOLATED SF THREE ZONING AS A FOUR UNIT PROJECT.
THE DESIGN TEAM OF THE PROJECT COULD HAVE MADE CHOICES
[02:40:01]
NOT TO DO THESE DECISIONS AND GOTTEN AN APPROVED PERMIT THAT DID NOT VIOLATE CITY CODE.I HAVE HIGH RESPECT FOR THE CITY STAFF BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE MONTHS THIS HAS GONE ON, I HAVE WORKED WITH QUITE A FEW OF THEM AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THERE.
BUT I DO TAKE ISSUE, UH, WITH MR. LLOYD'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE CAREFUL CARE FOR CCDS.
I PERSONALLY PHOTOGRAPHED AND EMAILED STAFF VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE SIDE SETBACK VIOLATION ON THE SITE MONTHS BEFORE THE PER PERMIT WAS ISSUED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY STAFF, BUT THEY APPROVED THE PROJECT WITH THAT VIOLATION IN IT, DESPITE EVIDENCE PROVIDED.
AND THEN LATER, ONCE AN APPEAL WAS FILED, INDICATED THAT YES, WE WERE CORRECT, THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE THERE.
AND THEY PUT THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THEY GAVE TO YOU.
BUT EVEN ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS BEYOND THAT WERE FOUND.
SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MIGHT WANNA BE VIGILANT WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THESE PROJECTS, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE VIGILANT WHEN ENCOUNTER WITH CITY STAFF BEGINS WITH EMAILS STATING THAT THEY WILL NOT MEET WITH YOU ON THE PROJECT.
THEY WILL NOT SHARE THE PROJECT APPLICATION OR THE APPROVED PLANS OR THE PLANS WITH YOU UNTIL THEY APPROVE THEM.
THESE ARE WRITTEN STATEMENTS I RECEIVED FROM STAFF OVER THE COURSE OF TWO PERMITS.
THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE ARBOR DEPARTMENT.
THERE WERE PEOPLE IN AUSTIN ENERGY WHO REGULARLY RESPONDED TO QUESTIONS I HAD TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROCESS WORKED.
BUT THERE WERE STAFF THAT AFTER REFUSING TO RELEASE THE PLANS, TOLD ME THAT OUT OF FAIRNESS, I SHOULD REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING CITY STAFF.
DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, THEY TOLD ME I SHOULD FILE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.
AND WHEN I DID, IT WAS DENIED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE REASON THAT THE PLANS WERE UNDER REVIEW.
IT TOOK A MEETING WITH SENIOR CITY STAFF TO THEN SUDDENLY SAY THAT THIS WAS A SOFTWARE ISSUE AND THE PLANS WEREN'T BEING PROPAGATED OVER TO A PLATFORM BECAUSE THEY HAD CHOSEN TO USE A NEW REVIEW METHOD THAT USE A DIFFERENT SOFTWARE THING.
THIS WAS NEVER COMMUNICATED TO ME IN ANY OF MY COMMUNICATIONS.
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW TODAY, IF A PROJECT IS GOING THROUGH EXPEDITED REVIEW AND A RESIDENT WANTS TO SEE THOSE PLANS, THEY WILL HAVE TO CONTACT THE CITY AND SET UP AN ACCOUNT TO THE CITY'S INTERNAL SOFTWARE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PLANS THAT ARE NORMALLY PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE 20 DAYS AFTER YOU'VE BEEN FINALLY SHOWN THE PLANS, UM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO FIND THINGS THAT ARE WRONG, BUT WHEN THE PLANS ARE THAT FLAWED, WE ACTUALLY FOUND QUITE A LOT.
AND I, UM, WOULD YOU STATE THAT THAT IS THE REASON THAT THIS PROCESS HAS TAKEN SO LONG? AND THE REASON THAT WE ARE STILL HERE? IN THE FIRST APPEAL, WE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF PAYING 3000 OVER $3,000 TO THE CITY.
WITH THE RESULT BEING THAT THE CODE WAS ENFORCED, WE HAVE NOW PAID OVER $8,000 ONCE AGAIN SIMPLY SEEKING TO HAVE THE CODE ENFORCED.
THERE ARE STATEMENTS AROUND WHAT IS THE LAW? WELL, THE CITY CODE IS VERY CLEAR.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHEN AN ORDINANCE WAS PASSED.
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT IS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING APPLICATION.
AND SILENCE IS A KEY ASPECT OF CODE.
I STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR NCCD APPLYING AN OH 0.4 FAR TO ALLOT WITH THE SAME ZONING AND THE SAME BUILDING CONFIGURATION AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTITUTES SILENCE.
THE PROCESS BEGAN WITH THE DEMOLITION OF TWO ACTUAL AFFORDABLE HOMES.
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AMPLE ROOM FOR A THIRD UNIT TO BE ADDED, THAT WOULD'VE PRESERVED THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ADDED MORE HOUSING, AND CREATED A LUCRATIVE RENTAL FOR THE OWNER.
THOSE UNITS WERE VERY POPULAR.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ACTUALLY IN A CRISIS NOW WHERE WE RENTER THE OWNERS OF RENTAL PROPERTY ARE STRUGGLING
[02:45:01]
TO ATTRACT STUDENTS BECAUSE OF NUMEROUS FACTORS THAT ARE GOING ON.THESE WERE REGULARLY RENTED AND IF THE DEVELOPER HAD REACHED OUT TO US, WE COULD HAVE EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THEY HAD PURCHASED QUITE AN EXCELLENT PROJECT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WOULD HAVE RENTAL INCOME, THEY COULD THANK THANKS TO HOME, WHICH WE ARE NOT AGAINST THREE UNITS AND NOT AGAINST CORE ASPECTS OF HOME.
THEY COULD HAVE ADDED ANOTHER UNIT AND HAD EVEN ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DISPLACE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE STRUGGLING NOW TO FIND HOUSING STILL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO WALK TO UT WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR JOBS AND THEIR DEGREES.
THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS IS WAREHOUSING OF PEOPLE IN WHAT I THINK COULD REASONABLY BE CONSTITUTED TO BE UNSAFE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN A MEANINGFUL CODE OR ZONING WAY.
AND FROM STATEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, THIS WAS STUDENT HOUSING DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE BEDROOM COUNT.
AND I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT BEDROOM COUNT MEANS MONEY.
THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT IS WAREHOUSING OF PEOPLE TO SERVE THE PROFIT OF THE DEVELOPER.
UM, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, UM, DURING THIS LONG PROCESS.
UM, SO I WILL JUST CIRCLE BACK, UM, TO JUST SOME OF THOSE KEY ISSUES THAT WE'VE TRIED TO RAISE.
UM, THERE IS NOT SILENCE IN THE NCCD ON THIS.
UH, THERE IS A CLEAR AND SIMPLE ROUTE FOR A FINDING.
IT IS NOT AN AGGRESSIVE FINDING.
IT TOUCHES A VERY SMALL AREA OF THE CITY.
IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THREE UNITS TO BE BUILT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF HOMES OH 0.65 FAR ACROSS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITY.
AND IT WILL NOT LIMIT THE EXPANSION OF DENSITY WITHIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NCCD WAS DESIGNED AS YOU'VE HEARD THESE STATEMENTS MANY TIMES TO PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL PERMIT.
THERE IS, IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO LIMIT DENSITY.
AND IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES TO ALLOW FOR ADUS TO ALLOW FOR, UH, ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WAS A FORWARD LOOKING DOCUMENT, NOT DESIGNED TO FREEZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT DESIGNED TO ALLOW IT TO GROW IN A WAY THAT PRESERVED AFFORDABILITY AND PRESERVE THE HOMES THAT WERE THERE, NOT HAVE THEM DEMOLISHED, UH, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN INCREASE THEIR MONEY.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
NOW, UH, FOR SPEAKERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL, WE'RE TAKING SPEAKERS OPPOSED ANY ONLINE.
DO YOU MIND SENDING IT TO THREE MINUTES IF POSSIBLE? THANK YOU.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
I'M HERE SPEAKING ON MY OWN BEHALF TONIGHT.
UM, I FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS, I THINK A DIFFERENT DESIGN WOULD BE NICE, BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THE DEPTH OF THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN THIS ONE CONTENTIOUS PROJECT.
AND WHAT I'M REALLY HERE FOR IS WHEN WE HAVE THESE CONTENTIOUS PROJECTS WHERE WE STRETCH OUR KNOWLEDGE AND OUR SPECIALTIES, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE CAPABLE OF TO BLOCK IT, WE END UP BLOCKING OTHER THINGS.
THAT TO ME IS THE MAIN ISSUE AND MY MAIN INTEREST HERE.
UM, THE 0.4 FAR THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING UNDER PART SEVEN IS EXPLICITLY FOR A SPECIFIC ADDRESS.
THEREFORE IT'S ONLY FOR THAT ADDRESS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE OR APPLY TO OTHER ADDRESSES.
