A-1 C15-2014-0146 Brent and Valerie Hunt for BVM Crossfit 6711 Burnet Lane The owner of the use at this site has asked the Board to reconsider its recent decision in favor of an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination that Personal Improvement Services is a more appropriate use definition than Outdoor Sports and Recreation for the use at this site in a “CS-MU-CO-NP”, General Commercial Services – Mixed Use – Conditional Overlay – Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Brentwood)
C15-2014-0144 Katie Van Dyk for Mat Gorman The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination that a sober living facility (as described in the appeal application) would be classified as a Group Home, Class 1 (General) if it had fewer than 15 residents.
C15-2014-0158 Katherine Loayza for Todd Pearah 7501 North Lamar Blvd. The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination regarding legal, nonconforming status of the use at this site in a “TOD-NP”, Transit Oriented Development – Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Brentwood/Highland Combined)
C15-2014-0174 Gardner Summer, Zilker Neighborhood Association for Vance Cobb 2015 Goodrich Avenue The applicant has requested the Board of Adjustment to interpret whether staff erred in issuing a building permit at 2015 Goodrich Avenue because: A. per Section 25-2-496 (D) (Site Development Regulations) the actual lot size is in question; and B. per Section 25-2, Subchapter F, (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards), Article 3. Definitions and Measurement, Section 3.3.the plans for the first and second floor appear to be drawn to the outer edge of the wood framing and not the outside surface of the exterior walls; and C. per Section 25-2, Subchapter F, (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards), Article 3. Definitions and Measurement, Section 3.3. Gross Floor Area, 3. Porches, basements and attics that meet the following requirements shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area: C. A habitable portion of an attic, if: 1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 12 or greater; 2. It is fully contained within the roof structure; 3. It has only one floor; 4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below; 5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building, or a section of the building, and adds no additional mass to the structure; and 6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less. The applicant asserts that the building permit plans for construction show: 1. The dormers are not fully contained within the roof structure contrary to requirement #2; and 2. The dormers add additional mass to the structure contrary to requirement #5; and 3. The third floor deck (called a “roof deck” in the habitable attic plans) is accessible from the “habitable attic”, which while the deck itself would not be subject to McMansion FAR, the fact that it exists supports the contention that the habitable attic is actually a third floor rather than a fully contained attic; and D. per Section 25-2-496 (D) (Site Development Regulations) the application has differing methods of calculating impervious cover for the lot in the plans submitted and approved for a permit to construct a single family home in an “SF-3”,Family Residence zoning district.
Dec 01, 2014 Special Board of Adjustment/Sign Review Board
A-1 C15-2014-0146 Brent and Valerie Hunt for BVM Crossfit 6711 Burnet Lane The owner of the use at this site has asked the Board to reconsider its recent decision in favor of an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination that Personal Improvement Services is a more appropriate use definition than Outdoor Sports and Recreation for the use at this site in a “CS-MU-CO-NP”, General Commercial Services – Mixed Use – Conditional Overlay – Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Brentwood)
C15-2014-0144 Katie Van Dyk for Mat Gorman The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination that a sober living facility (as described in the appeal application) would be classified as a Group Home, Class 1 (General) if it had fewer than 15 residents.
C15-2014-0158 Katherine Loayza for Todd Pearah 7501 North Lamar Blvd. The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the Planning and Development Review Department’s Land Use Determination regarding legal, nonconforming status of the use at this site in a “TOD-NP”, Transit Oriented Development – Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Brentwood/Highland Combined)
C15-2014-0174 Gardner Summer, Zilker Neighborhood Association for Vance Cobb 2015 Goodrich Avenue The applicant has requested the Board of Adjustment to interpret whether staff erred in issuing a building permit at 2015 Goodrich Avenue because: A. per Section 25-2-496 (D) (Site Development Regulations) the actual lot size is in question; and B. per Section 25-2, Subchapter F, (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards), Article 3. Definitions and Measurement, Section 3.3.the plans for the first and second floor appear to be drawn to the outer edge of the wood framing and not the outside surface of the exterior walls; and C. per Section 25-2, Subchapter F, (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards), Article 3. Definitions and Measurement, Section 3.3. Gross Floor Area, 3. Porches, basements and attics that meet the following requirements shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area: C. A habitable portion of an attic, if: 1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 12 or greater; 2. It is fully contained within the roof structure; 3. It has only one floor; 4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below; 5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building, or a section of the building, and adds no additional mass to the structure; and 6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less. The applicant asserts that the building permit plans for construction show: 1. The dormers are not fully contained within the roof structure contrary to requirement #2; and 2. The dormers add additional mass to the structure contrary to requirement #5; and 3. The third floor deck (called a “roof deck” in the habitable attic plans) is accessible from the “habitable attic”, which while the deck itself would not be subject to McMansion FAR, the fact that it exists supports the contention that the habitable attic is actually a third floor rather than a fully contained attic; and D. per Section 25-2-496 (D) (Site Development Regulations) the application has differing methods of calculating impervious cover for the lot in the plans submitted and approved for a permit to construct a single family home in an “SF-3”,Family Residence zoning district.