AND ALSO, I WAS THINKING IF, IF Y'ALL KNEW HOW MANY TIMES BRENT AND LINDY HAVE SAID NO TO MY IDEAS
[02:50:01]
AS A BILL TRYING TO READ THE CODE READ, Y'ALL WOULD BE VERY PROUD OF THEM.THEY HAVE A FIDELITY TO THE CODE AND THE WORDS MEAN SOMETHING.
BUT 0.44 ON A SPECIFIC ADDRESS DOESN'T APPLY TO TRIPLEXES NCD WIDE.
UM, THE, I WOULD BE, I I THINK THE ONE THAT Y'ALL PROBABLY WANNA SINK YOUR TEETH INTO IS THE CONGREGATE HOUSING AS YOUR WAY OUT.
BUT, UM, YOU'RE HEARING FIVE BEDROOMS, I THINK IT'S WRITTEN, UH, 10, 10 OCCUPANTS.
UM, AND THEY HAVE TO BE TRANSIENT IN NATURE.
IT MENTIONS MOTELS, BED AND BREAKFAST AND, UM, THE, UH, SO I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL IF Y'ALL MAKE A DECISION ON THAT.
SPEAKING OF THAT, TO THAT POINT, I KNOW OF A PRO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SAYING THIS IS A SMALL NCCD AND IT ONLY APPLIED, BUT I'M AWARE OF A PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED RECENTLY IN 7 8 7 0 4 BECAUSE THEY'RE COUNTING THE ATTIC.
AND THIS IS A REALLY LARGE SPANNING DECISION YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE TONIGHT.
THAT COULD HAVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE FEASIBILITY OF GOOD DESIGN, NOT JUST IN THE NCCD, BUT IN OTHER NCCS CITYWIDE.
AND LIKE I SAID, I, I WOULD TRY TO DESIGN SOMETHING ELSE, BUT, UM, THOSE ARE VERY HARD AND THIS ONE MADE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPEAL? OKAY, THEN WE MOVE TO REBUTTAL, WHICH WILL BE REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT FOR TWO MINUTES.
THREE MINUTES DIFFERENT FOR INTERPRETATION CODE APPELLATE APPELLATE.
CHAIR BOBBY LAVINSKY, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT HERE IN REBUTTAL.
UM, I WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS THAT I HEARD.
UM, TRIPLEXES ARE ALLOWED IN THAT NCCD HISTORICALLY, THEY WERE ALLOWED UNDER MF ZONING.
HISTORICALLY THEY HAD A 0.5 FAR.
THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS THAT THREE FAMILY IS NOW ALLOWED WITHIN SF TWO.
AND SF THREE PART FIVE OF THE NCCD ORDINANCE ONLY SPEAKS TO USES.
PART SEVEN SPEAKS TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHERE YOU FIND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, FOR SF TWO AND SF THREE, YOU HAVE A 0.4 FAR AND AT MAX ANY OTHER USE IN THE NCCD WOULD BE 0.5.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO APPLY MEETING TO THAT SECTION OF PART PART SEVEN.
THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE NCCD IS ABOUT RESPECTING THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE POINT THAT WAS RAISED ABOUT THE TRIPLEX THAT WAS ALLOWED UNDER AN NCCD AMENDMENT IN 2012, IT WAS THE APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE THAT'S EMBEDDED WITHIN PART SEVEN TO APPLY THE 0.4 TO A, TO A TRIPLEX USE.
IT'S PRECEDENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PART SEVEN.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THERE.
UM, AGAIN, THE NCCD WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY TO PREVENT THE DEMOLITION AND DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THE WHAT YOU HAVE COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS YES, IT'S A DUPLEX IN THE FRONT.
NO ONE'S DISPUTING THE DUPLEX IN THE FRONT.
NO ONE'S DISPUTING THAT THERE COULD BE A THIRD UNIT IN THE BACK.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THE SCALE OF IT.
AND I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THIS CASE HAS SHOWN ME IS HOW ACHIEVABLE IT IS TO BUILD A MODERATELY SIZED TRIPLEX WITH 0.4 FAR.
YOU CAN APPLY AND ACHIEVE THE PRINCIPLES OF A HOME BY ENFORCING THE NCCD.
AND AGAIN, THE NCCD IS NOT SILENT.
THE NCCD IS CLEAR THAT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD TO DEPART SEVEN APPLY TO ALL USES WITHIN THAT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
[02:55:01]
THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WITH HOME IS NOW YOU CAN HAVE THREE FAMILY UNITS WITHIN THE SF TWO SF THREE CATEGORY.WE ASK THAT YOU ALSO TAKE A TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER TWO U UH, UM, ZONING ISSUES THAT WE RAISED, BUT THAT IS THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF THIS CASE.
SO PLEASE APPLY A 0.4 FAR TO THREE FAMILIES RESIDENTIAL.
WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL START DISCUSSION.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER.
UM, IN, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES THE LAW IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED.
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER INFORMATION BEING THROWN AROUND AND YOU EXPRESS SOME FRUSTRATION WITH THAT.
AND I DEFINITELY EMPATHIZE WITH THAT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN, UH, QUITE A JOURNEY.
UM, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW.
CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR ANSWER TO, UM, THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT, UH, VIS-A-VIS SECTION SEVEN OF THE NCCD? SO HE'S ARGUING THAT UNDER SECTION SEVEN, UH, THERE IS A 0.4 FAR THAT IS APPLICABLE TO SF THREE PROPERTIES.
AND EVEN THOUGH AT THE TIME THE NCCD WAS WRITTEN AND AMENDED, THREE UNIT PROPERTIES WERE NOT ALLOWED ON SF UH, SF THREE ZONED PROPERTIES, THAT THAT ZONING SHOULD STILL APPLY.
UM, AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE.
THE NCCD IS EXPLICITLY TALKS ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES.
THAT IS IT, IT'S CLEARLY IN LANGUAGE.
ALSO, THE PREAMBLE OF THE NCCD SPECIFICALLY STATES WHEN THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY, IT DEFAULTS TO THE CITY CODE, WHICH IS AT THIS TIME THE HOME ORDINANCE.
THIS IS IT, IT IS, THE HOME ORDINANCE WAS LATEST IN TIME.
CITYWIDE BLANKET N CCDS IS EXTREMELY SPECIFIC, NARROW APPLIED TO A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD DECADES AGO.
SO THE HOME ORDINANCE, NOT ONLY IT'S EXPLICIT, IT SPECIFIES THAT THE THREEPLEX USE IS PERMITTED, ALLOWED.
THERE IS A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHY IT WAS DECIDED TO BE SO, AND IT PROVIDES A 0.605 FAR SPECIFIED.
UM, JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
SO IN THE ACTUAL, JUST IF, IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
SO IN THE ACTUAL CHART IN PART SEVEN, UM, THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS SF TWO, SF THREE, AND IT SAYS MAX FAR 0.4.
AND THE WORD DUPLEX IS NEXT TO IT.
IS YOUR POSITION THAT BECAUSE THE WORD DUPLEX IS NEXT TO IT, IT DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS SITUATION? PARTIALLY, YES, BUT IT ALSO GOES BACK TO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CCDS, WHICH SPECIFICALLY DEFAULTS TO THE CITYWIDE ORDINANCE WHEN IT'S SILENT, AMBIGUOUS, OR IS IN CONFLICT.
DON'T FORGET THE NCCS, WERE NOT ONLY DESIGNED, THERE IS SPECIFIC SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS.
A CODE INSTRUMENTS DESIGNED FOR A SPECIFIC USE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OR A SPECIFIC SET OF PROPERTIES.
AGAIN, NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WHEN HOME ORDINANCE WAS NOT PASSED, IT HAS, IT IS A CONTROLLING LAW OF THE LAND FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF AUSTIN.
YES, I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THAT, WHERE THERE'S NOT A CONFLICT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SUSS OUT NOW.
THERE'S A LOT SAID HERE TONIGHT.
SO I WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UH, THERE WAS A COMMENT, UH, WELL, WE JUST RECEIVED LEGAL COUNSEL THAT N CCC D ORDINANCE SUPERSEDES HOME.
NOWHERE DOES HOME NEGATE NCC DS AS NCC DS ARE ORDINANCES JUST AS HOME IS.
UH, I WILL STATE TO NUNA AND HOPEFULLY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HERE, UH, THIS, UH, UH, ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY TONIGHT, I WILL STATE HAVING DIFFERENT ZONING APPLICATIONS BASED ON LOT PER LOT BASIS, BASIS MAKES IT VERY HARD TO APPLY THE HOME ORDINANCE ACROSS THE CITY IN A UNIFORM MANNER.
UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ALL CCDS TAKE A LOOK AT
[03:00:01]
THEIR CCDS BECAUSE THE HOME ORDINANCE IS A LIVING DOCUMENT.WE WERE INFORMED OF THAT AS WELL.
AND SO THEREFORE IT'S GONNA ALSO CHANGE.
AND, UH, SINCE YOU HAVE YOUR NCCD ORDINANCES, JUST LIKE HOME IS AN ORDINANCE, NCCD IS AN ORDINANCE, IF THE, UH, HOME ORDINANCE IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, THEN I THINK THE NCC DS NEED SHOULD START TO BE REVIEWED.
UH, THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY WHERE WE'RE GOING AT TONIGHT, BUT THEY SHOULD BE REVIEWED BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS CHANGING NOW IN AUSTIN WITH DEVELOPMENT AND THE GROWTH OF AUSTIN.
SO AS WELL, AND THE, THE NCCD SHOULD BE, UH, REVISITED.
AGAIN, I KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN VISITED OVER THE YEAR.
YOU HAVE AMENDMENT 7, 6, 5, 4 3.
WE GO DOWN TO NUMBERS, BUT JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, HOME IS A LIVING DOCUMENT.
SO THE NCCD ARE GONNA HAVE TO STAY ON THEIR TOES AND, AND KEEP UP WITH THEM.
I HEARD, UM, THAT, UH, STAFF SHOULD NOT BE PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT TO IGNORE IN THE CCDS.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND BEEN SERVING UP HERE FOR WELL OVER 20 SOME YEARS.
IF I WAS AN EMPLOYEE, I COULD HAVE RETIRED WITH A PENSION.
AND I, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE WORK WE DO UP HERE DOES, UH, IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN, IN AUSTIN.
AND THAT'S WHY I CONTINUE TO SERVE.
THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN CONTINUED TO OVER THE YEARS BY DIFFERENT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS ASKED TO CONTINUE SERVING IN STEAD.
AND SO HAVING SAID THAT, I I, I'VE WORKED WITH STAFF FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
I DON'T THINK THEY PICK AND CHOOSE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S, UH, MY EXPERIENCE THAT STAFF IS PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE ABOUT IT.
STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE LIBERTY OF LOOKING AT INTENT.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE LI THE LIBERTY OF LOOKING AT THE SPIRIT OF THIS OR THAT OR THE OTHER.
IT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THEIR HANDS ARE TIED IN THAT WAY.
AND, UH, I, I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, I DID SEE, UH, THIS, THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THIS SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO ZONING, UH, ZONING TO BE, UH, REVIEWED AS A CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY.
SO I, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA TOUCH ON THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SEND ANYTHING BACK TO ZONING TO BE SENT ON, UH, TO BE REVIEWED.
UM, THE POINT FAR IT WAS STATED THAT THE POINT FAR FOR FAR ONLY APPLIES TO ONE ADDRESS.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT BASED ON WHAT I READ AND WHAT I, MY INTERPRETATION.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE MY FELLOW, UH, COMMISSIONER WAS GOING ALSO AS WELL.
UH, THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20 12 0 8 0 2 1 0 3, AMENDED SEVEN TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM OF 0.4 FAR FOR LOTS ZONED SF THREE, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY BUILDINGS ARE ON THAT LOT, IF YOU CAN GET THREE, YOU CAN GET FOUR, YOU CAN GET FIVE.
NOW, THIS IS MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF IT IN THE WAY THAT I'M READING IT.
AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I MADE THE MOTION, UH, PREVIOUSLY, THAT WAS MY DIRECTION.
AND THAT'S WHERE I'M AT TODAY WITH THE LANGUAGE ON IT.
I, I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UM, STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
AND I DO FEEL THAT THE ZONING INTERPRETATION SHOULD STATE THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE NUNA OR IN IT IN CCDS, THEN THE ORDINANCE SHOULD ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM OF 0.4 FAR FOR LOT ZONE SF THREE.
LET'S TAKE THE NUMBER OF UNITS OUT OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE ADDRESSED FAIRLY.
UH, WE CANNOT OPERATE ON SUPPOSITION.
I WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR, I OWNED MY OWN COMPANY AND BUILT EVERYTHING FROM THE TERMINAL AT THE AIRPORT TO MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN, IN WEST AUSTIN.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH CONSTRUCTION, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH PLANS, DESIGN, BEEN THERE, DONE IT, DEVELOPED MY OWN PROPERTY.
AND SO I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.
AND I ALSO MUST STATE THAT WE CANNOT OPERATE, OPERATE ON SUPPOSITION OR, UH, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AFTER THE BOARD MAKES ITS A DECISION.
IT WOULD BE UP TO THE INSPECTORS AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE THAT IT BUILT, IT'S BUILT ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS.
IN ALL MY YEARS UP HERE, WE'VE DISCUSSED STEALTH DORMS. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF STEALTH DORMS. YES, I'VE HEARD A WHOLE WALK LIKE A DUCK.
CRACKS LIKE A DUCK FOR LIPSTICK ON A PIG.
[03:05:01]
BEING A SOVEREIGN BOARD, WE CAN'T GO ON SUPPOSITION OR PROBABLY WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN OR WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN MAY DO.I AGREE IT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A WINDOW IN A PANTRY, BUT IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A WINDOW IN A BEDROOM FOR EGRESS IF THAT'S REQUIRED BY FIRE CODE.
SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, SIR.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PLANS.
AND I KNOW YOU CAME INTO THIS.
YOU'RE NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU BOUGHT INTO THIS.
BUT I STILL FEEL THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, SITUATION THAT THE INTERPRETATION SHOULD STATE AT THAT.
AND SINCE WE HAD THE, UH, LEGAL ADVICE THAT THE NCCD ORDINANCES SUPERSEDE HOME AND WHERE, AND WHERE IT DOESN'T HAVE A CLEAR DESCRIPTIVE, UM, DOESN'T IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY THREE UNITS ON A LOT, THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S ON AN SF THREE, UM, LOT SHOULD CARRY THE 0.4 FAR.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON IT.
I'M GONNA LET MY OTHER, UH, MEMBERS, UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAK.
I AM WILLING TO MAKE A, A MOTION, BUT I'LL WAIT UNTIL EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I DID SEE BOARD MEMBER BOWEN'S HAND NEXT.
SO THEN I'LL COME TO YOU VICE CHAIR AND LOOKING LEFT.
OKAY, SO BOWEN OR THEN, UH, HAWTHORNE, YOU TALK ABOUT FRUSTRATION.
YOU SHOULD SEE IT FROM THIS SIDE OF THE CUT OF THE DAIS.
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MANY GROUPS IN THIS TOWN THAT HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP THROUGH THE HOME ORDINANCE.
UM, IT WAS SAID MANY, MANY TIMES THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
UM, I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT, THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING, NOT, BEING, NOT BEING, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBERS BEING HERE, THAT ARE, THEY'RE HERE FOR A VERY GOOD REASON BECAUSE THEY CARE.
THEY HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO DEVELOP A SITUATION SINCE
THIS NCCD WAS ESTABLISHED BASED UPON THEIR HARD WORK.
AND THERE ARE OTHER NCC DS ACROSS THIS TOWN THAT ARE WATCHING EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS CASE.
SO THE FRUSTRATION IS NOT JUST WITH YOU, SIR, IT IS WITH ALL OF US UP HERE, AND I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, THE REST OF 'EM CAN SPEAK FOR THEIR SELVES WHEN IT COMES TO THE FRUSTRATION OF NOT ONLY THE STAFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WAS DONE.
AND YET TONIGHT I DID FINALLY GET TO HEAR LEGAL SAY, HOME DOES NOT SUPERSEDE AN NCCD.
NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, SIR, WE HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
AND FOR ONCE THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS CONS THAT I, I CONCENTRATED ON AND KEPT LOOKING AT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD, AS YOU SAID, NOT SHALL RESPECT TRADITIONAL PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING, ORIENTATION, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATIONS.
THERE'S ALSO A SAFETY CONSIDERATION THAT I AM VERY ATTUNED TO, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE.
UM, THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY WANTED THESE THINGS, THESE, THESE BUILDINGS LOCATED THE WAY THEY WERE.
AND I BELIEVE FIRE SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE.
YES, IT, THE BUILDING IS SPRINKLED AS PER WHAT OUR PERMITTING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE.
UM, SO I'M IN A GRANTS WITH MY, MY COHORT AT THE BOTTOM, AT THE END OF THE TABLE DOWN THERE.
UM, I'VE BEEN INTO BUSINESS A LONG TIME AND SEEN A LOT OF THINGS AND I'M, I'M REALLY, THIS IS JUST AS FRUSTRATING TO ME.
THIS ACTUAL PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LISTED ON THE NCCD BY ADDRESS, JUST
[03:10:01]
AS THEY SAID THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER AS SAYING THAT IT'S SF THREE.THERE ARE OTHER LOTS THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE AREA THAT ARE ALL SF THREE ALSO.
UH, THEREFORE, UM, THE FRUSTRATION IS MUTUAL ACROSS THIS.
AND I THINK THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY EVERYBODY ACROSS THE BOARD AND HOW THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS.
UM, I'M GONNA START WITH THE EASIEST ITEM, WHICH WOULD BE, I BELIEVE THAT PART SIX TWO A APPLIES IN THAT BUILDING TWO SHOULD FRONT THE PRO PART FRONT PROPERTY LINE THE STREET.
'CAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS RELATIVELY CLEAR IN THE NCCD AND I DON'T THINK THE ALLEY IS WIDE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN, UH, AN ENTRANCE.
I WILL SAY THAT I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT THAT PART SEVEN IS CLEAR, THAT THE 0.4 TO ONE FAR APPLIES TO SF TWO AT SF THREE.
UM, I, I DO UNDERSTAND AND, AND I KNOW IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT AND I HAVE A LOT OF, UH, COMPASSIONATE EMPATHY FOR STAFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE A JOB TO DO AND THEY CAN'T REALLY TELL SOMEBODY, UH, WHAT THEY CAN'T GIVE 'EM A TICKET BEFORE THEY SPEED.
UH, THEY REALLY CAN'T JUST SAY, YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
I MEAN, IF YOU ALTER A WALL, YOU PUT IN A CHASE, YOU TAKE OUT A DOOR, YOU JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE A WINDOW IN YOUR PANTRY.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T TELL SOMEONE.
AND THEN ONCE IT ONCE, AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, ONCE SOMETHING IS CONSTRUCTED, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET IN THE DOOR TO PROVE IT.
AND SO IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT IS UNATTAINABLE.
AND, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
AND I ALSO DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL WILL OF WHO CAN TELL YOU, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE POLITICAL WILL OF WHO, BUT I KNOW I CAN VOTE AND I KNOW THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE.
AND, UH, I, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I I DO ENVY YOU HAVING THE NCCD JUST IN GENERAL.
I MEAN, I LIVE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ON A CUL-DE-SAC NEXT TO PARKLAND WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS IN S OS.
AND I FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE BETTER PROTECTIONS THAN I DO IN SOS JUST SAYING.
I MEAN, THE ONLY THING I'VE GOT IS DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT I KNOW I WILL EXERCISE MY RIGHTS OVER TO THE END.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT ALL OF THIS JUST BECOMES SO, UH, SO I DO WANT TO, BEFORE WE ALL GET, GET TIRED, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S A LONG NIGHT.
YOU KNOW, WE ALL WORK AND THESE ARE VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AND I ADMIRE EVERYONE UP HERE FOR THE FORTITUDE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT FORTITUDE, OKAY, I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU.
UM, BUT THE PART SIX TWO A APPLIES, IT SHOULD FACE THE STREET.
THAT'S WHAT THAT IS DEFINITELY IN THE CODE.
AND IN PART SEVEN, THE 0.4 TO ONE, I AM HESITANT ON, UH, I I I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THE TWO OR THREE UNIT.
UH, THERE ARE TRIPLEXES, THERE ARE THREE UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I THINK THAT IT SPECIFICALLY IN THE SF TWO, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THEY HAD THE MF ONE ZONING CATEGORY.
BUT THE SF TWO AND SF THREE BEING NOT THAT, I'M NOT SURE THAT WHEN, WHEN THE ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NCC WAS DRAFTED DIDN'T ACTUALLY CONTAIN THE DEFINITION SECTIONS, IT WOULD, IT, IN MY OPINION, HAVING PARTICIPATED IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, UNTIL IT DIED, I THINK THE QUOTE WAS TO CHINA BY, UH, SULLIVAN.
UH, ANYWAY, I I THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY, UH, JEFF JACK'S FAULT, RIGHT? BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT DO I KNOW? I MEAN, AFTER SPENDING THREE YEARS ON SOMETHING AND, AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF TIME.
IT'S, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN A ROOM WITH PEOPLE THAT YOU WANNA, YOU KNOW, KUMBAYA WITH YOU GET THROUGH IT.
YOU, YOU DEVELOP A HEALTHY RESPECT FOR OTHERS, AND YOU, AND YOU LISTEN AND YOU GET THROUGH IT AND YOU CREATE THIS ORDINANCE.
[03:15:01]
THAT ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE DEFINITIONS THAT WENT INTO IT.AND IT WAS NOT IN THE HABIT OF LEGAL TO REPEAT DEFINITIONS.
THEY WOULD RELY ON THE BASE CODE.
UH, SO I'M PROBABLY WITH MICHAEL ON THE THREE UNITS, TWO UNITS.
I THINK THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN, IT SAYS THE WORD DUPLEX BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT WAS ALLOWED AT MOST IN THAT CATEGORY.
BUT IT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT IT SAYS 0.4.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
AND I AM ONE PERSON AND WE ALL WILL GO HOME EVENTUALLY TONIGHT.
I AM, I'M NOT ONE TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT I DID WANT Y'ALL TO HEAR IT FROM ME.
THE REASON WE OFFER THIS TESTIMONY AT THE BEGINNING AND HAVE YOU SWEAR AN OATH OR AN AFFIRMATION IS, IS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD BOARD, UH, THIS IS UNIQUE.
THIS BOARD HERE IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT CANNOT BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL.
IT IS THE ONLY BOARD THAT CANNOT BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL, ONLY DIRECTLY TO DISTRICT COURT.
SO WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS THE TRUTH.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU WERE GOING BEFORE A JUDGE FOR CRIMINAL COURT OR FOR CIVIL COURT.
WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE TRUTH IS BEING TOLD.
WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO US IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
NOW, I, I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE CODE.
I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION, OR AT LEAST A LACK OF CLARITY OVER WHAT SHOULD APPLY HERE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE BACK HERE FOR THE FOURTH TIME.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS, WHATEVER TONIGHT RESULTS IN WILL RESOLVE ANY OF THE ISSUES AS TO HOW THE NCCS WILL END UP APPLYING IN AREAS WHERE IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT HOW A, A, A ZONED PROPERTY SHOULD BE TREATED.
SO I, I DID WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, APPELLANTS OWNERS, TALK TO YOUR COUNCIL PEOPLE, REACH OUT TO YOUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PUT IT ON THE RADAR, BUG THEM ABOUT IT, MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT HAS DIRECTLY IMPACTED YOU AND, AND, AND HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT, HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO, TO GET THESE, THESE GAPS IN CODE FILLED VERY QUICKLY.
UM, I'M GONNA LEAVE IT AT THAT.
VIRTUAL MEMBERS, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP OR WAS THAT JUST A SOMEBODY
DO YOU, DO YOU MIND IF WE LET SAMARI GO FIRST? BOARD MEMBER BARING, GO AHEAD.
WHAT, HI, I, I JUST WANTED TO PICK UP ALL VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE SAID ABOUT THE FRONT IN, UM, SIX TWO.
SO I GUESS, UH, WOULD YOUR INTERPRETATION BE THAT FOR A THREE UNIT, UM, PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF THE FAR, THAT UM, EACH ONE OF THE THREE UNITS, LET'S SEE, THE BUILDING SHALL FRONT ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT.
SO EACH ONE OF THE THREE UNITS WOULD NEED TO HAVE ITS, OR I GUESS EACH BUILDING, IF IT WAS TWO BUILDINGS OR OR THREE, EACH ONE OF THOSE FACE NEEDS TO HAVE THE FRONT ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT, RIGHT? YEAH.
BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI, UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AND I'M GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK
UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA MAKE THAT MOTION.
LET ME JUST JOT THAT DOWN REAL QUICK.
[03:20:01]
PUT A SECOND ON THAT, THERE'S, THERE'S STILL QUESTIONS ON THIS AND I'D LIKE TO GET TO THOSE FIRST.LEMME JUST GET YOU DOWN HERE FOR MOTION TO UPHOLD, UH, BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH.
UM, MY QUESTION IS TO APPELLANTS, UH, COUNSEL, THE ONE PERSON WHO DID THE OPPOSITION, HE MENTIONED THAT THE, THE CODE THAT YOU SITE IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY FOR ONE PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU DID, YOU ADDRESSED IT IN YOUR REBUTTAL.
CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT AGAIN ONE MORE TIME FOR ME? UH, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT PART SEVEN, YOU ARE LOOKING AT, UH, THE INTENT OF THE SECTION AS TO RESPECT THE OFFICIAL, UH, CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE TRADITIONAL PATTERN OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN AT ITEM SEVEN, YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE.
SO WHEN IN 27, 20 12 THERE WAS A, A TRIPLEX THAT NEEDED SOME SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR IT TO BE ILLEGAL USE, THEY ALLOWED IT TO BE A TRIPLEX WITH 0.4 FAR.
IT'S THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TRADITIONAL PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE, IN THE, I DUNNO THE NUMBER HOW OF THE PART SEVEN, THAT THAT SPEAKS TO THE TRADITIONAL, UH, NATURE OF THE PATTERN OF THE, THE SCALE OF THE SIZE, THE PARKING, THAT, THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE.
SO IT'S, YOU, YOU SEE ITEM SEVEN AS THE APPLICATION OF WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU'RE ALLOWING 0.4 FAR ON AN SF THREE LOT FOR A TRIPLEX, THEN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND THEN I, I CAN GO AHEAD, GO.
BUT DID, DID THAT REALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DIDN'T, RIGHT? UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD ASK LEGAL, LIKE I THINK WE SHOULD ASK STAFF AND LEGAL AS WELL.
YEAH, WE'LL ASK THAT QUESTION.
I WAS GONNA DO THAT TOO, BUT, UH, I WANT OPPOSING COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN TELL ME THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU.
UH, YOU HEARD YOUR OPPONENT'S THING, I THINK, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT IF YOU CAN GIMME LIKE A MINUTE OF WHAT YOUR RESPONSE WOULD BE TO WHAT, UH, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
MY RESPONSE IS ALWAYS THE SAME, MY FRIEND.
NCCD DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS CASE AT ALL.
IT IS SILENT ABOUT A TREE USE.
THAT IS IT, IT IS IN THE PREAMBLE OF NCCD.
IT'S CLEARLY AS A DAYLIGHT WHEN CCD IS NOT CLEAR OR IS SILENT.
THE HOME ORDINANCE OR THE, OR THE CITYWIDE ORDINANCE APPLIES.
THIS IS IT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE I CAN OFFER TO THIS BOARD.
SECTION 6.2, SECTION SEVEN, SECTION FIVE.
THIS IS JUST A THROW MUD TO CONFUSE EVERYBODY.
I'M GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
AND THEN I GUESS MS. LOPEZ, DO YOU HAVE, WOULD YOU WANT TO, UM, SO JUDGE, SORRY.
ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY.
UH, BEFORE I SPEAK TO, DO YOU WANNA MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING? ARE WE, UH, GOD.
I'M MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 1115 AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT IN 10 MINUTE INCREMENTS AFTER THAT, IF WE HAVE TO.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
ANY OBJECTION? I'M NOT VERY HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT I WILL.
EXTENDED TILL 1115, UH, ERICA LOPEZ.
UH, TO ANSWER BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH'S QUESTION, UM, ORDINANCE NUMBER 2012 0 8 0 2 DASH 1 0 3, THE PART THREE, UH, SEVEN.
I'M JUST GONNA READ ALOUD THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, FOR A LOT LOCATED AT 2 0 1 EAST 34TH STREET AND 3 3 0 7 HELM STREET, THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE SHALL BE 3096 SQUARE FEET WITH THE MAXIMUM FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF 0.421.
UH, JUST WANTED TO NOTE, UM, THAT I BELIEVE PART SEVEN OF THE, UH, NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD IS THE CONTROLLING SECTION IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY GOVERNS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERPRET THE EXISTING NCCD STANDARDS IN A MANNER THAT BEST PRESERVES THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HISTORIC CHARACTER AND ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE NCCD WAS NOT INTENDED
[03:25:01]
SIMPLY TO RESTRICT DENSITY, BUT TO GUIDE GROWTH IN A WAY THAT REMAINS COMPATIBLE WITH, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE.I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE NCCD WAS INTENDED TO GUIDE GROWTH IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO, WELL, I DIDN'T GIVE AN OPTION FOR A SECOND.
UM, WAS THERE SOMEONE WILLING TO SECOND THAT MOTION? 'CAUSE AT THIS POINT, WE CAN EITHER LOOK FOR A SECOND BECAUSE YOU HAVE MADE A MOTION, BUT IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE BODY.
UH, AND WE CAN HAVE A SECOND WITH A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, OR YOU COULD WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION BEFORE IT'S SECONDED AND THEN HERE, AND THEN SUBSTITUTE YOUR OWN MOTION AFTERWARDS.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN DO THIS SINCE IT HASN'T OFFICIALLY BEEN SECONDED YET.
UM, BUT I, I DEFER TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MOTION MAKER.
UM, THE SECOND WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS FINE.
AND WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOUR MOTION BE? UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CLARIFY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
WHO'S SECONDING THAT MOTION? OH, UH, WAS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
AND THEN WE WILL GO TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.
AND THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION.
DID SHE HAVE A SECOND? UH, MADAM CHAIR.
I'LL WAIT TO SEE IF, UH, MAGGIE GETS A SECOND TO, UH, BOARD MEMBER POTE SECONDED.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA DO YOUR SUBSTITUTE NOW WOULD BE THE TIME? YES, THAT WOULD BE, YES.
A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CLARIFY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION TO DENY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AND CLARIFY IT TO MODIFY.
DO YOU HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THAT? YES, I DO.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT SO WE CAN GET A, SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND.
THE ZONING INTERPRETATION SHOULD STATE THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT, SINCE THE, THE THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE NEW NUNA AND CCD ORDINANCE AMEND AT THEREFORE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20 12 8 0 2 1 0 3, AMENDED SEVEN TO ESTABLISH AN, UM, A MAXIMUM OF 0.4 FAR FOR THE LOT ZONE.
SF THREE SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENT REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE LOT.
SO I'M, I'M REMOVING THE DUPLEX, I'M REMOVING THE, THE NUMBERS OF ON THE LOTS AND JUST GOING WITH A BIT SINCE SEVEN STATES THAT IT'S SF THREE SF TWO AND SF THREE HAVE 0.4.
POINT FOUR, THEN IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THAT.
IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES ON A LOT.
THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY CLARIFICATION IS, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND CAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE MOTION AGAIN PLEASE? I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW.
YEAH, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOUR MIC TOO? I'S HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING? YEAH.
THAT SINCE STAFF MADE THEIR DECISION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY SAID THAT IT, THE NCCD DID NOT ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE LOT, MY MOTION IS THAT IT'S MODIFIED TO STATE THAT THE DECISION IS BASED UPON THE CATEGORY OF THE LOT SF THREE OR SF TWO, THEY CAN PUT AS MANY, THEY CAN PUT AS MANY HOUSES AS THEY WANT ON IT.
BUT SINCE IT'S SINCE THE NCCD ORDINANCE, WHICH TAKES PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO HOME STATES IN THEIR CO IN THEIR TERMINOLOGY THAT IT, UH, THAT, UH, THE 0.4 FAR FOR LOTS IS OWNED SF THREE, THEN THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.
THAT BASICALLY THEY SHOULD, UH, THE, THIS LOT IS AN SF THREE LOT.
IT SHOULD BE 0.4 FAR AND IT, HE CAN PUT AS MANY BUILDINGS AS HE WANTS ON IT, ON THAT LOT, AS LONG AS, AS IT'S SF THREE UNDER, UNDER HOME OR UNDER HOME, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
IT ELIMINATES THIS WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT THREE UNITS, ONE UNIT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
IT'S BASED ON THE LOT CATEGORY.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE STAFF SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE 0.4 FAR BECAUSE IT'S SF THREE ZONE.
'CAUSE IT, AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS ALSO STATED IN THE NCCD.
AND THE NCCD TAKES PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE HOMEOWNER.
UH, DID IT SPECIFY? I I DIDN'T HEAR WHETHER IT SPECIFIED THAT THIS ONLY
[03:30:01]
APPLIES TO THE, THE, THE, THIS SPECIFIC VERY SINGULAR, SPECIFIC NCCD.AND IF IT DOESN'T, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO LANGUAGE THAT INCLUDES THAT? SO YES, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT JUST FOR THIS N-C-C-D-I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT LANGUAGE, BUT THEN I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS GO BACK AND REVISIT YOUR NCCD AND GET IT SQUARED AWAY.
BUT YES, FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CASE, I JUST DON'T WANT ANOTHER ATTIC.
AND UH, AND I ALSO WANTED TO INTER, UH, TO ADD TO THAT, THAT PART SIX OF THE NCCD FRONT OF THE BUILDING AT THE LOT, LOT REQUIREMENTS BE APPLIED AS WELL.
IT'S BEEN OVERLOOKED THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION.
AND THAT'S PART OF ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO THAT, THAT'S EVEN BEYOND THE NCCD.
NCCD FRONT OF BUILDING AND LOT REQUIREMENTS BE APPLIED IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL.
TWO A FOR ME, THAT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.
FIRE TRUCKS TRYING TO GET DOWN THE BACK AND PEOPLE TRYING TO RUN OFF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S A REAL BIG CONCERN FOR ME.
COULD I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? WELL, CAN WE, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THE STAFF REPORT, UM, WOULD, I CAN'T SEE IF BRENT LLOYD IS STILL THERE, BUT, BUT IF, IF HE IS, HE'S COMING.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? THAT THAT PART OF THE NCCD THAT SAYS EACH BUILDING MUST HAVE THE FRONT ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT.
BRENT LLOYD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DSD.
WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT IS WHAT, UM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER LINDY GARWOOD IS ABOUT TO TELL YOU.
LINDY WILL PROVIDE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDINANCE PROVISION.
UH, LINDY GARWOOD, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS, UM, THAT, SORRY, I'M PULLING UP THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
UM, PART SIX TWO A SAYS ACCEPT PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION B, WHICH IS FOR SPECIFIC AREAS.
SUBSECTION B ADDRESSES SPECIFIC AREAS WITHIN, UM, THE N-C-C-D-A BUILDING SHALL FRONT ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT OR WHERE LOTS HAVE BEEN COMBINED.
ON THE SIDE WHERE THE ORIGINAL SHORT END OF THE LOT'S FRONTED, IT SAYS A BUILDING SHALL FRONT.
SO IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT ALL BUILDINGS MUST FRONT.
AND IT ALSO SPECIFIES THAT THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT, NOT NECESSARILY THE FRONT OF THE LOT FOR A RECTANGULAR LOT, THERE ARE TWO SHORT ENDS OF THE LOT TYPICALLY.
UM, AND SO FRONTING TOWARDS THE STREET OR FRONTING TOWARDS THE ALLEY ARE BOTH ACCEPTABLE.
AND ADDITIONALLY, THE FRONT OR THE REAR BUILDING, UM, DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FRONT EITHER BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS A BUILDING SHE FRONT AND THE FRONT BUILDING DOES FRONT ON ONE OF THE SHORT SIDES.
THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DEMONSTRATE, UM, MULTIPLE UNITS ON THE LOT THAT DON'T NECESSARILY BOTH FACE THE SHORT SIDE, INCLUDING ONE AT THE END OF THIS BLOCK.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT.
OKAY, GIVE US JUST A MINUTE HERE.
UM, I ASKED BOARD MEMBER 1 0 1 TO PUT IT IN WRITING.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THAT? OKAY.
SO WE'LL JUST WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP AND THEN READ IT, VOTE ON IT AND SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE.
SO IN WHAT ORDER ARE WE GONNA VOTE ON THE MOTIONS? 'CAUSE BOARD MEMBER SHARA STUDY HAD HER MOTION WITH, UH, OKAY.
BOARD MEMBER SECONDING, BUT WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT YET.
I JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT ORDER WE'RE GONNA GO.
SO WE HAD THE PRIMARY MOTION, WHICH WAS MADE FIRST BY BOARD MEMBER STAN SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTE.
AND, AND THEN BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN PROPOSED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, UH, BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN IS PUTTING THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT ON PAPER SO THAT IT'S VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
UH, IF IT PASSES, IT STOPS THERE.
IF IT DOES NOT PASS, WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, WHICH WAS THE MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION.
[03:35:01]
FOR HIM TO CRAFT THAT LANGUAGE.AND ON THIS MOTION,
UH, UPHOLD STAFF DECISION REQUIRES THREE BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A DENIAL.
IT MEANS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THE NINE.
SO I THINK I HAVE AN IDEA, AND I'M GONNA JUMP BACK INTO MY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS FOR 30 SECONDS.
LEGAL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS FOR FIVE MINUTES WHILE HE WRITES SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT ITEM 10, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.
IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT I DON'T WANNA SIT IN HERE IN SILENCE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS FOR EXACTLY FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES, MAYBE LESS OR TWO.
SO THE MOTION IS TO MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, CITY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT 25 2 2 7 3 APPLIES TO THREE UNITS IN THE NUNA.
NCCD WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY DOES NOT NEGATE THE NCCD ORDINANCE.
SEVEN REQUIREMENT OF 0.4 FAR FOR LOTS ZONED SF THREE, REGARDLESS OF UNITS ON THE LOT THE FOLLOWING POINT.
FOUR FAR LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE THREE UNITS BECAUSE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20 12 0 8 0 2 1 0 3 7 ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM 0.4 FAR ON SF THREE LOTS.
BUILDING NUMBER TWO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NUNA NCCD BECAUSE PART SIX NCCD FRONT OF BUILDING AND LOT REQUIREMENTS CLEARLY STATE STANDARDS FOR ENTRIES.
SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE 0.4 FAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT THIS APPLIES TO THIS NCCD ONLY.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? AND ALSO JUST THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS TO MODIFY THE STAFF'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTRYWAY AND FACING THE SHORT END OF THE PROPERTY.
I FEEL THAT THOSE, THOSE ITEMS DO NOT PREVENT THE PERMIT HOLDER FROM STILL ACHIEVING WHAT HE WANTS TO ACHIEVE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS HE'S DONE WITH THE PLANS AND EVERYTHING.
IT MAY HAVE TO BE SCALED A LITTLE BIT, BUT HE'S STILL GONNA GET THE SAME.
HE'S GONNA GET HIS BUILDINGS, BUT IT WILL CLARIFY IT FOR THIS IN THE FUTURE, AND HOPEFULLY BY US AS A BODY SOME TIME FOR SOME OF THIS STUFF TO BE CLEARED UP.
IT WAS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I HAD A DISCUSSION NOT ONLY WITH MY CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT MY PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER BEFORE THIS, THAT HOME WAS GONNA CREATE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS WHERE WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO BE MODIFYING THINGS AND DEVELOP, UH, BASICALLY WRITE REWRITING CODE BY INTERPRETATION.
AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL CLEAR, CLARIFY THIS IN GOING FORWARD.
SO I'M GONNA READ IT ONE MORE TIME.
SINCE VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN WAS OFF THE DAIS, UH, CITY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT 25 2 2 7 3 APPLIES TO THREE UNITS.
AND THE NUN NCCD WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY DOES NOT NEGATE THE NCCD ORDINANCE.
NUMBER 20 12 0 8 0 2 DASH 1 0 3 AMENDED SEVEN REQUIREMENT OF 0.4 FAR FOR LOTS ZONED SF THREE.
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE LOT, THE FOLLOWING
[03:40:01]
0.4 LIMITATION APPLIES TO THREE UNITS BECAUSE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20 12 0 8 2 0 3 7 ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM 0.4 FAR ON SF THREE LOTS.BUILDING NUMBER TWO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NUNA NCCD BECAUSE PART SIX, NCCD FRONT OF BUILDING AND LOT REQUIREMENTS CLEARLY STATE STANDARDS FOR ENTRIES.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION.
UH, CAN WE, SORRY, CAN WE BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO CHANGE IT TO FOR THE, FOR THE BUILDING SETUP? 'CAUSE WE'RE JUST SAYING THEY DID IT.
THEY APPLIED SIX TWO WRONG, BUT WE'RE NOT TELLING THEM HOW THEY, HOW TO FIX IT.
APPLYING CORRECTLY, APPLYING IT, BUT THEY, THEY DO THINK THEY CORRECTLY APPLIED IT.
SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT EACH BUILDING YEAH.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING EACH BUILDING, EACH BUILDING SHOULD FACE THE SHORT END OF THE LOT, NOT JUST ONE BUILDING HAVE CONCERN WHEN THEY HAVE
AND I THINK THE SHORT END, THAT'S THE, I GUESS THE STREET SIDE, NOT, NOT WHEN THERE'S TWO SHORT ENDS.
LIKE, UM, WE HAVE HERE THE ALLEYS UNDER SIDE.
SO HOW DO YOU WANNA PHRASE THAT? EACH BUILDING SHOULD BASE, I MEAN, DOWN THE SHORT SIDE STREET SIDE, DO YOU WANNA TRY TO INCLUDE BOTH OR I, I, I HAD FEEDBACK.
UH, HOW, HOW DO YOU WANNA TRY TO WRITE AT EACH BUILDING? SHOULD FACE THE SHORT SIDE.
EACH BUILDING SHOULD FACE STREET SIDE, OR HOW DO YOU WANNA PHRASE IT? NORMALLY ADDRESSES ARE PUT ON A STREET SITE.
IT'S, AND THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
BUT NOW, NOW WE'RE DOING THE ATTIC THING, RIGHT? NO, NO.
NOT THE AT THE N NO, THE NCCD JUST SAYS SHORT END OF THE LOT.
WE'RE NOT GONNA NOW GO IN AND SAY THEY REALLY MEANT THE STREET SIDE OF THE LOT.
I'M, LET'S JUST SAY TWO BUILDING.
LET'S NOT, I'M WE'RE GOOD, MEGAN.
I'M STILL NOT VOTING FOR THIS BY THE WAY, BUT JUST IF YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO, I COUNTED MY VOTES BEFORE I WALKED IN THE ROOM.
I THOUGHT IF THERE'S TWO I DIDN'T SIGN, AND, AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I'D DROP PART SIX FOR JUST PART 7.4.
I THINK THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT.
I WOULD PREFER TO DROP POINT THE PART SIX PORTION IF IT GAINED SUPPORT FOR THE PART 7.4.
BUT I AM NOT THE MOTION MAKER.
SO NOW WE'RE DOWN TO THE INITIAL LACK SPECIFICITY DOES NOT NEGATE THE NCCD ORDINANCE, UH, NUMBER OF BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
MANDATE SEVEN REQUIREMENT 0.4 FAR FOR LOTS ZONED SF THREE, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THAT THE FOLLOWING 0.4 FAR LIMITATION APPLIES TO THREE UNITS BECAUSE ORDINANCE 20 12 0 8 0 2 1 0 3 7 ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM OF 0.4 FAR ON SF THREE LOTS.
AND THE MOTION IS TO MODIFY STAFF DECISION TO APPLY 0.4 FAR TO SF THREE LOTS WITHIN THE NUNA NCCD AND TAKING OFF THE ENTRY FACING FOR PART SIX.
SO JUST MODIFY STAFF DECISION THAT 0.4 FAR SHOULD APPLY TO SF THREE LOTS WITHIN THE NCCD.
DOES EVERYBODY CLEAR THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? THIS IS A MOTION TO MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION TO APPLY 0.4 FAR TO SF THREE LOTS, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON IT WITHIN THE NCCD AND ONLY WITHIN THE NCCD.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE VOTE AGAIN.
THIS WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER YOUNG JU KIM CALL THE VOTE.
I NO, IT REALLY ISN'T DOWN TO YOU.
[03:45:03]
IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.JESSICA, I KNOW WE'RE AT TWO AGAINST, WE'RE AT THREE.
COULDN'T YOU ABSTAIN? AND IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL, I MEAN, THREE.
HOW MANY AGAINST? OH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I SAID I COUNTED MY VOTE BEFORE WE EVEN LEFT THE ROOM, MAGGIE.
SO NOW WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION MADE BY TO COHEN, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
OH, SO THAT JUST THIS DONE? YEAH.
THE APPEALS DIDN'T BEEN DENIED.
STAFF'S DECISION WAS AFFIRMED.
'CAUSE YOU DIDN'T OVERTURN THE, YOU DIDN'T GRANT THE APPEAL.
OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE, IT'S STILL, WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL ANYMORE.
THIS IS AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
THE, SORRY, THE MOTION WAS DENIED.
MADAM CHAIR THE APPEAL, OR SORRY, THE APPEAL WAS DENIED.
BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE, I WANNA DO A SHOUT OUT TO TRAVIS.
HE, UH, HE HAD A, HAD A LETTER IN OUR, UM, IN OUR BACKUP INFORMATION.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF, UH, ALL OF OUR MEMBERS WENT AND READ THIS AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS, IT'S GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD IDEAS AS HOW TO ACCOMMODATE HOME IN SOME OF THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS TO BE ABLE TO ADD MORE DENSITY UTILIZING HOME WITHOUT STEPPING ON NCCD.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHO TRAVIS LUCY IS, BUT THIS WAS IN MY PACKAGE.
HE DID A GREAT JOB ON WHOEVER YOU ARE ON SOME OF GOOD JOB.
AND, UH, I'M, I'M GONNA PROBABLY TAKE HIS LETTER AND PROVIDE IT TO MY COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO HOPEFULLY THEY CANS WHAT I WAS GONNA RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, TWEAK THE HOME ORDINANCE.
LET'S BURN THROUGH THE LAST THIS.
[10. March 9, 2026, Board of Adjustment activity report ]
10, MARCH 9TH, 2026 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.IT'S NOT GONNA BE ME USING IT THIS YEAR.
[11. Report from working group on outcomes of BOA decision on Case No. C15-2025-0035 (made during BOA Meeting on November 10), specifically with respect to guidance given to staff regarding habitable attic space and how it figures into calculation of FAR. ]
ITEM 11, THE NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM REPORT FROM WORKING GROUP ON OUTCOMES OF BOA DECISION ON CASE NUMBER C 15 2, 2 5 0 0 3 5.UM, SO I HAVE SORT OF A QUESTION SINCE WE RECONSIDERED THE CASE.
DOES THAT GUIDANCE THAT WE GAVE THEM ON THE ADDICT STUFF EVEN HOLD ANYMORE? THAT'S A GREAT LEGAL QUESTION.
YEAH, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT SHOULD BE, WE'VE SWIPED, WIPED, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW.
LIKE, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT, WELL, THAT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PERMIT THOUGH.
AND I, THAT'S WHY I'M RAISING IT.
SO HOW, HOW I CAN STILL GIVE THE REPORT JUST FOR TIME'S SAKE AND WE CAN ASK ABOUT THAT LATER.
WE CAN WOULD RATHER I DO THAT.
SO THERE'S NOT MUCH TO THE REPORT ANYWAY.
UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE'D LIKE TO ASK, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THEY'RE APPLYING THE GUIDANCE THAT WE GAVE THEM.
SO BASICALLY JUST WE WANT TO ASK THEM SOME QUESTIONS.
UM, ELAINE, COULD YOU PLEASE COORDINATE THAT SO WE CAN GET A CONTACT FOR THEM TO TALK TO YOU? THANK YOU.
AND THEN, UM, WE ALSO WANTED TO KNOW BACK WHEN WE HAD MADE THAT DECISION, PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS, UM, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ATTIC RULE AND WAS THINKING ABOUT CHANGING IT.
IS THAT STILL THE CASE? THERE IS STILL A WORKING GROUP FOR IT.
HOW MUCH? SO IT'S STILL ONGOING ACTIVITY IS IN IT.
I CAN, I'LL CALL THE CHAIR TOMORROW AND AND SEE IF I CAN GET AN UPDATE FOR YOU.
I HAVE, AFTER TONIGHT IT'S GOING TO BE WHOEVER THE NEW CHAIR IS.
AND THEN, AND THEN I WOULD ASK THAT WE BASICALLY JUST PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK WE WANTED TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION AMONG THE, AS LONG AS THERE'S A WORKING GROUP UNTIL WE DISSOLVE IT, WE CAN'T HAVE IT.
OH, IT'S ON THE AGENDA EVERY TIME.
WELL THEN WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT OKAY.
UH, I'D LIKE TO ADD A COMMENT IN THE FACT THAT, UH, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A WORKING GROUP WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, THAT, UH, A LITTLE MORE, I KNOW, I REALIZE WE WENT THROUGH A COUPLE STORMS AND TRYING TO GET THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE REST OF THE WORKING GROUP WAS ABLE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS, IN THAT PROCESS.
YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN MEET AGAIN.
WE HAD JUST MET ONCE VIRTUALLY.
I'M JUST, YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE NICE TO, OR ACTUALLY INVITE
[03:50:01]
A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP.BECAUSE IT WAS, YOU ALL WERE ON ALL THE EMAILS.
IT WAS KIND OF DIFFICULT TO FIND WHERE THAT COMMUNICATION WAS COMING FROM 'CAUSE THAT'S ALL.
SO WE WILL, WELL, WE, SOMEBODY WILL DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO STAY ON Y'ALL.
[12. Conduct officer elections for the Chair and Vice Chair]
IS ITEM 12, CONDUCT OFFICER ELECTIONS FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.PER OUR BYLAWS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HOLD ELECTIONS FOR, UH, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE FIRST MEETING OF APRIL.
THE TERM GOES FROM MAY 1ST AND ENDS APRIL 30TH.
SO I WANNA SAY IT'S BEEN AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS.
IT GAVE ME A VOICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HELPED ME FOR FIGHT FOR THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT FOR MY DISTRICT.
AND I'M, I'M VERY PROUD TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE THAT ADDITIONAL VOICE FOR DISTRICT THREE.
WELL, MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TOO.
'CAUSE I KNOW YOU SPENT A LOT OF YOUR PERSONAL TIME, NOT JUST HERE, BUT ALSO AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND AT COUNCIL MEETINGS AND AT COUNCIL OFFICES WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND, UH, THAT, UH, THE VOLUNTEER POSITION REALLY REQUIRES.
AND YOU'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE SERVING UNDER YOU, YOU GUYS.
SO I WANNA DO SOMETHING THAT, UH, VERY BRIEFLY THAT WASN'T DONE BEFORE I TOOK OVER TURN.
I JUST WANNA KIND OF WARN YOU, WHOEVER'S GOING TO BE STEPPING UP INTO THIS ROLE, UM, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, BUT YOU SHOULD, UH, ESPECIALLY FOR THINGS LIKE THESE GAS STATION QUEUING PROBLEMS, UH, WHICH IS JUST A VERY MINOR THING THAT COMES UP ARE RS WE SEE MORE ISSUES WITH HOME WHERE HOME DOESN'T QUITE COINCIDE WITH MAYBE WHO KNOWS WHAT PART OF, AND THEY HAVE TWO MEETINGS A MONTH, BUT YET IT, IT'LL BE SOMETHING.
AND THE, THE GUIDANCE FOR STUFF THAT WE'RE SEEING REGULARLY 'CAUSE YOU, IT HAPPENS.
UH, THESE CASES END UP COMING BEFORE THE BOARD THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR AND REPETITIVE, AND YOU'LL SEE LIKE FOUR OR FIVE OF THEM.
AND THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A CODE CHANGE INSTEAD OF THE BOARD HAVING TO GO OVER THAT OVER AND OVER.
RIGHT? UM, YOU ARE REQUIRED ONCE A YEAR TO SUBMIT, UM, A REPORT, AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL THE MEETINGS, HOW MANY HAVE BEEN CANCELED, HOW MANY, UH, HAVE BEEN LIKE, HOW MANY VARIANCES DID WE GRANT? HOW MANY SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE DID WE GRANT? HOW MANY DID WE DENY? HOW MANY POSTPONEMENTS WHO MISSED WHAT MEETINGS, UH, ET CETERA.
YOU ALSO NEED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
SO YOU NEED TO BE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ACTUAL MEETING.
UH, UH, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH ELAINE.
SHE'S GONNA CALL YOU WITH QUESTIONS.
DIANA'S GONNA SEND YOU THE AGENDA.
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK OVER IT.
SO IT, IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT TIME COMMITMENT, BUT IT DOES ADD AN ADDITIONAL MAYBE 20 TO 30 HOURS.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
IT, IT, IT IS A REALLY FUN JOB IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE WONKY LIKE ME AND LIKE RULES AND CODE.
AND, UH, IF YOU'RE NOT BRUSHED UP ON ROBERT'S RULES, LIKE YOU, YOU SEE HOW OFTEN IT, IT CAN GET A LITTLE CONFUSING.
I HAVE A BOOK FOR YOU, UH, WHICH IS, WE GOT TWO MINUTES SIMILAR TO THE BOOK I GOT, BUT I'M KEEPING THE ONE I GOT.
SO I, I GUESS, UH, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, THE FORMAT FOR THIS IS WE OPEN IT UP TO NOMINATIONS.
THE NOMINATIONS CAN BE MADE BY YOURSELF OR BY ANOTHER PERSON.
AND THEN FROM THERE, UH, IF, IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PERSON RUNNING, WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND THEN WE TAKE A VOTE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO NOW.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THIS IN SEVEN MINUTES.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE, UM, IF THEY WILL ACCEPT JEFFREY FOR CHAIR AND MAGGIE FOR VICE CHAIR.
I GOTTA GIVE MELISSA SOME TIME OFF HERE.
WELL, LET'S START WITH ACCEPTANCE FIRST.
UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, DO YOU ACCEPT AFTER THIS FIASCO TONIGHT? MM-HMM
UH, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD MEMBER AND OWEN WANTS, THEN I WILL ACCEPT BOARD MEMBER CHAIR STONEY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? I'LL NOMINATE MYSELF FOR CHAIR TOO.
[03:55:01]
DO THAT.WHO WAS IT THAT SAID THAT? IT, IT WASN'T EASY FOR ME TO, THAT WAS MAGGIE.
CHAIR STEIN NOMINATE HERSELF FOR CHAIR.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA NOMINATE HER FOR CHAIR.
IT'S EASIER TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT, UH, OKAY.
AND DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR, WELL LET, LET'S START WITH THE CHAIR RACE FIRST THEN, SINCE WE HAVE TWO, UH, NOMINEES FOR CHAIR, ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINEES FOR CHAIR RIGHT NOW? WE'VE GOT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN AND BOARD MEMBER.
SHE ANI GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
STAN, PICK A NUMBER BETWEEN ONE AND 10.
IT'S SEVEN BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, YOU CAN GO FIRST.
TELL, WHERE THE HELL AM I GOING? THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW.
TELL, TELL US WHY YOU THINK YOU'D BE A GOOD CHAIR.
YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US.
I THINK YOU GUYS WILL NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 1120 SECOND, SECONDED ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.
OF COURSE I DO 1120, BUT I WILL AT 1120.
THIS IS THE LAST ONE I'M NOT OBJECTING TO.
BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, UM, TAKES THE TWO MINUTES TOPS.
YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS IT'S REALLY, IT'S UP TO, IT'S UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL.
I KNOW I'VE BEEN IN A, I'VE BEEN IN AND AROUND THIS BUSINESS FOR 45 YEARS OR SO.
UH, ALSO, UM, BECOME, I, I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
UH, I GUESS PART OF MY ISSUE IS WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD SERVES THE PEOPLE OUT THERE BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE CUSTOMER WHEN IT REALLY GETS DOWN TO IT.
AND LOOKING AT THEIR, LOOKING AT THEIR ISSUES AND, AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO, TO ACHIEVE.
UM, UH, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I MEAN THERE'S TIMES THAT YES, I'M VERY VOCAL ON, SO ON ISSUES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY, UH, BECAUSE I BELIEVE FIREFIGHTERS NEED TO BE VERY SAFE, ESPECIALLY AROUND BUILDINGS AND HOW THEY'RE BUILT.
UM, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT ARE GONNA BE COMING UP, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, A HOME AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE UNCON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON THIS.
SO, UH, THERE AGAIN, UH, JUST TRY TO BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE AND ALSO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE.
AND BOARD MEMBER CHAIR SIGNING.
UM, YEAH, I THINK I WOULD, YOU KNOW, ECHO EVERYTHING THAT THAT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN SAID.
AND I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I REALLY LOVE, I, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT'S LIKE PRETTY COOL THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO DO THIS WITHOUT GETTING PAID THAT WE LIKE SIT UP HERE.
LIKE WHAT WEIRDOS ARE WE, YOU KNOW,
LIKE IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A COOL, I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S A COOL THING THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THIS AND I, I FIND IT, YOU KNOW, I FIND IT A PRIVILEGE TO BE UP HERE THINKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND HOW OUR DECISIONS AFFECT THE COMMUNITY.
UM, AND I'M, YEAH, I'D BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR OR BOARD MEMBER.
WHATEV, HOWEVER IT SHAKES OUT.
YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE STUCK WITH ME, SO.
SO WITH THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, A VOTE AND SEE HOW WE GET FOR THE FIRST TIME.
SO YOU ONLY NEED, UH, SIX OUT OF 11 AND IT'S GONNA BE SIMPLE SHOW OF HANDS.
UM, SINCE UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, YOU DREW THE CLOSER NUMBER OR YOU CHOOSE PARTS FROM THE NUMBER? WAIT, I DID THAT WRONG, DIDN'T I? I WAS SUPPOSED TO GET TWO NUMBERS.
HOW ABOUT, WE'LL START WITH YOUR FIRST, SO LET'S GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR BOARD MEMBER ANI.
AND LET'S GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.
WAIT, ARE WE DOWN TO 10? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
I SHOULD HAVE STEPPED DOWN LAST MONTH.
THE REASON SAID 1120 VOTE GIRL VOTE.
I STILL HAVE TO GO TO BOARD MEMBER BOW AND UH, HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, OKAY.
[04:00:01]
I'LL SAY THIS BOARD MEMBER, MADAM CHAIR.IF I MAY SAY THIS TO MAGGIE, YOU, I WAS GONNA NOMINATE YOU, BUT I KNOW YOU HAVE TWO CHILDREN.
YOU HAVE YOUR, YOUR LAW, YOUR LEGAL PROFESSION, AND I KNOW, WELL, I KNOW JEFF'S SEMI-RETIRED, BUT HE STILL GETS OUT THERE.
BUT I, I FIGURED I DIDN'T WANNA PUT SOMETHING ON YOU THAT WAS GONNA BE TOO MUCH TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILY AND, AND YOUR, YOUR PROFESSION.
SO, AND AS VICE CHAIR YOU CAN STILL, BUT I'M GLAD YOU DO VIRTUAL EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, BUT AS CHAIR HAVE TO BE HERE.
EVEN EVERYONE ELSE IS VIRTUAL.
I'LL SAY THIS, THIS WILL NOT STOP MY SHOWING UP AT CITY COUNCIL TO SPEAK
JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE WHEN YOU SPEAK, YOU HAVE TO SAY, YOU CAN SAY YOU'RE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT YOU ARE NOT CURRENTLY REPRESENTING THE BOARD.
YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE THAT SPECIFICATION.
I HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING MY DISTRICT.
DO YOU STILL ACCEPT THE NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR? YES, AND I HAVE THREE.
OKAY, SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? DONE? GOING ONCE.
YOU DON'T OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MEMBER, VICE CHAIR? ANY OBJECTIONS? I'M INTO USING MY SUMMERS WISELY.
UH, THE ONE OTHER THING I DID WANNA POINT OUT, UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN IS THAT IT, REMEMBER THAT THE CHAIR HAS A LOT OF INFLUENCE OVER THE BOARD, SO TRY TO LET THEM MAKE THE MOTIONS.
I JUST, THAT'S HOW I WAS TAUGHT.
AND I WILL SCHEDULE A TIME TO MEET UP WITH YOU THIS WEEK TO HAND OFF THE BOOK, UH, AND TO GET YOU, I'LL NEED YOUR EMAIL AFTERWARDS TO LINK YOU TO THE GOOGLE DRIVE WITH THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO ME.
IT'S GOT A LOT OF OUR WORKBOOKS, UM, SOME GOOD HISTORY IN IT, AND THE CHAIR PACKET, WHICH GOES INTO THIS THING.
UM, YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE ITEMS NOW.
UM, I'M GOING TO, SO THESE ARE DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
DO, DO WE NEED TO APPROVE THESE CHANGES TONIGHT OR CAN IT BE PUSHED TO NEXT MEETING? I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO PUSH BOTH OR TO TABLE BOTH OF THESE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
I CAN'T TABLE 'EM, UH, TO RETAKE UP THESE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
THAT'S ITEMS 13 AND 14, APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO BE OA RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR TIME LIMITS, WHICH, UH, ERICA WILL REACH OUT TO YOU ABOUT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN AND THEN APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ON THE AGENDA IN ADVANCE WITH SPECIFICS, WHICH I THINK IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT.
ARE THERE OR CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTI.
THE TIME IS 11:17 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STAFF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYBODY.