[00:00:04]
THANK YOU.UM, THE DATE IS, UH, MONDAY, JUNE 8TH.
AND WE WERE CALLING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, TO ORDER, UH, THERE'S A QUORUM PRESENT.
UH, IF WE CAN DO THE ROLL CALL AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO THIS TIME ON THE ROLL CALL INSTEAD OF DOING THE GREEN AND RED IS TO ACTUALLY JUST UNMUTE AND SAY HERE.
BAGELY JESSICA COHEN HERE OUT OF CORRAL, WILLIAM HODGE HERE, DON LAKE BURWELL HERE.
CAN'T HEAR YOU DARYL I'M OKAY.
JUST NEED TO SPEAK UP VERONICA RIVERA, VERONICA.
CAN YOU HEAR US?
CAN YOU HEAR US
I DON'T THINK SHE CAN HEAR US, LIKE ABOUT AN OLIN THERE.
CAN YOU HEAR US YET? HI, SIMPLE WAS ON I'M SORRY.
YES, I'M TEXTING HER RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T THINK SHE CAN HEAR US.
UH, IF SHE IS, I WILL CALL HER AS BEING HERE.
SHE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ABLE TO HEAR US FOR SPEAK WITH US AT THIS POINT.
UH, SO, UH, WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO DO A SIMILAR, UM, A SET UP THAT WE DID LAST TIME.
UH, WE'RE DOING THE ONLINE, UM, REVIEW OF THE CASES, UM, THE, UH, MMM.
I GUESS WE'RE NOT DOING THE, OH, IS THAT CORRECT, ELENA AGAIN?
WELL, JUST TO THE ANYONE, UH, WHO IS AN APPLICANT OR IN OPPOSITION SUPPORT, OR OTHERWISE IT WILL BE SPEAKING AS TONIGHT, YOU'RE UNDER OATH TO GIVE US A, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
SO PLEASE ANSWER, UH, TRUTHFULLY, UM, AS WE HAVE QUESTIONS MMM.
TONIGHT, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE ARE MISSING, UH, MELISSA.
SHE HAD A DEATH IN HER FAMILY, SO, UH, KELLY BLOOM HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO FILL IN FOR US.
AND THEN I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM ONE OF THE CASES LATER, UM, THE, UH, CASE, UH, P TOO.
UM, SO I WILL TURN OFF MY, UH, VIDEO AND AUDIO AT THAT POINT.
UH, AND THEN WILLIAM, UH, WILL BE, UH, RECUSING, RIGHT? NOT ABSTAINING.
ABSTAINING FROM, UH, ITEMS. UM, HE THREE AND P FOUR.
SO AGAIN, JUST ASK THAT YOU TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO.
IN THAT, WHEN WE GET TO THOSE AGENDA, I HAD A QUESTION ON THE FIRST ONE.
I WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH, UH, I'M SORRY.
[00:05:01]
THE ONE, IF THAT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT CONNECT,YOU ASKED ME, WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT P A D ONE? OKAY.
UH, WHAT, WHAT SHE HAD ASKED ABOUT THERE WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD, UH, WAS, UH, HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH PROJECT CONNECT.
I BELIEVE THAT, UM, UH, CAPITAL METRO IS BRINGING THAT FORWARD, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH PROJECT CONNECT.
UM, AND, UM, ALSO, UH, WE HAVE, UH, MARTHA GONZALES HERE AND SHE DOES I'LL HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF.
UH, PERHAPS WE ASKED THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY ARE GETTING READY TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE FIDELIS FILLING IN, OR MYSELF AND WILLIAM ON THE THREE CASES THAT I, UH, HE AND I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM.
UM, SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS DOING THIS TONIGHT.
UM, ALSO WE HAVE A, UM, WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO,
[Item A1]
UM, THE DRAFT MINUTES.THIS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 11TH, 2020.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOW? 2020? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY BROOKE BAILEY.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY.
UM, SO, UH, LET'S UM, DO THE ROLL ON THAT AND WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN, YES, DEREK, I HAD A QUESTION, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF, UH, PROVISIONS WHERE THERE WERE ABSTENTIONS THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE COUNTED AS NEGATIVE VOTES INSTEAD OF BEING LIKE NINE ONE.
I THINK THE VOTE SHOULD BE REFLECTED AS NINE ZERO WINE.
SO THE ABSTENTION IS SHOWN AS AN ABSTENTION AND NOT AS A NEGATIVE, BUT DO YOU HAVE THE PARTICULAR CASE NUMBERS OR ID NUMBERS THAT THOSE WERE, YEAH.
SO THE FIRST ONE WAS ON THE PULL UP THE MINUTES HERE.
ON
SO THE VOTE SHOULD NOT BE EIGHT ONE.
IT SHOULD BE EIGHT ZERO ONE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9TH MINUTES.
AND
THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED AS 10 ZERO ONE.
UH, SO THERE'S ONE ON I TO I'LL
WELL, NO, I THOUGHT ALSO WAS WHERE WILLIAM HAD ABSTAINED ALSO.
WELL, BUT, BUT HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE AT ALL.
THAT'S THAT'S PROBABLY OKAY THEN.
SO WE'RE APPROVING, UH, THE MAY 11TH, UM, MINUTES, UH, WITH THE CORRECTIONS ON, UH, A, A ONE C ONE AND C TWO.
THAT THEY WOULD BE REPRESENTED THE VOTES.
ANY ABSTENTIONS WOULD BE, UH, AFTER THE YEAS AND NAYS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WITH THOSE CHANGES, ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT ANYONE WANTS TO KNOW? OKAY.
UH, SO LET'S CALL THE ROLL ON, UM, UH, DOING THIS AND WE'LL, WE'LL DO IT
[00:10:01]
WITH OUR RAIN AND RIVETED.OH, I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T DOING THAT, SO I DIDN'T GET ONE.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CALL EVERYBODY'S NAME.
SO, UM, LET ME GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ON THAT THEN.
AND, AND JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ABSTAIN IF YOU'RE NOT THERE.
UH, THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICES TOLD US THAT.
UH, ONE ABSTENTION ON, UH, VERONICA, UH, YASMEEN SMITH DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SHE IS ONLINE ANYMORE.
UM, MICHAEL VON OLIN, JASMINE SMITH.
AND I MUST ADMIT, I'M DISAPPOINTED.
I'M GOING TO MISS MR. PICKLE AND TOMATO OVER THERE FROM KELLY, BUT MADE FOR A LITTLE AMUSEMENT ON OUR MEETINGS.
SO, UM, THE, UH, MINUTES PASSED, UM, AS, UH, WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS.
SO CHAIR, BEFORE WE GET, UM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOTION, PLEASE CALL OUT YOUR NAME.
SO IT'LL BE EASIER FOR ME TO RECORD THIS, PLEASE.
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS LOGISTICALLY MUCH HARDER AND, UH, AND IT'S HARD ENOUGH AS IT IS.
[Item B2]
AND THEN THE, UH, NEXT ITEM WILL BE, UH, REQUESTS FOR PRO POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL.AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, P ONE HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE WITHDRAWN.
HE WAS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT.
AND THE APPLICANT'S AVAILABLE TO SPEAK.
UM, I COULD KEEP TALKING IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH HIM.
I MEAN, WE VERY WELL MAY, WERE THERE ANY OTHER REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT OR NO, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE.
SO, UM, IT'S THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE, UM, UH, APPLICANT ON, ON, OH, OKAY.
HE WON THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL A BOOK.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, BECAUSE I DON'T, I'M HAVING TROUBLE EVEN APPROVING ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT ON THIS CASE.
IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SO LONG.
Y'ALL TOLD HIM THAT IF HE NEEDED, UM, TO REQUEST ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL VARIANCES, THIS WAS A TRIAL LOOKING AT IT.
SO THAT'S, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER VARIANTS BEING REQUESTED WELL, AND THAT HE'S REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ADD IT TO THIS AGENDA FOR THE JUNE MEETING.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON A ITEM P ONE.
[Item P1]
THIS IS, UH, YEAH.UH, WELL, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HERE.
THIS IS, UH, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.
THIS IS ITEM
THIS IS STEVEN H REISEN AT 1507 FAIRFIELD DRIVE, REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT, UM, ON A DECREASE OF THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET REQUIRED TO ZERO FEET REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SHED IN SF THREE 30.
SO IF WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THAT.
THIS IS MIKE
AND, UM, I, UH, UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION I HEARD, UM, FROM MS. DAILY ABOUT, ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT.
UM, ALTHOUGH WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT CAME UP IN THE LAST MEETING WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON, NOT, UM, JUST AS A RECAP, I PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO DO THIS, BUT Y'ALL, UM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, WANTING TO SEE AN AS BUILT SURVEY
[00:15:01]
AND IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS, WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT THE PERMIT STATUS OF THE POOL.UM, ANY ADDITIONAL VARIANCES THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED.
AND, UH, WE ORDERED A SURVEY, UM, AND IT TOOK LONGER THAN, UM, PROBABLY I WANTED IT TO, BUT, UM, UH, WE GOT THAT, WE GOT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS AND DETERMINED THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO AMEND THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND SUBMIT THE AMENDED APPLICATION.
AND SO, UM, JUST DID NOT HAVE TIME TO GET THAT IN IMMEDIATELY, ESPECIALLY WITH WAITING ON THE SURVEY.
AND THEN WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ONLY ASK FOR THE BARE MINIMUM VARIANCE AS POSSIBLE TO TRY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AND STILL PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UH, A CLEARANCE AREA.
SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT YOU WERE COMPLETE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION? WELL, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, DON.
WILL THIS NEED TO BE RE NOTIFIED? YES.
IF THEY'RE AMENDING THE VARIANCE.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED.
THEY'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL PERIODS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RESPOND BETTER TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE HE'S GOT IT ALL DONE.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT, AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PACKAGE AND I GUESS IN DARRYL AS WELL, WE NOTICED SOME THINGS THAT WERE A LITTLE QUESTIONABLE, SO I WOULD PREFER THEM TO COME BACK WITH A FULL PACKAGE RATHER THAN TRY TO PIECEMEAL IT.
SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO RESPOND.
WE'RE GOOD FOR A SECOND, JESSICA.
UH, IN, UH, IN THE LANE, UM, GIVEN, UH, THE RE NOTIFICATION AND EVERYTHING, CAN THIS HAPPEN NEXT MONTH? SO I BELIEVE IT CAN, UM, HE HAS, THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD.
I MEAN, I SPENT HOURS WITH MIKE ON THE PHONE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOLUTIONS.
UM, AND THEY, THEY REALLY ARE, THAT HOMEOWNER IS REALLY DOING WHAT HE CAN.
SO, YEAH, THE LAST I TALKED TO MICHAEL LAST WEEK, UM, I THINK THEY'RE PREPARED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED APPLICATION FOR JULY MEETING.
UH, JUST IN CASE THEY CAN'T, I MEAN, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTION, UH, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE IF THEY PUT IT OFF TO THE FOLLOWING WALL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT COMING BACK NEXT MONTH AND THEN REQUESTING ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT.
AND I KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, ARE UNUSUAL WITH THE COVID AND EVERYTHING GOING ON, BUT, UH, I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER FOR THEM THAT IF THEY DO HAVE ANY QUESTION, ONE IOTA OF DOUBT, THEN DON'T POST IT UNTIL THE NEXT ONE.
JUST LET'S JUST PUT IT OUT THERE AND GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
TO THE AUGUST 10TH MEETING, IT WOULD BE TOO
AND THAT WOULD, UH, VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT, UM, THAT WILL REALLY GIVE US TIME TO, TO GET YOU THE BEST INFORMATION WE CAN.
AND JESSICA, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? UH, AS A, ON YOUR SECOND? ABSOLUTELY.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS TO POSTPONE ITEM P ONE WHILE THEY REWORK THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE AUGUST MEETING.
UM, AND, UM, BASICALLY I'M GOING TO SAY YES, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE ASKED FOR THIS AND PREVIOUS SITE PLAN MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.
AND SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T JUST ASK FOR IT THE FIRST TIME LAST MONTH, RIGHT.
WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR AWHILE.
UH, AND MELISSA IS NOT WITH THIS, UH, WILLIAM.
[00:20:01]
ALL RIGHT.ALRIGHT, SO THAT HANDLES UP A CASE, UH, NOW ALL IN, UM, TYPICALLY WE WOULD MOVE TO OUR, UH, SO, UH, AND BY THE WAY, UM, LET ME JUST RETRO, ACTIVELY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT.
I WERE SO OUT OF MY ELEMENT HERE, BUT, UM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
UM, SO WE HAVE, WAS, UH, SPOKEN TO US EARLIER ON
[Item P2]
WE HAVE, UM, A CITY ARBORIST, UH, KEITH MARS AVAILABLE.SO RATHER THAN KEEPING, UM, STAFF, UH, WAITING, UH, I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE PREROGATIVE TO MOVE FORWARD, I THINK.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE, UM, PREVIOUS SIGNED POSTPONEMENTS, THE D ITEMS AFTER THAT IS, IS EVERYBODY AGREEABLE TO THAT? IS THERE ANY, LET ME ASK THIS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT? OKAY.
AND SINCE I AM A ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM, I'M GOING TO TURN OFF MY VIDEO AND AUDIO NOW.
AND, UM, MICHAEL, UH, SINCE MELISSA IS NOT HERE, THE RANKING MEMBER, UH, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UM, HANDLE THIS CASE? YES, SIR.
I GUESS LET'S READ INTO THE RECORD PLEASE.
IT'S ITEM P TO CASEY, 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO 71, JULIA STREET.
UH, DANIEL, THE HOMEOWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND DID WE HAVE DANIEL ONLINE? UH, YES, SIR.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO YOUR PRESENTATION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU CAN HEAR ME AND YOU CAN SEE THE CHARTS.
I CAN'T, UH, I CAN'T TELL WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE.
UH, SO THIS IS A COMEBACK ON THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY REQUEST THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT THE LAST TIME.
IF YOU GO TO PAGE TWO, UH, THAT'S JUST THE RECAP OF THIS.
THE PICTURE AT THE TOP LEFT IS THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE THERE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.
UH, THERE WERE THREE OF THEM, UH, THAT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR, FOR QUITE A WHILE, UH, AND WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO BUILD HERE ON THE PICTURE, ON THE RIGHT WITH THE, WITH THE HOME AND THE OTHER GARAGE HOME.
SO PAGE THREE IS REALLY BRINGING UP A LITTLE BIT OF THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THE CASE THAT WE HAD NOT SPOKEN ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT IMPORTANT HERE, BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO BRING SOME OF THIS INFORMATION FORWARD.
AND THEN WE HAD LOOKED AT THIS LOT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD BOTH OUR HOMES AND THE HOME FOR MY PARENTS.
UH, WE HAD SOLD OUR PRIMARY HOME, OUR PRIMARY HOME IN NORTH AUSTIN IN ORDER TO PURCHASE THE SLOT.
SO WE'VE GOT OUR CAPITAL LOCKED UP IN THIS, THIS LOT, AND WE'VE, WE'VE MOVED INTO AN APARTMENT, UH, AFTER WE PURCHASED IT, WE DID MOVE FORWARD.
WE HAVE THE ARCHITECTURE PLANS BUILT.
WE HAVE THE STRUCTURAL PLANS IN PLACE.
ALL THE WATER WASTEWATER IS IN PLACE.
SO EVERYTHING AT THIS POINT HAS BEEN PAID FOR READY TO GO AND HAS BEEN FOR MONTHS NOW.
SO IN 2019, WHEN WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND GOING INTO THE
UM, SO THIS WAS REALLY A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO US.
UH, JUSTICE EVEN EXISTED, UH, PAGE FOUR, IT WAS THE 35 INCH, UH, HERITAGE PECAN THAT'S CENTRAL TO THIS CASE.
THE OLD HOME WAS JUST TO THE RIGHT, THAT, THAT, UH, AND THAT SPOT WHERE ALL THE LEAVES ARE PAGE FIVE, UH, SHOWS THE ILLUSTRATION OF WHERE THAT SECONDARY
[00:25:01]
SETBACK CAUSE OF THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY IS.AND, UH, THE LARGE TREE THAT 35 INCH PECAN IS THE ONE IN THE CENTER.
AND WHAT THIS CASE IS REALLY ABOUT, UH, TO US AT THIS POINT, WE DIDN'T THINK THAT IT NECESSARILY WAS ALL ABOUT THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF IT, THIS CASE IT'S REALLY ABOUT THIS CONFLICT IN BETWEEN THE WATERFRONT, THE OVERLAY AND THE PRESERVATION OF THAT TREE.
UH, BUT AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT AN ABILITY TO MOVE THAT, THAT HOME FARTHER NORTH INTO THAT SPOT, UH, WITH THAT TREE THERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE LOSS OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY OF HAVING BOTH OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
SO WE WERE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY, UH, BUT TO BE, TO DRIVE US INTO SHARP CONTRAST, IF WE WERE DENIED THE, THE VARIANCES ON THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY, THAT LEADS RIGHT TO THE, UH, THE TREE REMOVAL.
UH, AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY ARBORIST IS, IS ON THE LINE.
THEN WE'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, SO THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE SIX IS SHOWING WHY WE THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY GOOD, UH, FOR, UH, FOR AUSTIN AND FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.
IT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS FROM THE THREE THAT WERE THERE, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO BOX.
UH, ORIGINALLY IT MAKES THEM LIVABLE.
IT PROVIDES, UH, ENOUGH OFF STREET PARKING.
I, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THE OTHER TIME ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING OUT GARAGES AND TAKING OUT CAR CARPORTS.
UM, NUMBER FIVE, WE THINK IT MINIMIZES THE RISK OF FLOODING AND RUNOFF BECAUSE WE'RE ELIMINATING ONE DRIVEWAY BY HAVING THAT SHARED DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS.
UH, AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO PRESENT THAT, UH, THE NEXT TWO ARE THE ONES THAT GET TO THE CORE OF THE, THE INTENT WE THINK OF THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW, NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF EITHER THE VIEW OF THE WATER OR, YOU KNOW, VICE VERSA, THE VIEW FROM THE WATER, LOOKING UP TO THE SHORELINE.
SO WE THINK IT'S THE RIGHT RIGHT CHOICE TO MAKE.
UH, THE LAST PAGE PHASE SEVEN IS KIND OF A SUMMARY OF ALL THE OTHER POINTS OF WHY WE THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT DECISION, WHY WE REQUEST THIS RATHER THAN TAKING OUT THE TREE.
UH, FIRST IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A, HAVE SOME AESTHETIC CONTINUOUSLY FOR BASICALLY FOREVER.
AND WE PURCHASED THIS LOT EXPLICITLY FOR THE INTENT OF BUILDING IN THE SAME SPOT.
SO IF WE'RE THE HOUSEWARES AND WHERE THE OLD GARAGE SHED WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE ONES WERE IN THE SETBACK, BOTH OF THOSE STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE BUILDING, UH, THE PROPOSED, UH, GARAGE HOME, THAT'S ACTUALLY OUT OF THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
IT'S REALLY ONLY THE PRIMARY HOME.
UH, THE SECOND POINT IS THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN THAT SAME SECONDARY SETBACK OVER A LARGE RANGE OF TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE REALLY BOTH CLOSER TO THE WATER AND THEY'RE HIGHER DENSITY THAN WHAT OUR CASE WOULD BE.
UH, THE THIRD ONE, WHICH IS ALSO UNIQUE TO OUR CASES, WE DO HAVE AN ADJACENT GREEN SPACE THAT ALLOWS UP TO 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UH, BUT I GOT SENT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY BEEN CONSIDERED HERE.
WE THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT.
WE ONLY WANT TO GO TO THE 36.8%.
AND, UH, THE FINAL POINT IS THAT WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE TALKED TO ALL OUR NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE EIGHT LETTERS OF SUPPORT, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.
UM, SO IT'S REALLY THIS CONFLICT IN BETWEEN THE TREE AND, UH, THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY AND BEING ABLE TO USE THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE THAT WE PURCHASED A LOT FOR.
THAT'S WHERE THEY LET THE GUY.
AND, UH, HE HAS THE ARBORIST ON THE LINE.
AND DO WE HAVE A LAND? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? NO.
AT THAT POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY CONCERNS? OKAY.
SO, UM, THIS ONE'S ONE THAT'S BEEN TROUBLING ME FOR A WHILE.
SO I WENT BACK AND READ THE SECTION OF THE CODE BEFORE TODAY'S MEETING.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN HELP ME.
MAYBE SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN AROUND A LITTLE BIT LONGER WITH INTERPRETATION OF THE ACTUAL CODE, BUT IT'S THAT WHAT YOU CAN BUILD IN A SECONDARY SETBACK ARE FOUNTAINS, PATIOS, TERRACES, OUTDOOR RESTAURANTS, AND SIMILAR USES.
AND THEN HE GOES AND STATES THAT YOU CAN'T EXCEED THE 30%, BUT WHO MAKES A DECISION ON WHETHER YOU CAN PUT A HOUSE THERE AT ALL? ANYBODY
[00:30:04]
ELAINE? WELL, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE BOARD.UM, BECAUSE I MEAN, THAT ORDINANCE WAS SET IN PLACE FOR A REASON.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HAVING TO COME TO THE BOARD IS BECAUSE THAT ORDINANCE IS NOT ALLOWING THEM TO, BUT THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A RESIDENCE IN THE SECONDARY SETBACK, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE FIRST REQUIREMENT TO BUILD IN THE SECONDARY SETBACK IS BEING MET.
SO WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO RESIDENTIAL REVIEW TO SUBMIT A PERMIT FOR THE HOUSE IN THE MIDST OF ALL THAT, THAT REVIEWER WILL CATCH ALL THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY ORDINANCE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S INVOLVED IN IT.
AND THEY WILL FORWARD THEM TO WANT TO BE ADJUSTMENTS, PARENTS FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE NEEDING VARIANCES FROM IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT HOUSE.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN TO GET A VARIANCE, TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE, NOT IF Y'ALL APPROVE WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.
I WOULD THINK WE COULD MAKE IT UP CONTINGENT ON GETTING THAT APPROVAL FIRST, IF THAT'D BE SO OUR WISHES TO APPROVE IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK THAT WAY.
HOW IT WORKS ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS IT'S AN IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BUILD A STRUCTURE, NOT IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR A PATIO OR A FOUNTAIN, WHICH HAS NO WALLS OR ROOF IS BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.
NO PARKING, NO DRIVEWAYS, OR YOU CAN DO PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS THINGS THAT ARE MAYBE PAVED UP TO A CERTAIN IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD A STRUCTURE.
AND SO THEY NEED, UH, THE VARIANCES TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE, UM, IN THE, IN THE SECONDARY SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY IT'S AN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE.
IT IS A VARIANCE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE IN THE SECONDARY SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED, WHETHER SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO DO AN OUTDOOR RESTAURANT, I WOULD THINK WOULD COST MORE THAN A HOME, BUT I DON'T MEAN IT OUTDOORS.
IT'S NOT A CUPBOARD OR RESTAURANT.
WHAT IT IS IS AN OUTDOOR PATIO FOR A RESTAURANT.
THERE'S A LOUD, BUT NOT A STRUCTURE.
UH, A COMMENT, UM, I KNOW LAST MONTH WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY RESTRUCTURING ALL OF THIS, TO WHERE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, IS OUTSIDE OF THAT WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS APPLICATION THAN WHAT WE CONSIDERED LAST MONTH.
UH, UM, UH, ALL I, ALL I SEE HERE IS, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO APPROVE IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE LOOKED AT LAST MONTH, TWO OR THREE OTHERS ALREADY SAID, WE DON'T SEE ANY WAY TO APPROVE THIS.
I MEAN, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ON THIS, IN THIS PACKAGE THAN WHAT WE LOOKED AT LAST MONTH.
WELL, ACTUALLY THAT THE GERMAN, THAT WAS THE, MY QUESTION OR THE APPLICANT, WHICH WAS IF THEY HAD PREPARED, IF THEY HAD PREPARED ANY MATERIALS OR ANY THOUGHTS THAT WERE RESPONSIVE TO, UM, TO THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD LAST WEEK, BECAUSE THAT WAS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE DID THE POSTPONEMENT.
IF, IF MY NOTES ARE, ARE ACCURATE, WHICH IS NOT, UH, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THERE, BUT, BUT ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, THE REASON WHY WE DID THE PROPOSAL, THE POSTPONE, OR AT LEAST THE REASON WHY I THOUGHT WE DID WAS TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT COULD COME UP WITH ANYTHING THAT WOULD MOVE THE STRUCTURES AROUND AND MAYBE, UH, AND MAYBE GET IT MORE IN LINE WITH, UH, WITH SOMETHING WE COULD LIVE WITH.
UM, ALSO, ALSO, UM, I'M INCLINED TO DEFER A LOT OF THIS TO THE, TO THE GUIDANCE OF COMMISSIONER BAILEY, JUST BECAUSE OF HER TIME ON, ON WATERFRONT OVERLAY ISSUES.
UM, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I NECESSARILY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION, THE IDEA THAT THE BOARD WAS ARBITRARILY IGNORING ANYTHING, BUT I GUESS THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
I'M, I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY INFORMATION THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO OUR REQUEST THE LAST TIME WHEN WE DID THE POSTPONEMENT.
VERONICA SECOND, BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, SIR.
UH, SO IT MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, BUT, UH, HERE'S THE TRUTH.
UM, WHAT WE DID NOT BRING FORWARD PREVIOUSLY IS THAT ALL THE, THE SURPRISE FACTOR HERE, THE FACTOR WAS THAT THE EXPECTATION WAS ESTABLISHED THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NORMAL
[00:35:01]
FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, ACROSS ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT FRANKLY YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING.UH, THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ALREADY FULLY INVESTED IN HER FULLY COMMITTED IN THIS SOLUTION.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY EASY FOR THE BOARD TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, OH, WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND CHANGE YOUR PLANS? WHY DON'T YOU REDO YOUR ARCHITECTURE? WHY DON'T YOU, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CHAIRMAN WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, UH, WE CANNOT PASS VARIANCES BASED ON FINANCIAL ISSUES.
SO
AND YOU'RE WAY DOWN THE ROAD WITH IT.
WE CANNOT TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, FOR EACH AREA.
YOU SAY, IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW.
I WANTED TO BRING ME ONE SECOND.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AGAINST YOU.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO DO.
YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN PASS VARIANCE THAT PASSES A SET OF NARROWLY DEFINED TESTS.
WE ARE IN MANY WAYS JUST AS BOXED IN BY THE CODE AS YOU ARE.
AND SO PART OF THE REASONS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE THINGS THAT WE ASK WHEN WE DO A POSTPONEMENT IS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET YOU THERE.
AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE OUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE WE CAN'T DO THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL.
SO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK WE ARE AS SENSITIVE AS WE CAN BE WITHOUT EXPLICITLY GOING OUT AND GRANTING VARIANCES BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE HOLD.
YOU KNOW, I THINK AUSTIN'S CODE.
WE, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EXISTS RIGHT.
IS TO, IS TO FIND THE WAYS AROUND THIS, BUT YOU GOTTA GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH.
YOU VERY WELL SAID, ROM, UH, VERONICA, YOU HAD A YEAH.
I ACTUALLY WAS TRYING TO GO BACK TO ADAS QUESTION AND JUST ASK, ANSWER HER BECAUSE IT DID SAY IT'S, AND IT'S WRITTEN IN THE AGENDA THAT IT IS, THEY ARE ASKING YOU FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE.
SO THAT IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR, BUT IT'S LIKE SEVERAL COMMENTS BEYOND WHAT, YOU KNOW, PAST WHAT ADA HAD ASKED.
IF THAT'S ON THE FIRST, HOLD ON, SIR.
I MEAN, YOU SAID THAT YOUR ARCHITECT AND YOUR ENGINEER HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
I, I FIND IT, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY THAT, THAT THEY WOULDN'T KNOW THAT IT'S THERE.
CAUSE IT'S A, IT'S AN ORDINANCE AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ACTUALLY, BROOKE, IF I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, THE ARCHITECT DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE DID FURTHER RESEARCH.
AND BY THEN THEY WERE ALREADY DEEP INTO THE PERMITTING PROCESS BEFORE HE REALIZED IT, THE REVIEWERS DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE IT.
IT WAS THE ARCHITECT THAT DID MORE RESEARCH AT THAT POINT.
UM, AND THAT'S WHAT, WELL, THAT'S VERY DISTURBING THAT THE REVIEWERS DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT'S IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
KEEP IN MIND THAT RESIDENTIAL REVIEW, THEY HAVE A HIGH TURNOVER RATE AS REVIEWER.
SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE UP THERE AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST TO TRAIN THEM.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON UP THERE IN RESIDENTIAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW, AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST TO TRAIN THEM AND GET THEM UP TO ON THESE ORDINANCES.
IT'S A QUICK SEARCH, THAT'S IT? YOU CAN PUT IN THEIR PROPERTY AND FIND OUT WHAT ORDINANCE IS
IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 44 OF THE PACKAGE, YOU'LL SEE THE SURVEY THAT WAS DONE AND IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE SURVEY, IT SAYS BEFORE DESIGN BEGINS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE OWNERS SHOULD CHECK THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES ABOUT BUILDING SET BACKS AND OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE IDEA THAT THEY WERE SO FAR ALONG AND THEN US, AND JUST DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE TOLD TO CHECK THIS STUFF BEFORE THEY GOT ONTO IT.
AND, AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, GIVING SOMEBODY A, A POSTPONEMENT SO THEY CAN GO GET SOME INFORMATION AND THEN THEY DON'T EVEN BRING THAT INFORMATION TO US.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
[00:40:01]
WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO REMOVE THE TREE.WELL, THEN AT THAT POINT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION YASMIN AND I, AND I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO DRIVE DOWN BECAUSE I CAN'T SHUT OFF.
I WOULD, THESE WOULD LIKE FOR US TO COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I DO FEEL FOR, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS COMFORT EXPERIENCE, IF WE COULD MOVE INTO NEW DISCO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DO NEW DISCUSSION, SOMETIMES I KNOW WE HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF SOME SORT OF LIKE, HEY, THESE ARE THE THINGS WE KEEP SEEING OVER AGAIN, BUT WE KEEP HEARING THIS COMMENTARY.
I UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU KNOW, CHRISTIAN BOOK BRADLEY SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST PUT YOUR ADDRESS IN THERE, BUT MAYBE IF THERE'S A CHECKLIST, LOOK, THAT'S NOT MY JOB.
THAT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, BUT MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS IT SO WE CAN HELP THOSE PEOPLE OUT OVER THERE.
UM, AND THEN YES, I'M MOTIONING TO THE DENY.
SO ON A TABLE, IF YOU GO INTO THE PROPERTY PROFILE,
PLEASE STOP TALKING FOR A SECOND.
MR. CHAIR, CAN I ASK FOR A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE? AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT? I BELIEVE THAT IF THE APPLICANT THINKS ABOUT HIS OPTIONS THINKS ABOUT HOW AUSTIN HAS TYPICALLY TREATED THE REMOVAL OF LARGE HERITAGE TREES THAT HE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE TWO, LOTS THAT HE OWNS COMING UP A CREATIVE SOLUTION.
AND I MAY, I SUGGEST ALSO THAT HE WORKED WITH HIS ENGINEER AND HIS ARCHITECT, AND PERHAPS REMIND HIM THAT PART OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE IS EVALUATED ON THE KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT THEY WORK WITH IN OUR CITY.
AND THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE TWO MOST CONTENTIOUS PIECES OF LAND USE ORDINANCE IN OUR CITY, ALONG WITH LAKE AUSTIN, THAT BRINGS CASES TO THIS BOARD MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THEIR, TO THEIR VISIBILITY DURING THIS PROCESS AT SOME POINT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR IT, BUT UH, CAN I REMOVE THAT? CAN I REMOVE MINE? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND REMOVE MINE.
I HOPE THE PERSON IN FRONT OF US, BABY.
I HOPE THAT YOU ARE LISTENING BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU.
WE JUST NEED SOMETHING TO GET OUT OF THIS BOX WITH YOU.
SO I'LL REMOVE JUST FOR THE POSTPONEMENT, BUT THAT MEANS YOU GOT TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING AND ROB'S RIGHT.
LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE RISEN TO THEIR EYES.
AND SO IF IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK SPECIFIC PUTTING IT IN, FRAMING IT THAT WAY MAY GET YOU, UM, MAY GET YOU A DIFFERENT LOOK THAT YOU CAN BRING BACK TO THE SPORES SO THAT WE CAN WORK WITH YOU TO GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED OR WANT.
SO SIR, HOLD OFF FOR A SECOND.
AND WHEN I'M ON THE DICE, I TELL A LOT OF PEOPLE SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE, OKAY.
YOU'VE GOT A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
MR. MCDANIEL HAS GIVEN YOU QUITE A BIT OF WISDOM AND INSIGHT THAT I WOULD HIGHLY ADVISE.
YOU TAKE A PERSONALLY MYSELF AND BEING ON THIS BOARD 14 YEARS, SOME ODD YEARS, YOU'LL HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF GETTING WHERE YOU WANT TO GET TO, BUT YOUR APPROACH RIGHT NOW, ISN'T QUITE GOING TO GET YOU THERE.
AND, UH, AND I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.
OKAY, WELL, YOU MET SECONDED IT.
YOU THOUGH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A BIG HERITAGE TREE ON THAT PROPERTY IS A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP.
BUT WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO DO IS WHEN THE BOARD IS REQUESTING A D I'LL GET YOU TO KELLY.
I WILL GET TO YOU, SWEETHEART.
THE, UM, WHEN THE BOARD IS TELLING YOU THAT THEY NEED THIS, THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION, YOU NEED TO BRING THE INFORMATION, TAKE A SERIOUS, LOOK AT IT.
YOU ROLL THE DICE THE NEXT TIME.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHERE YOU WANT TO GET.
MR. MCDANIEL GAVE YOU SOME GREAT INSIGHT.
KELLY, YOU HAD A COMMENT, JUST THAT MY NOTES FROM THE LAST MEETING SAID THAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT FOCUS ON BUILDING ON NORTHERN LAUNCH.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE.
AND I JUST WANTED TO REALLY, REALLY, REALLY EMPHASIZE THAT SINCE IT DIDN'T SEEM THAT MESSAGE DIDN'T GET ACROSS LAST TIME, THANKING KELLY AND BEING A FORMER CONTRACTOR AND LOOKING AT THE TOPOGRAPHY AND LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT OF THIS PROPERTY.
I DO SEE SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY, HOLD YOUR HAND UP SO I CAN SEE YOU.
IF NOT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, TAKE A VOTE.
UH, ELAINE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO CALL EVERYBODY OUT REAL QUICK BEFORE.
UM, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE ARBORIST BECAUSE HE DID CALL IN AND HE IS ON THE LINE WAITING.
I'M JUST, I MEAN, I THINK IF HE, I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO REALLY ADD MUCH TO IT.
THE FACT THAT WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE VALUE AND HOW WE ARE ABOUT TREES AND CRITICAL ROOT ZONES.
[00:45:01]
UM, SO UNLESS, UH, IF ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO HIT HAVE HIM PRESENT ANYTHING, THAT'S FINE.BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY WELL AWARE OF ANYBODY ELSE.
LET'S CALL OUT THE ROLE BLANK PLEASE.
I HAVE A QUESTION PLEASE, BECAUSE THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST MONTH AND I'M NOT HEARING A REALLY NICE TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE BUILT IN AND THAT OVERLAY AND I'M WELL, SARAH, THAT WOULD BE CLOSING.
YES, I'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IN THE PROCESS, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE START STEPPING ON EACH OTHER AND TALKING ON EACH OTHER, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO CLOSE OUR MODELS AND OPEN OUR EARS.
IT WAS STATING THAT, BUT IN THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE ALLOWING YOU TO BUILD YOUR HOME ON A PROPERTY.
NOW, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE OVERLAY OR NOT, YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS AND LISTEN TO WHAT WAS SAID HERE.
NOT JUST HEAR THE WORDS, BUT HEAR THE WISDOM BEHIND IT AND TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR OTHER OPTIONS OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD.
CAUSE I CAN TELL YOU SITTING ON THIS BOARD FOR SO LONG, I CAN COUNT THE VOTES AND YOU'RE NOT THERE.
SO YOU DON'T BRING US SOMETHING BACK WITHOUT, WITHOUT HAVING SOME INVESTIGATING SOME OPTIONS AND RELOCATING THE HOUSE AROUND AND TAKING A LOOK AT DIFFERENT POCKETS.
MR. MCDANIEL COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL'S INFORMATION THAT HE GAVE TO YOU.
HE IS PROBABLY THE MOST VALUABLE INFORMATION YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY TONIGHT.
SO LANE, PLEASE CALL THE ROOM, BUT BAILEY YES.
YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO NEXT MONTH, SIR.
PLEASE BRING THE INFORMATION, TAKE THIS VALUED WISDOM YOU GATHERED HERE TONIGHT AND BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST BITE AT THE APPLE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, MICHAEL, FOR CALLING INTO ME.
KEITH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND YOU'VE BEEN DISMISSED.
UH, WE, WE HAD PULLED THIS, UM, PROJECT, UH, I MEAN THIS CASE FORWARD, UH, BECAUSE WE HAD STAFF AVAILABLE, UH, THERE ARE, UH, THERE'S ONE OTHER CASE THAT, UH, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE WE HAVE, UH, TWO PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION AND THAT IS CASE
[Item P4 (Part 1 of 2)]
KEY FOR, UM, SO I'M GOING TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE WILL, UH, LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN WE WILL, UH, COME BACK TO THAT LATER.UM, SO, UM, IF THAT'S, UH, OKAY.
UH, SO THIS IS A ITEM P FOR C 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO ZERO.
UH, JENNIFER HANLIN FOR DURHAM TRADING PARTNERS.
UH, 12, UH, 1403 EAST THIRD STREET.
AND AM I CORRECT ON THIS? YES.
AND WE HAVE, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES WILLIAM, I THINK THAT YOU'RE RECUSING YOURSELF.
SO IF YOU CAN JUST TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO FOR A MINUTE.
UM, AND THEN, UM, UM, SO MARTHA, YOU WILL, UH, BE LISTENING TO THIS PART, BUT, UH, SO WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE, UH, OUR MIND TO SPEAK, UH, BROADLY ALISON AND, UH, SUSAN BENZ.
SO IF WE CAN START WITH BRYCE AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO SUSAN AND YOU HAVE, IS IT THREE MINUTES OR FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN THEM? ELAINE? I CAN'T, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
I BELIEVE IT'S A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM.
SO IF YOU GUYS CAN SPLIT UP THE TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR HEARING ME, AS YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET TO 2.7 FEET.
I OWN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT ONE 43 EAST THIRD, AND JUST APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE MY OPINION.
UM, YOU ALSO HEARD FROM ME AT THE LAST HEARING, SO I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS SHORT AND RESERVE TIME FOR THE OTHER NEIGHBOR.
UM, SO, UH, THE NEED FOR THIS DAY IS, AS YOU'LL SEE, IS NOT THE RESULT OF UNIQUE PROPERTY
[00:50:01]
HARDSHIP, BUT AS WE SAW LAST TIME AS AN UNFORTUNATE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE IN THE SURVEY PROCESS, UH, EARLY IN THE BILLING PROCESS, THE SURVEY COMPANY MADE AN ERROR.IT WASN'T DISCOVERED TILL LATE IN THE PROCESS IN SOME OF THE CASE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PART OF THIS.
I DO SEE RECORDS OF OTHER NEIGHBORS, MAYBE BRINGING THIS TO ATTENTION EARLIER IN THE PROCESS.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS TRULY DISCOVERED.
UM, I WILL SAY, I DO FEEL THIS HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON MY, AND THE VALUE OF RUNNING US PRODUCE LIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AND AIRFLOW, AS YOU'LL SEE FROM THE ELEVATION AND THE DOCUMENT, IT'S AN EXTREMELY LONG DUPLEX AND RUNS ALMOST THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF MY PROPERTY.
AND IT HAS EXTERIOR STAIRS ON BOTH SIDES, BOTH ENDS OF IT.
IT'S PROBABLY MAYBE A HUNDRED FEET AT LEAST LAW.
UM, AND I SAY IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T OKAY, DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHERE THERE WAS A HISTORIC HOME THAT WAS THERE BEFORE THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO STAY WITH, BUT BECAUSE IT IS SO LONG, ANY, ANY CHANGE IN VARIANCE HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON MY LOT BECAUSE IT RUNS ALMOST THE ENTIRE LENGTH.
AND MY HOUSE IS JUST, IT'S A SMALL SINGLE STORY TELLING HOME BUILDING BUILT IN THE THIRTIES, SMALL GARAGE IN THE BACK.
UM, SO WHAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT IS IF ANY POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUES BEING THAT CLOSE, UH, WITH EASE THAT EXTEND OUT TWO FEET ELEVATION THAT LEAVES THEM REALLY JUST INCHES FROM MY PROPERTY.
UM, AND I'M, I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I DO WORRY ABOUT ANY KIND OF GREATER RISK OF FIREARM, MAYBE SPREADING FROM ONE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER, IF THAT WAS AFTER THE CASE.
UM, THE ONE OTHER ISSUE I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE CASE DOCUMENTS, YOU WILL SEE THE WOODEN FENCE THAT'S IN THERE.
I DIDN'T WANT TO JUST DRAW ATTENTION THAT THAT NTC IS ACTUALLY INSIDE MY PROPERTY LINE.
THERE, THERE USED TO BE A, A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT RAN ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS CLOSER TO THE STRUCTURE THAT I GUESS WAS REMOVED AS PART OF THE PROCESS AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF MY HOUSE PUT UP THE WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE TO JUST CREATE SOME MORE PRIVACY THERE, BUT ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE HALF A FOOT INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE, AT LEAST.
SO, UH, THE, THE PHOTOS THAT LOOKED NARROWED THEY'RE ACTUALLY EVEN MORE NARROW THAN THAT ONE CONSIDERED WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS.
UM, AND I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT EVEN THE SIDEWALK THAT IS THERE CROSSES INTO MY PROPERTY AND WORRY ABOUT REALLY DRAINAGE ISSUES FROM JUST THAT IMPERVIOUS COVERS GOT RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
UM, SO INFLAMMATION, IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT DEALERS GOT AS FAR AS THEY DID BEFORE THIS ERA WAS THERE.
I'M NOT A BILLING EXPERT, I'M NOT A SETBACK EXPERT.
SO I REALLY DIDN'T NOTICE IT WAS A VIOLATION UNTIL I, UH, I SAW THE LETTER COME FORWARD AND JUST GENERALLY TRUST THE AUTHOR CODE AND INSPECTION PROCESS TO PROTECT ME FROM ME SAYING, YOU KNOW, VOICING MY OPINION AS SOON AS I HEARD THAT.
BUT I, UM, I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY POSITION.
IF YOU COULD STAY ON THAT LINE JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL GO ONTO SUSAN BENZ RIGHT NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, BUT, UM, I AM, UH, I REPRESENT THE EAST FEATHER CHAVEZ, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM.
AND, UM, WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION, WE, UH, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DRIVING BY.
WE TALKED TO A FEW OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE SENT A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER THAT COMES FROM THE CITY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.
UM, SINCE THEN, UH, DAVID CANCEL LOCEY REACHED OUT US.
AND, UM, I SENT HIM AN EMAIL WITH A WHOLE SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT OUR PLANNING TEAM HAD COME UP WITH AND HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM HIM.
SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS HAD TO DO WITH WHY WAS THIS NOT DISCOVERED EARLIER? AND IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE JUST THOMPSON WHO SERVED ON THE CITY'S PLANNING COMMISSION HAD WRITTEN SEVERAL EMAILS TO THE CITY CALLING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE SETBACK.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE BUILDER DIDN'T CALL IT SOMEONE'S ATTENTION.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE APPLICANT DIDN'T VISIT WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS WHO YOU JUST SPOKE WITH TO TALK ABOUT.
DO YOU KNOW, THERE SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROPERTY LINE? I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T HAVE A SURVEY SURVEYOR GO BACK AND CONFIRM.
WE ASKED THEM IF THE BUILDER ACTUALLY HIRED THEIR OWN SURVEY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDING WAS WITH, UM, FOUNDATION WAS PUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
AND WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER TO THAT.
SO OUR TEAM CONTINUES TO OPPOSE THIS AREA.
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU DID? NOPE.
UM, SO, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE, UH, TWO PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION MR. ALISON OR HAS BEEN OKAY.
SO THE WAY THIS WORKS IS, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, REMEMBER ALL OF THIS TOO, WHEN WE ACTUALLY HEAR THE CASE, WHICH WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LATER, UH, IN THE EVENING.
SO, UH, JUST KEEP ALL OF THIS IN MIND
[00:55:01]
AND THAT, UH, ELAINE, I BELIEVE THAT GETS, UH, CLEARS THE DECK FOR ANY OF THE PEOPLE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE CASES.ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE WILL DO ANOTHER SHIFT AND WE'RE GOING BACK TO, UH, ITEM D ONE.
[Item D1]
UM, THIS WAS, UH, A PREVIOUS, UH, SIGNED POSTPONEMENT AND AGAIN, SIGNED CASES, UH, ONLY REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY, UH, AS OPPOSED TO, UM, UH, A SUPER MAJORITY LIKE WE DO ON OUR VARIANCES.UH, THIS IS CASE, UH, D ONE C 16 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE.
THIS IS JUSTIN, UH, SORRY, JASON, UH, DAIMLER FOR, UM, UH, CAPITAL METRO AUTHORITY.
UH, THIS IS NINE OH ONE, UM, 1,011, UH, 1109 AND 1211 EAST FIFTH STREET AND 1300, 1,304 EAST FOURTH STREET.
UM, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPLICANT TO RESEARCHER.
UH, JASMINE HAD HER YASMIN I'M SORRY.
IF YOU COULD TAKE HER AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED, YOU HEARD THIS, OUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE OVERLAY, I THINK PRIMARILY, BUT YASMIN, PLEASE.
I JUST WANTED TO TRIPLE CHECK THIS.
DOESN'T HAVE AN INDIA PROJECT TO ASK IT.
CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT DISEASE? IS THIS SPECIFICALLY A PROJECT CONNECT ISSUE? THIS IS JASON SUMLER WITH ENDEAVOR REAL ESTATE GROUP APPLICANT.
UH, AND NOAH DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PROJECT CONNECT, THE CAT METRO CONNECTIONS DUE TO THE, THE, THEY ARE THE LAND OWNER AND A PARTNER IN THE PROJECT.
MICHAEL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? YES, SIR.
WE HEARD THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION LAST TIME.
THIS IS THE SALTIER PROJECT AND EVERYTHING.
AND, UH, HAVING, UM, IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR IT ALL MORE AGAIN, THAT'S FINE.
I'LL SIT HERE AND PUT ON MY THUMBS AND LISTEN TO IT.
BUT, UH, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR IF THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION AGAINST IT, BECAUSE LITERALLY IT FITS THE BILL OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON AND LOT OF STUFF.
UH, WELL, WE GOT A LOT OF HANDS RAISED.
LET ME, LET ME READ SOMETHING HERE FIRST.
UH, UH, THIS IS, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT CAME ABOUT WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND, UH, I'VE ALREADY TAKEN T STAFF TO TASK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS.
MR. CHAIRS, IF I MAY INTERRUPT YOU PLEASE.
UH, THERE'S A SECOND ONE THAT CAME OUT ALSO FROM JERRY SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T QUITE GET IN THERE, WHAT THEY WERE INTENDING, WHICH IS OKAY.
IF YOU CAN CLEAN, READY TO READ RIGHT NOW, MR. CHAIR.
AND, UM, CAN SOMEONE GET, GET A SECOND TO THAT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION? I THINK THERE WERE HANDS UP.
SO JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THIS.
UM, SO, UH, IN MY, UH, EX OFFICIO ROLE ON, ON PLAYING COMMISSION, UM, IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT, UM, THAT THERE WAS, UH, AN, UH, AN ISSUE, UM, THAT, UH, THEY WERE ASKING PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO BACK AND FIX.
UH, THERE WAS, UH, AN AMENDMENT MADE TO THE, UM, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN NOVEMBER OF 2019.
UM, IT WAS, UH, HEARD AT, AT THE COUNCIL AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT HAD GONE THROUGH CODES AND ORDINANCES AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND WHEN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE GOT WRITTEN, UM, THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE, UM, THAT, AND THE MISTAKE WAS THAT IT, UH, TOOK AWAY ALL THE ILLUMINATED SIGNS IN THE, YOU KNOW, AREA.
UM, AND, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IS, UH, UH, NOW BEING PORTED OVER TO, UM,
SO IT'S SORT OF A MISNOMER TO BE CALLING IT, UM, AT THE UNIVERSITY, UM, UH, OVERLAY, UH, ANY MORE BECAUSE IT, THE TH THAT CRITERIA IS BEING USED IN OTHER PLACES.
SO, UH, JUST TO, TO, TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS BEING FIXED, BUT IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A MONTHS LONG PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE BEEN SEEING SOME OF THESE CASES.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT MEMORANDUM, UM, AND, UH, THE OTHER STUFF THAT I HAD SENT OUT TO, UM, TO, UH, THE MEMBERS, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I HAD, UH, WANTED ALL OF THIS TO BE IN THE BACKUP, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT ALL OF IT MADE IT.
SO ANYWAY, SO WE HAVE A, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE
[01:00:01]
BY MICHAEL VON OLIN AND A SECOND BY, UH, DARYL, I'M SORRY, BY WILLIAM HODGE.I'M JUST GONNA WRITE THIS STUFF DOWN.
UM, AND THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE IN THE SECOND BY WILLIAM.
SO, UH, LET'S ANY DISCUSSION, UH, JESSICA, SO YOUR HAND THERE, AND THEN WE'LL GO ON.
DOES EVERYONE KNOW I WAS INCLINED TO PASS THIS LAST TIME? SO I'M 100% ON BOARD WITH THIS.
UH, BROOKE, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
SO IF PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, DO THEY EVEN NEED A VARIANCE ANYMORE? UH, YES.
SO, SO HERE'S, HERE'S THE DEAL THAT THE, UH, INCORRECT, UH, ORDINANCE IS STILL ON THE BOOKS.
AND SO IT WAS GOING TO TAKE THEM SEVERAL MORE MONTHS TO FIT WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY DOING IN LAST YEAR.
AND SO IN THE MEANTIME, ANYBODY CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, IF WE DO A STRICT READING OF THE ORDINANCE, IT SAYS NO ELIMINATOR SCIENCE PERIOD.
AND THAT WAS, YEAH, THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.
UH, KELLY HAS APPROVED THAT THE CHANGES ARE APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEM TO GO BACK AND UPDATE.
WELL, NO, IT'S BACK TO CODE IN ORDINANCES.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE RIGMAROLE AND, AND GO BACK TO COACHING ORDINANCES, BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN BACK TO COUNCIL TO FIX THIS.
TO ME, IT'S A CRAZY PROCESS, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
SO, UH, WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAD ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? OKAY.
UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, BY MICHAEL VON OLAND A SECOND BY WILLIAM HODGE.
UM, I, AND I SAY YES, RON MCDANIEL.
DO YOU WANT THE FINDING, SIR? OH, UH, YES, WE CAN MAKE IT REAL QUICK FOR A SECOND.
MAYBE WE GOT THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENCY, OF, AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED BELOW IN ORDER TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.
THE BOARD MUST FIRST MAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO AND THREE BELOW THE BOARD MUST THEN MAKE A FINDING DESCRIBED IN ITEM FOUR BELOW.
IF THE BOARD CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, IT CANNOT APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE.
AND THE FINDINGS ARE, I'M JUST GOING TO GO ONE AND FOUR.
THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGN ON THE SITE.
CONSIDERING THE FEATURES OF THE SITE, SUCH AS DIMENSIONED, LANCE LANDSCAPING, OR TOPOGRAPHY BECAUSE OF THE VARIANCE.
UH, THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO ADDRESS THIS PART OF THE TOWN.
AND FOR GRANTING THIS AREA, DOES VARIANTS WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED AND POTENTIALLY SIMULATED SITUATED BECAUSE THIS REQUESTED VARIANTS WILL PROVIDE ONLY THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THE SIGNS WITHIN THE SALT, TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT.
I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND MICHAEL, JUST TO CIRCLE, ONE THING ON THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS SPECIFICALLY, UH, FORWARD THIS PART OF TOWN.
WELL THEN LET ME GO TO THE, LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
YOU'RE, UH, UH, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE SIGNS OF APPROPRIATE SIZE AND BE SEEN BY VEHICLES PASSING OUT 50 MAHLER IN SAN MARCUS.
UH, AND KELLY, I THINK YOU WERE THE LAST, UH, VOTE.
UM, SO, AND IF I DIDN'T DO SO WELL, WHICH I FELT WE DIDN'T, UH, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, YOU DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ANY WAY EXCEPT, UH, TO CLARIFY.
SO YOU'VE GOTTEN YOUR ORDINANCE.
[Item D2]
TO THE, UH, TO, UM, THIS IS, I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A JUGGLE AND I'VE GOT TWO SCREENS AND IT'S A MESS, BUT ALRIGHT, D TWO, THIS IS A C 16, UH, DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO TWO ALKESH PATEL FOR A LION BELT.AND THIS IS 2,600 BROCKTON DRIVE.
UH, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIGNED
[01:05:01]
VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, TO, TO, UM, UH, THIS IS SECTION 25 DASH 10 DASH A ONE 33 UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAYS ZONING DISTRICT SIGNS TO EXCEED THE SIGN AREA FROM, UH, ONE, UH, 150 SQUARE FOOT, UH, SIGN MAXIMUM, ALLOWED TO, TO, TO, UM, TO SORRY, TWO TO 217 SQUARE FOOT, UH, EACH, UH, REQUESTED, UH, WALL SIGNS ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES.AND, UM, THE, UH, ALSO FROM A SECTION 25 DASH 10 DASH ONE 33, ALSO THE, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, A ZONING DISTRICT SIGNS TO ALUMINATE THOSE SIGNS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SIGNAGE FOR THE NEW HILTON GARDEN INN IN THE, UH, NORTH BURNET GATEWAY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S A, YES, THIS ONE ALSO FELL UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH THE LAST ONE.
AND SO IF EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE CASE AGAIN, I'M FINE.
I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I'M ALSO PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH SOME OF THE, THERE WAS SOME OTHER CONCERNS THAT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAD THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT ON AS A POSSIBLE.
UM, SO, UH, BOOK, UH, I SEE YOUR HAND UP.
THE DIFFERENCE WITH THIS ONE IS THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR TWO SIGNS, NOT ONE, WHICH ISN'T REALLY ADDRESSED WITH WHAT I GET THE ILLUMINATION PART, AND I'M FINE WITH THAT.
BUT THE FIRST VARIANCE WAS NOT REALLY ADDRESSED, UM, IN THE AMENDMENTS AS MUCH TO THE UNO, WHAT WAS TAKEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THE OTHER, THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS I DO NOT BELIEVE, AND, AND ELAINE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT THAT THE, UH, THAT THEY ALLOW ILLUMINATED SIGNS ABOUT THE SECOND FLOOR.
I THINK THAT THOSE ARE PROHIBITED, BUT THAT THEY CAN DO ILLUMINATED SIGNS BELOW, UH, SECOND FLOOR AND BELOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? I CAN LOOK AGAIN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE PROHIBITED.
I THINK THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IF THEY'RE PROHIBITED, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
AND I WAS USING IT INTERCHANGEABLY.
MR. CHAIR, CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR MICHAEL? YEAH.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL TO APPROVE.
AND IS THERE A SECOND, A SECOND.
SO, UM, LET ME JUST MAKE A MOVE.
UM, SO LET'S, UH, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, DO THE FINDINGS.
DARRYL, DO YOU WANT TO TALK, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION AND THE, THE PROPERTY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE PROPERTY IS ON BROCKTON, WHICH WOULD BE THE, I GUESS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL, WHICH REALLY ISN'T UP AGAINST ANY, ANY STREET OR ANYTHING.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A, A SIGN ON THE SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SUPPORT A, A SIGN ON THE WEST BUILDING ELEVATION.
CAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY FACING A STREET.
IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO HELP ANYBODY FIND IT.
IS THAT A FRONT END ALIGNMENT DARRYL? YEAH, I WOULD DO THAT, THAT, THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THAT SIGN THE SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION, BUT NOT ON THE WEST BUILDING ELEVATION IN THE SIZE THAT THEY'RE OUT THERE REQUESTING.
IF MY SECOND IS OKAY WITH THAT, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
UH, VERONICA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF FIRST.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT BEFORE WE WENT TO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR A BIT AN, UH, AN ADDITION TO IT, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS THAT FIND OUT, UH, IS INDEED A SECOND SET.
SO, UH, IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR IF THAT, UM, THE
[01:10:01]
SIGN ON THE OTHER FACADE, THE NON SOUTH FACADE IS, UM, WHAT, WHAT THAT'S, WHAT'S DRIVING THAT.MATT WILSON WITH CHANDLER SIGNS.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
UM, THE IDEA FOR THE TWO WALL SIGNS, UH, IS FOR VISIBILITY, UH, DUE TO THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, THERE WOULD BE VISIBILITY FROM BOTH SIDES, UH, AND THE NATIONAL BRAND STANDARD REQUIRING SIGNAGE ON THAT FRONT ELEVATION TO HELP, UH, GUESTS FIND THE HOTEL.
SO THAT IS THE REQUEST FOR THE TWO WERE ALSO SET IN A SETBACK OFF OF BURNETT ROAD.
UH, CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT IN MONUMENT SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE OVERLAY.
THEREFORE WE'VE REMOVED THE MONUMENT FROM THE REQUEST.
SO THE ONLY TWO SIGNS THAT WOULD BE FOR THE PROPERTY ARE THOSE TWO WALL SIGNS.
AND, UH, THE OWNER DEEM THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO MOST VISIBLE LOCATIONS.
AGAIN, I WILL JUST REITERATE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, THE, UM, UNIVERSITY, UH, OVERLAY HAS BEEN PORTED TO OTHER AREAS OF TOWN AND IT WAS COUNSEL'S INTENT THAT, UH, ILLUMINATED SIGNS, UH, ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
UM, SO, UM, THERE WERE SAYING THAT W OF THE TWO, WE WOULD GIVE THEM, GIVE THEM ONE THAT WOULD BE NOT ONLY LARGER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED, BUT, UM, IS, UH, ALSO ILLUMINATED, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
UM, SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.
UH, ANY MORE DISCUSSION, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FINE.
THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF, AND SHE SUFFICIENCY OF, AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED BELOW IN ORDER TO GRANT, TO REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
THE BOARD MUST FIRST MAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO AND THREE.
THE BOARD MUST THEN MAKE FINDINGS DESCRIBED IN ITEM FOUR BELOW.
IF THE BOARD CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, IT CANNOT APPROVE ASSIGN VARIANCE.
ONE, THE VARIANCES IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES, PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE, CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITES SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPE, OR TOPOGRAPHY, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SIGNS AND LOCATIONS ARE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING SIGNS AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES AND ARE APPROPRIATELY SCALED TO SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS BUSINESS, THE CUSTOMERS ARE TRYING TO FIND THEIR LOCATION, OR NEITHER ILLUMINATION INSIDE WERE GREATLY IMPROVED TRAFFIC TO THIS BUSINESS AND GET INTO THE TURNING LANE ON APPROACH AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED BECAUSE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS HOTEL BUSINESS, THERE WILL BE CUSTOMERS LOOKING FOR THIS LOCATION IN NIGHTTIME, WITHOUT ILLUMINATED SIGNS AND NO MONUMENT OR PYLON.
IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO FIND THE LOCATION.
THIS IS A GROWING AREA NEAR THE DOMAIN AND WOULD BENEFIT FOR AUGUST THREE, ITS LOCATION AT NIGHT.
ALRIGHT, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE, UH, BROOKE BAILEY
HE ASKED ME BIT ADD TO IT RATHER I'D HAVE BEEN DOWNSIZED, BUT I'M NOT DEAD ON IT.
UM, SO THAT, UM, EVERY WHICH WAS GRANTED WITH A ONE SIGN ON THE SOUTH ONLY LIMITED TO 217 SQUARE FEET AND, UM, ALLOWING TO BE ILLUMINATED.
[01:15:01]
WE HAVE, UM, A NEW PUBLIC[Item I1]
HEARINGS.15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO TWO.
UH, THIS IS MICHAEL CERNER WICK.
IF I BUTCHERED YOUR NAME AT THREE OH FIVE WEST 45TH STREET WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BY THE WAY, YOU GOT MY NAME PERFECTLY RIGHT.
WHICH IS PROBABLY LIKE A 1% CHANCE.
I AM THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
WE HAVE FIVE WEST 45TH STREET.
WE WERE PLANNING TO BUILD A SECOND STORY ADDITION.
UH, THE LIKES OF WHICH ARE MINOR AND MODEST, UH, WHILE STILL CONTRIBUTING TO THIS STORY DISTRICT.
AND THEN MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S JUST IMPROVING THE LIVABILITY OF THE PROPERTY AS IT WERE.
UH, THE LOT SIZE IS 1985 SQUARE FEET.
IF YOU HEARD THAT, RIGHT, THAT'S A LOT SIZE, NOT THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE.
UH, THE LOT SIZE OF 1985 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE LOT SIZE IS 39 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS UNDER THE MINIMUM OF 57, 50 AND 50 FEET.
WE ARE REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THAT LOT SIZE OF 1985 AND 39 WITH WE ARE BUILDING AN ADDITION WHICH WILL ADD APPROXIMATELY 400 SQUARE FEET IN ANY AMOUNT OVER 200 SQUARE FEET REQUIRES ANOTHER PARKING SPACE.
WE ARE REQUESTING EITHER OF TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING, EITHER INCREASE THIS MINIMUM OF 200 TO 300 SQUARE FEET OR REDUCE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM TWO DOWN TO ONE.
IF YOU COULD GO DOWN TO, UH, WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE TWO REALLY QUICKLY.
UM, BY THE WAY, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, DO I HAVE FIVE MINUTES OR THREE MINUTES? FIVE MINUTES.
I DON'T HAVE TO GO CRAZY LIKE THAT, THAT GUY IN THOSE COMMERCIALS ANYWAY, UM, THE SITE HISTORY.
SO THIS HAS REMAINED THE SAME SINCE, UH, 1938, AS FAR AS THE LOT CONFIGURATION.
AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ABOUT HYDE PARK, UH, ALL LOTS ARE SMALL.
MOST OF LOTS CREATE A WAY BACK IN THE LATE 18 HUNDREDS TO THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS WERE FEET WIDE.
IF THEY WEREN'T A CORNER LOT AND THEN VARYING DEPTH, WHICH EVEN AT A HUNDRED FEET, IF YOU DO THE MATH ON THAT, THEY STILL WERE SUBSTANDARD BY TODAY'S STANDARDS.
SO THIS HAS REMAINED THE SAME SIZE IT HAS BEEN SINCE THEN.
UH, IF ANYBODY WANTS THE BACKSTORY ON IT, IT IS SOMEWHAT INTERESTING, BUT I WANTED TO BRING UP THAT MY LOT IS EXTREMELY SMALL.
EVEN WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO OTHER HOUSES IN HYDE PARK, IN OTHER PROPERTIES, THEY GET INTO AUSTIN, UH, AT 1985.
SO IT WAS BASICALLY A FATHER BUILDING A HOUSE FOR HIS TWO LITTLE DAUGHTERS THAT HE JUST HAD BACK IN 1930.
SO, UH, IT WAS LIVABLE THEN AND FUNCTIONAL FOR THOSE TWO LITTLE DAUGHTERS.
AND WITH THOSE, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE TIMES WERE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BACK THEN, BUT IT'S THE SAME CONFIGURATION SINCE THAT TIME, IT HAS NOT CHANGED.
ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT, UH, WE'LL GO PAST IT, BUT SINCE SLIDES THREE AND FOUR, UM, I JUST BROUGHT THAT UP, BUT WE CAN PROBABLY JUST MOVE TO SLIDE FIVE.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, UH, HERE'S THE SITE PLAN FOR THE BOTTOM FLOOR.
WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING MUCH OF ANYTHING EXCEPT TO BUILD THE STAIRWELL, OBVIOUSLY TO GET UPSTAIRS, WHICH WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING IN THE OUTSIDE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE.
I WANT TO MAKE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR.
WE'RE NOT ADDING ONE SQUARE INCH OF ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.
SO WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF STUFF HERE TO GET THIS, UH, STAIRWELL BUILDING HERE, WHICH INCLUDES REMOVING EXISTING SPACE TO BUILD IT.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO SHORE UP STUDS AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS TO MAKE EVERYTHING VERY SAFE.
IF WE GO DOWN TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE SIX, AND YOU COULD PROBABLY GO TO SEVEN, SIX ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WITH THIS TORQUE COMMISSION.
THAT'S ANOTHER FUN THING THAT WE WENT THROUGH.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO DO THINGS WITH THEM AND WE HAVE TO GET THEM APPROVED.
SO TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, UH, WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF COMPROMISES AND THE ONLY COMPROMISE WE CAME TO IS ON PAGE SEVEN.
SO WHAT YOU SEE THERE WITH THOSE ELEVATIONS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.
THERE IS NO OTHER THERE, IF THERE IS NOTHING REALLY ELSE WE CAN DO.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF ALL THE RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE WITH LOT SIZE.
SO ON PAGE EIGHT, UH, I SEE YOU CAN SEE THOSE NUMBERS THERE.
I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO SECTION 8.1 OF THE ORDINANCE, CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE SUBSECTION IS.
I GUESS IT REQUIRES A LOT SIZE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 57, 50 SQUARE FEET, 50 FOOT WIDE.
AND AS I SHOW YOU THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD THAT CONFIGURATION SINCE BEFORE 1946.
AND THIS IS BEFORE THE MINOR REGULATIONS, THIS HARDSHIP EXISTED BEFORE THERE ARE MODERN REGULATIONS.
SO WE CAN'T CHANGE OR AFFECT THE LOT SIZE OR WIDTH, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING IT.
IF WE GO TO PAGE NINE, NOW THE VARIOUS FOR PARKING SPACE, UM, YOUR, THE APICAL PARKING SUBSECTIONS OF THOSE SAME ORDINANCES, UM, SOME POINT 17 POINT
NOW, BASED ON THE MODEL PROPOSED, THIS CODE REQUIRES THAT WE ADD ANOTHER
[01:20:01]
PARKING SPACE.SO HOWEVER, WITH THE RESPECT OF LOT SIZE, WE HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE COVERAGE LIMITATIONS THAT WE'RE ALREADY AT.
WE ARE ALREADY FACED WITH THOSE BEFORE.
WE CAN'T REALLY CREATE ANOTHER PARKING SPACE IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING EITHER OF TWO VARIANCES FOR THIS REGULATIONS EITHER INCREASE THE LOWER THRESHOLD OF 200 TO 300 SQUARE FEET OR REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM TWO TO ONE.
UH, SOME MIGHT SAY THAT THEY'RE THE SAME THING, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED.
UH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO SLIDE 10, UH, THESE ARE SOME DIFFERENT QUICK TRAFFIC QUARTERS OF THE AREA.
UM, A REDUCTION IN PARKING WOULD NOT INCREASE THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC VOLUME AT ALL.
UH, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT WE'RE MOST OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS, UH, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYBODY ADDITIONAL HERE.
THE ROOM IS BEING CREATED UPSTAIRS IS JUST A REGULAR ROOM.
IT'S NOT A BEDROOM, THERE'S NO BATHROOM, THERE'S NO CLOSET, IT'S JUDD LUXURY ROOM TO IMPROVE LIVABILITY.
SO NOBODY, ADDITIONALLY, WHO ALREADY ISN'T LIVE HERE FOR IN PERPETUITY, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.
IF IT'S A SINGLE PERSON, IF IT'S JUST TWO PEOPLE, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR, TRAFFIC'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE THIS, WHAT WE FOUND.
UM, IT'S NOT CREATING ANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE, UH, WHERE PARKING PUBLIC STREETS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE TRAFFIC.
THAT'S KIND OF WHY I SHOWED THOSE PICTURES AND YOU CAN'T EVEN PARK ON MY STREET ON 45TH.
SO THERE'S NO SAFETY HAZARD THAT WAS CREATED.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IS TO MEET ALL THE NECESSARY REGULATIONS FOR THIS EDITION.
SO, UM, IN SUMMARY, AND IF YOU WANT TO SCROLL DOWN TO THE FINAL ONE, WHICH YOU GUYS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING IT, UM, THAT SHOWS YOU THE SECOND FLOOR SITE, A SITE PLAN.
SO, UH, HONESTLY, JOSIE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS WAS TO IMPROVE THE LITTLE BUILDING THE PROPERTY, UH, AND THEY'RE VERY MINOR MODEST IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ORIC DISTRICT AS WE ALREADY GOT OUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS LAST YEAR.
AND JUST WANT TO GET THIS BELT.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, SO IT SAYS RECORDING STUDIO ON HERE.
UM, SO THIS IS NOT, UH, INTENDED TO EVER BE USED AS A BEDROOM.
AND THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS RECORDING STUDIO.
IS IT, UH, YOUR OWN STUDIO OR ARE YOU EXPECTING, UM, PEOPLE TO COME AND RECORD HERE? OH, NO, IT'S NOT OUT.
I GUESS I SHOULD ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION.
I CORRECT IT AS IT IS JUST RECORDED TO ME WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE, IT'S NOT A BEDROOM AT ALL.
AND IT'S JUST FOR ME TO ANSWER.
YOUR SECOND QUESTION IS JUST PERSONAL FOR MYSELF, REALLY? JUST TO REHEARSE FOR PEOPLE TO LOUNGE.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I CAN'T SEE MY PEOPLE HERE.
SO EVERYBODY ARE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS, ANY MOTIONS, JESSICA?
IF HE BUILDS THIS AND THEN SELLS THE HOUSE LIKE SIX, SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, AND IT COULD CHOOSE FOR A BEDROOM.
CAN, CAN IT BE USED FOR A BEDROOM? UM, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP, YOU CAN PROBABLY, THE, THE ANSWER IS, UH, IS THAT THIS, THIS ROOM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT'S CALLED, IT DOES APPEAR TO MEET THE STANDARDS, UH, THAT THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE IN PREMISES FOUR BEDROOM.
UM, SO IT COULD BE USED AS A BEDROOM.
IT COULD BE IDENTIFIED LATER ON QUALIFY.
IT LOOKS QUALIFIED FOR A BEDROOM, UM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT'S USED, THAT WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT THE WINDOWS PROVIDE THE GRASS AND RIGHT.
UH, ANY, UM, OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION MOTION.
SO IF WE CAN DO THE FINDING REASONABLE USE, THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED SUBDIVIDED BEFORE MARCH, 1946, DEADLINE WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE THIS PERIOD BECAUSE OF THIS VERY LIMITED LOT SIZE AND PREVIOUS COVERS IN INSUFFICIENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND UNDER MORE STANDARD LOT SIZE, ALL ITEMS WOULD BE VERY READILY ATTAINABLE WITHOUT A VARIANCE HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH SURVEILLANCE ALIENS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, ENDED UP A LOT WITH SUBDIVIDED BEFORE MARCH, 1946, DEADLINES WERE DEVELOPED BEFORE THIS PERIOD AND HAS SHOWN TO HAVE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE.
AND YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF CHEAP.
IT'S NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOTS WITHIN A HIGH PARK NCCD, WHICH FACED SIMILAR HARDSHIPS.
[01:25:01]
WERE SUBDIVIDED BEFORE THE 1946 TIME AND ARE SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM 5,500 REQUIRED BY THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS AREA CHARACTER.THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
JASON TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMANT PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE YOUR CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED AT ALL.
THIS POSSIBILITY WAS ALREADY ANALYZED IN DETAIL AND CONFIRMED.
WHEN THE HLC GAVE HIM A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS, DOING PARKING INTERIOR, ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR PARKING VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
ONLY REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE REQUIRES THE BOARD THAT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.
THE BOARD MAY GRANT A VARIANCE TO REGULATION PRESCRIBED IN THE CITY AUSTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT.
THAT WAS MY AMBER ALERT, WENT OFF, UH, UH, PRESCRIBED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAMP, CHAPTER 25, SIX APPENDIX A WITH TO THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES OR LOADING FACILITIES REQUIRED.
IF IT MAKES FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO APPLY ONE NEITHER PRESENT NOR ANTICIPATED FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES GENERATED BY THE USE OF THE SITE OR THE USES OF SITES IN THE VICINITY REASONABLY REQUIRES STRICTER LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC REGULATION, BECAUSE THE REDUCTION IN PARKING WOULD NOT INCREASE THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO THE GROUNDING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A PARKING AND LOADING OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS IN SUCH A MANNER AS J INTERFERE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC OF THE STREETS, BECAUSE THE EXISTING SINGLE PARKING SPACE HAS NOT CREATED SITUATIONS WHERE PARKING OUT PUBLIC STREET IS REQUIRED, WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE TRAFFIC AND 45TH STREET DOES NOT ALLOW NOT HAVE SPACE FOR ON STREET.
THREE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANT WILL NOT CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD OR ANY OTHER CONDITION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE EXISTING SPACE WAS NOT CREATED.
AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY SAFETY HAZARD FOR THE VARIANTS WILL NOT, WILL EXCUSE ME, OR THE VARIANTS OF WE'LL RUN WITH THE USE OR USES TO WHICH IT PERTAINS AND SHALL NOT RUN WITH THE SITE BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE REQUESTING AND PARKING VARIANCE IS TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REGULATIONS FOR THE ADDITION.
THERE IS NO OTHER USE OR NEED FOR IT TO RUN WITH THE SITE.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO VOTE? ALRIGHT, THIS IS, UH, EMOTION TOO.
UH, THIS IS, UH, I WON A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND BY MICHAEL BOUGHT OLIN AND SECOND BY BROOKE BAILEY.
THEY'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH A RIGOROUS PROCESS JUST TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS FAR AS DEALING WITH THE DESIGN AND THE NEIGHBORS.
SO I THINK THEY, THAT THEY'VE DONE ALL THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS MEAN.
I THINK, UM, UH, DO UPROOT, UH, I, I'M GOING TO SAY NO BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA AND THE EVIDENCE WE HEARD IS THAT THE HARDSHIP IS ACTUALLY GENERAL TO THE AREAS.
I THINK THAT, THAT, I DON'T THINK THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT FINDINGS.
UH, MICHAEL, I'M GOING TO SAY YES BECAUSE, UH, AND TO DARREL'S COMMENT, I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, SOME OF THE OTHER HOUSES, THEY WERE ALREADY BUILT PRIOR TO THE 19, UH, 1946 DEADLINE.
SO A LOT OF THEIR SUBDIVISION WAS ALREADY SUBDIVIDED.
SO IN THIS ONE WAS SUBDIVIDED.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT I'M SUPPORTING THIS.
I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP.
A LOT OF THESE VERY SMALL LOTS GOT SUBDIVIDED BEFORE SOME DIVISION WAS SUCH A THING.
ALRIGHT, WE'VE GOT TWO MORE CASES.
[01:30:01]
UH, IT'S SEVEN OH NINE.DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PUSH FOR A QUICK BREAK OR DO WE WANT TO GO ON THROUGH, WELL, PUSH IT ON.
LET'S PUSH LET'S PUSH THROUGH.
I SAW A COUPLE OF HANDS, VERONICA, VERONICA.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TURN OFF AND ON YOUR MIKE PREDICT ANYTHING WHEN IT TURNS TO ATTEND TO OTHER MATTERS.
I'M JUST GOING TO WALK OFF FOR A LITTLE BIT AND I'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
UM, SO, UM, THE WORK, UH, HAPPENED, MARTHA COME BACK ON TASK.
IF YOU'LL, UM, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES, THIS IS GOING TO BE, UH, PACES P THREE AND
[Item P3]
P FOUR.AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE JUST HAVE, UM, OUR, UM, NEW BUSINESS STUFF.
SO, UM, THE NEXT ITEM UP IS, UM, UH, ONE THAT WE HEARD LAST MONTH.
IT'S, UH, ITEM P THREE, UH, C 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO ONE SIX.
THIS IS CHRIS PALLOR DINO AT, UH, 4,013 CLAWSON ROAD.
UM, IT IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM 50 FEET REQUIRED TO 34.8 FEET REQUESTED FOR THE FRONT LOT AND A 49.82 FEET REQUESTED FOR THE REAR LOT IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE THE CURRENT LOTS INTO TWO LOTS AND BUILD TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND TO A SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS ON EACH LAW.
SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, FIRST JUST LET ME CORRECT.
ONE THING YOU SAID THERE, I THINK YOU SAID TO BUILD TOO CUSTODY, DWELLINGS, AND TWO MAIN UNITS ON EACH SLOT.
IT'S TO ALLOW ME TO BUILD TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TWO MINIONS ON THE EXISTING HALF AN ACRE.
SO ONE ON EACH LOT, ONE OF EACH ON EACH LINE.
SO THERE WILL BE FOUR UNITS TOTAL, OR TWO UNITS, TOTAL FOUR UNITS TOTAL ON THE ENTIRE HALF AN ACRE TWO UNITS TOTAL ON EACH OF THE TWO LOTS I'M TRYING TO SET UP.
SO I THINK WHAT I SAID WAS TO BUILD TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND, UH, TWO DWELLING UNITS.
ONE ON EACH SIDE AT THE FOUR TOTAL.
I APOLOGIZE IF I MISUNDERSTOOD.
NOT ABOUT IDENTIFYING HERSELF.
I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM THE PROPERTY FOR A LITTLE OVER THREE YEARS NOW.
UM, I BELIEVE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST TIME AND MY ARCHITECT FOR THIS IS AVAILABLE TO ME BY TEXT.
HE COULDN'T CAUSE IT WAS ONLY ONE SPEAKER ALLOWED.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM, I CAN PASS THEM ON.
UM, A, UH, SO I DID SOME RECENT MED, UH, I HAVE A ONE PAGE, UM, KIND OF SUMMARY OF MY, WHAT I PROPOSE IS MY CASE AGAIN, THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE IS ON THE SCREEN WITH YOU.
UM, AND THEN I SUBMITTED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE END OF EDUCATION BASICALLY SUBMITTED AN ENTIRE COPY OF MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION BACK FROM 2018.
I BELIEVE IT WAS, THAT WAS APPROVED.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ASKED FOR.
SO AGAIN, TO HIGHLIGHT, THIS IS BASICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME APPLICATION AS THE ONE IMPROVED IN 2018.
UM, ANY VARIATION THAT YOU SEE IN THE QUOTE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT SEEN THE 2018 AND THE ONE I RESUBMITTED IN 2020, IT JUST REFLECTS SIMPLIFICATION, NO BUILDING SIZE, NO PLACEMENT ON EITHER PLAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ANY PURPOSE, OTHER THAN GIVING YOU A SENSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
NO FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ON WHAT MAY BE BUILT.
AND HE FINAL DECISION ON THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT APPLICATION.
SO THE PERMIT, THE PERMIT OFFICE WILL WORK WITH ME, UH, WHEN WE, UH, SUBMIT PERMITS TO BUILD SOMETHING.
UM, THERE ISN'T, I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT OR QUESTION, AND IF I MISUNDERSTOOD THIS, FORGIVE ME, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT A SITE PLAN.
THERE IS NO SITE PLAN PROCESS FOR AN ASSESSED THREE, TWO NET LOT.
UM, WHEN I APPLIED TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND WHERE LAND USE FOR TOTAL, WE NEED TO SUBMIT IT THE LINES WE WANT TO DRAW ON A UTILITY PLAN, WHICH WE'RE DOING.
UM, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU, UM, THAT NUMEROUS OTHER LOSS ALONG CLOTH HAD BEEN INVITED TO FLAG LOTS, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING CROSSROADS NUMEROUS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A MAP OF THOSE ON THE NEXT PAGE.
UH, I THINK THIS IS THE FINDING FOR THE BASIS OF FINDING MY ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPROVAL, INCLUDING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
UM, SO I WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN, THE FACTS ON THE GROUND HAVE NOT CHANGED.
UM, AND I JUST, I, I KNOW FAIRNESS MAY NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF WHAT'S FAIR FOR WHAT I CAN DO COMPARED TO OTHERS IN THE AREA.
BUT I DO THINK FAIRNESS IS A CONSIDERATION.
UH, WHEN LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT I, I FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, THE CITY RECOMMENDED TO ME, I APPLIED FOR MY VARIANCE BEFORE MY SUBDIVISION.
I WENT THROUGH THIS ENTIRE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND
[01:35:01]
TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK AND BLUNT, THE ONLY REASON I'M BEHIND BACK BEHIND BEFORE YOU AGAIN, IS BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TOOK SO MUCH TIME IN THE CITY TO REVIEW THAT HAD EXPIRED.AND THEN CONSEQUENTLY, I FOUND OUT MY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, VARIANCE EXPIRED.
UM, THE, AS YOU KNOW, THE LOT IT'S CURRENTLY HALF ACRE AND IT'S ONLY ENTITLED TO ONE HOUSE IN AN ADU WITHOUT THIS SUBDIVISION.
UH, IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WITHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, ALL I CAN BUILD AS AN ADU AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A TREMENDOUS MAIN HOUSE, UH, AND IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY, UH, WHAT THE, THE USE OF THE LAND AND THE VALUES, UH, I'D ALSO POINT OUT AGAIN, UM, THAT THE LAST TIME I APPLIED MORE THAN 80% OF THE HOMEOWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT.
AND IT WAS IN YOUR FIRST PACKET.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AGAIN, I COULDN'T RESUBMIT THOSE NAMES WITH THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THE OWNERS MAY HAVE CHANGED, BUT, UH, AND I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT I COULDN'T DO THE NO FEE APPLICATION BECAUSE SOME RULES HAVE CHANGED AND IT WOULD NO LONGER APPLY HERE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS WHY I DID NOT TAKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND GO KNOCK ON EVERYBODY'S DOOR AGAIN.
BUT MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL THERE.
AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT LAST TIME, UH, MORE THAN 80% OF THEM SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT.
UM, I WANT TO ALSO REITERATE THAT I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF AND ACCEPTING OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED LAST TIME, INCLUDING THAT IF A GARAGE IS BUILT AND NO DECISIONS MADE ABOUT THAT YET.
BUT IF A GARAGE IS BUILT A LOT OF UNINHABITABLE SPACE, THAT THERE'LL BE A SCREEN BUILT FOR TRASH CANS, ET CETERA.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A THIRD ONE I'M OPEN TO ALL OF THOSE.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED AT THE LAST MEETING BY, UH, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS MS. MCCART, UH, AND THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED AND MITIGATED AS NECESSARY DURING THE ARCHITECTURE PROCESS AND THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, I'M SORRY, HERE, LOOKING AT MY NOTES.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL, THAT'S THAT, I JUST, THAT WOULD WRAP UP AGAIN BY SAYING, I REQUEST THAT THIS BOARD RECOGNIZED THE PRIOR BOARD ACTIONS.
I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW PRECEDENT, BUT I, I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN LAST TIME.
AND THE TRULY ONLY REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I DID WITH THE CITY SUGGESTED AND GOT MY VARIOUS BEFORE I APPLIED FOR MY SUBDIVISION AND THAT EXPIRED.
SO IF YOU'LL HOLD ON THE LINE, UM, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, A BOOK JUST QUICKLY BECAUSE THE PAN IS STILL SHOWING HER NO HABITABLE SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE, BUT YOU ARE AMENABLE TO ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD PUT ON THE PREVIOUS VARIANT.
AGAIN, THE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS SIMPLY, AND I'M AMENABLE TO ALL OF IT.
THIS WAS JUST A CONCEPTUAL PLAN DONE THREE YEARS AGO.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT OR MOTION? NO, I DON'T HAVE A MOTION, BUT IF, UH, COMMISSIONER BAILEY WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE HER MOTION WITH BOTH THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANY MORE DISCUSSION, BUT, UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS VARIOUS THAT WAS APPROVED ON THIS PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO TO THREE YEARS AGO.
SO WE'D HAVE TO GET THE EXACT WORDING ON THOSE.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT WORDING, BUT, BUT I KNOW IT INCLUDED THE SCREENING OF THE TRASH CANS IN THE GARAGE AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE.
SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT STAFF FIND THE EXACT WORDING AND APPLY THEM TO THIS BARRIER.
CAN WE DO THAT? UM, IT'S IN THE PRESENT, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE PACKET.
I JUST DON'T SEE IT RIGHT NOW.
I THOUGHT WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT, IT'S ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE R I CAN READ ON IT.
AND YOU WANT ME TO, WELL, ABSOLUTELY.
IF YOU CAN JUST REFERENCE THE SHEET THAT IT IS ON, UH, UH, IN THE PACKET, IN OUR CURRENT PACKET, IT'S THE THIRD PAGE, BEGINNING ON THE THIRD PAGE OF THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET.
YEAH, BUT IS IT IT'S, UH, UH, PEACE.
HE, WHAT, THAT'S, IT'S A PRESENTATION.
WOULD IT BE EASIER? I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
WOULD IT BE EASIER TO READ OUT THE FINDINGS? AND CAN I DO THAT WITH A, FOR A SECOND? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ON THE MOTION AND LET BROOKE BEAT THE SECOND JAY? SURE.
I HAD A QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH I HAD A QUESTION, GO AHEAD.
[01:40:01]
YOU KNOW, UH, THE NEW, THE NEW PLAN LOOKS LIKE IT IS ONE BUILDING WITH ONE GARAGE AND ONE BUILDING WITHOUT A GARAGE.IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT'S NOT QUITE EXACTLY WHAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE.
IF THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AGAIN, THE PLAN WAS NOT APPROVED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS ON THERE, IT'S JUST FOR INFORMATION, IT WAS SIMPLY TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
WE HAVE ZERO PLANS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BUILT AT THIS TIME.
WE NEED TO WORK WITH PLUMBING DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE WATERSHED RESTRICTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THE UTILITY LINES AND THE DRIVEWAY, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITH NO, WE'LL HAVE A MAIN, MAIN HOME WHEN THEY WILL HAVE AN ADU ON EACH SLOT.
IF WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE SCALE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF PERMITTING ALLOWS, THERE ACTUALLY IS ROOM FOR A GARAGE, BUT WE HAD NO DECISION.
IT WAS SIMPLY FOR, FOR INFORMATION FOR CONCEPT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
AND, AND DO, WHAT ELSE, TH TH THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT, UH, THIS IS A BARRIER AS REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVIDING PERIOD.
NOT FOR, I MEAN, WE CAN, WE CAN, WE COULD STILL OVERLAY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT WHAT MIGHT ULTIMATELY GET BUILT THERE.
BUT, UM, THE ISSUE AT HAND IS REALLY A SUBDIVISION ISSUE.
ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? ARE WE, UH, READY FOR THE FINDINGS THEN? SURE.
FINDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE SF THREE ZONING CONTEMPLATES A DENSITY OF EIGHT PRIMARY RESIDENCES AND EIGHT SECONDARY RESIDENCES PER ACRE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 19,602 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
OVER THREE TIMES, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED BY THE LDC NARROW LOT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ONLY 50.03 FEET WIDE AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, 49.82 WIDE AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SUBJECT PROPERTY CAN ONLY HOUSE ONE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND ONE SECONDARY RESIDENCE PER ACRE.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE NARROWS PROPERTY OF ITS SIZE IN THE GENERAL VICINITY AND THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE NARROW IS PROPERTY OF ITS SIZE IN THE GENERAL VICINITY IN GENERAL, 65 FEET WIDE, WHICH COULD BE SUBDIVIDED.
NUMBER THREE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE ONLY ONE OF THE PROPOSED FOUR HOUSING UNITS IN FRONT OF WILL FRONT CLAWSON ROAD, THUS MAINTAINING THE SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER.
THE STREETSCAPE REMAINDER OF THE HOUSING UNITS WILL BE ACCESSIBLE VIA COMMON DRIVEWAY.
LDC COMPLIANT PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED ONSITE FOR EACH HOUSING UNIT.
HOUSING UNITS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS OF THE LDC.
AND THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THAT NUMBER ONE, THE GARAGE ON BOTH UNITS STAY AS ONE STORY WITH NO HABITABLE SPACE THAT SUBDIVISION BE COMPLIANT WITHIN THE SOUTH LAMAR FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN.
WITH 10% CAPTURE, EVEN THOUGH SINGLE FAMILY USE HAS PROPOSED, AND THIS WOULD NOT BE OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
AND THAT THREE IS SCREENED AREA FOR ALL TRASH RECEPTACLES BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE.
YOU PLAN FOR IT SUBDIVISION AND ADDED CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU FOR BEING SO EXPENSIVE ON THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AS LED BY ROM BY, UM, BATEMAN.
A WOMAN WHO ABSTAINING NON LAYTON BURWELL.
YOU GOT YOUR VARIANTS WITH CONDITIONS.
[Item P4 (Part 2 of 2)]
ON TO ITEM FOUR.THIS WAS THE ITEM PREVIOUSLY THAT WE HAD THAT TWO PEOPLE SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO, OR HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
[01:45:01]
DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO ZERO.THIS IS JENNIFER HANLON FOR DURHAM TRADING PARTNERS, 12 AT 1403 EAST THIRD STREET.
WE HEARD THIS, UH, LAST TIME, UH, THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH FOUR NINE TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET REQUIRED TO 2.7, SEVEN FEET REQUESTED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS, UH, AN ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION, UH, LAYOUT ERROR.
SO, UH, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPLICANT IN SPEAK TO THIS, GOT FIVE IN THE MORNING.
BOARD DAVID CANCEL OSI FILLING IN FOR JENNIFER FROM MY FIRM.
UM, YOU HEARD THIS CASE LAST MONTH.
THIS IS A BUILT IN COMPLETED PROJECT THAT CANNOT GET A FINAL, UH, PASS ON ITS FINAL CITY INSPECTION DUE TO AN ENCROACHMENT ISSUE, WHICH STEMS BACK TO A, UM, A SURVEY ISSUE.
UM, AND WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT UNTIL THE VERY END OF THE PROJECT, WHICH WAS DECEMBER OF 2019.
UM, I WANT TO TAKE A SECOND AND, AND SAY, I CERTAINLY, UM, UNDERSTAND AND HEAR THE CONCERNS OF, OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE PLANNING OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT LIAISON WHO SPOKE EARLIER.
UH, I, I WAS IN EMAIL CONTACT WITH MRS. BENZ AS EARLY AS MAY 12, AND THERE WERE MANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE REQUESTED TO BE ANSWERED TO WHICH WE SIMPLY DIDN'T HA I DIDN'T HAVE THE ANSWER IS NO COMMUNICATION WENT ON UNTIL AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
AND I JUST SAID, I'LL TRY VERY HARD TO GET THOSE ANSWERS AS BEST AS BEST I CAN.
UM, BUT I WASN'T PART OF THE PROJECT AT THAT TIME.
AND I COULDN'T GET THOSE ANSWERS THAT SHE HAD.
AND HE'D ASKED FOR W AND A LOT OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? WHY DID IT HAPPEN? WHY IS THE PLACE IN VACANT FOR SO LONG? YOU KNOW, A LOT OF IN A LOT OF IT WAS VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE.
UM, AND IT KINDA WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OF A, UH, A DISCOURSE IN SURVEYING ONE-ON-ONE, SO TO SPEAK.
SO, UM, I APOLOGIZE THAT I DID NOT GET BACK TO HER IN MORE DETAIL.
UH, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT THERE WASN'T MUCH INFORMATION WE COULD HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT WOULD'VE SWAYED THEM TO SUPPORT, OR AT LEAST GET TO A POSITION OF, OF NON OPPOSITION.
UM, I FEEL LIKE THERE SOME SUBJECTIVE, UH, UH, FEELINGS ABOUT THE PROJECT ITSELF, BUT THAT REALLY DON'T SPEAK TO THE TECHNICAL OBJECTIVE ISSUES OF HOW THIS HAPPENED.
AND IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE ISSUE, BUT WORK HERE AND WE'VE GOT A BUILDING WE'RE TRYING TO SALVAGE.
AND SO TO THAT END, YOU HAD ASKED, UM, THE BOARD HAD ASKED FOR SOME, SOME ITEMS, AND I THINK YOU HAVE THEM.
I HOPE YOU HAVE THEM IN YOUR PACKET.
WE, UM, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE DOORS OFF OF THE SIDE OF THE INTERIOR LOT MINE, AND PUT THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES NAVASOTA STREET.
WE ARE GOING TO FIRE RATE THE AREA OF THE WE OPPOSITE WALL, WHERE THEY, THE DOORS CAME FROM, UH, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MORE FIRE RESISTANT.
MY CLIENT'S GOING TO ALSO SPRINKLE, UH, THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
UH, SO IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHTED INSTALLED WITH FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, UH, STRUCTURE.
UM, AND IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE, THE PROXIMITY TO THE, TO LINE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERN AND UNDERS UNDERSTANDABLY.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID AN UNREASONABLE, UH, ENDING HERE.
WE, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO CUT THE BUILDING, UH, OFF.
WE DON'T WANT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
UM, WE WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK FOR SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE OF SOME SENSE THAT WE COULD DO SOME SORT OF VEGETATIVE SCREENING OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE TO APPEASE, OR AT LEAST MITIGATE THEIR CONCERN NEXT DOOR.
BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TWO OR THREE FEET OVER, AND THIS WAS NO SETBACK ISSUE, THE BUILDING WOULD STILL BE 30 FEET TALL.
IT DID GO THROUGH CITY REVIEW AND IT, IT DID PASS ALL OF THE STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO BUILDING IN THIS AREA.
THAT'S UNDER 5,000 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S ONLY ABOUT 2,400, 200 2,400 SQUARE FOOT DUPLEX AT ABOUT 43% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
[01:50:01]
SO THE LOT IS BARELY 35 FEET WIDE, AND REALLY THE POINT OF ACCESS MAKES MOST SENSE FROM NAVASOTA STREET.SO, UM, THE, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT, THE AIR WAS DISCOVERED.
IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT IT'S, UM, FROM A MULTIPLE, UH, SURVEY ISSUES THAT STEM BACK, YOU KNOW, DECADES IN TERMS OF WHERE THE PINS WERE FOUND OR WEREN'T EVEN LOCATED, BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, AND SO IT'S JUST REALLY AN UNFORTUNATE ERROR, AND WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID A WORST CASE SCENARIO OF SIMPLY TELLING THEM, TEARING THE BUILDING DOWN.
SO WITH THAT SAID, IT'S THE LAST CASE OF THE NIGHT YOU YOU'VE, YOU'VE BEEN GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO PUSH THROUGH AND I'LL CLOSE MY HEARING OR MY STATEMENT, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER IT, UH, YEAH, HEARING NONE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I HAD A QUESTION, UH, OF THE APPLICANT ON, UM, THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.
SO THE, UH, THE DOORS BETWEEN, UH, IN YOUR EXISTING ELEVATION WEST FACING, UM, AND THE PROPOSED ELEVATION WEST FACING THE WEST FACING FACES TOWARDS THE ADJACENT OWLS OR AWAY FROM THAT, IS THAT SHEET TWO OH FOUR COMMISSIONER? UH, YEAH, NO TWO OH TWO IS WEST FACING TWO OH TWO OH ONE TWO TWO.
SO THAT FACES TOWARDS HIS THREE.
SO ON TWO OH FOUR, YOU'VE GOTTEN RID OF THE DOORS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BASICALLY WALKING DOWN THE SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S TWO OH FOUR THAT WE HAVE THAT IS ACTUALLY IN FRONTING THE NEIGHBOR AT ROUGHLY THREE FEET AWAY.
UM, UH, SO ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? UH, UH, OKAY.
I SEE, YES, I HAVE SEVERAL ACTUALLY, UM, YOU SAY THIS IS A DUPLEX YET.
THERE'S FOUR STAIRCASES AND IT'S JUST AN ODD CONFIGURATION.
AND I'M ALSO WONDERING HOW IT GOT THROUGH MCMANSION WITH THAT, THOSE SHEER WITH NO VARIATIONS, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT EVEN A QUESTION.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS BUILDING THAT I JUST DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
YOU HAVE TWO INTERIOR STAIRCASES AND TWO EXTERIOR, AND YET IT'S ONLY A DUPLEX.
UM, BUT I WILL, I'LL JUST SAY THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE EVER APPROVED IF IT WOULD HAVE COME BEFORE US BEFORE THIS WAS BUILT.
AND THIS WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE BUILDERS' ATTENTION IN 2017 AND ON THROUGH 2018, AND THEY COULD HAVE HIRED AN INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR TO COME IN AND VERIFY ALL THE PINS.
AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT HAPPENED, UH, COMMISSIONER.
I HONESTLY WAS NOT PART OF THE PROJECT THAT VERY WELL MEET VERY I'M SURE IT'S TRUE.
I JUST, I, I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER.
I, ALL I KNOW IS WE'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE, UH, THE CURRENT SITUATION AND BEST WE CAN.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAD ONE, UH, SO DAVID HOWELL POWER, UH, THEY PROPOSING TO AFTER THE FACT, UH, DID A FIRE RATED WALL, UH, AND IT'S ONLY ALONG THE ONE SECTION, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A ALONG THOUGH THE ENTIRE WEST FACING ELEVATION.
UH, THE, UH, UH, LET ME BE CLEAR ON THE ELEVATIONS, UH, ALONG THE EAST FACING ELEVATION, CORRECT? YEAH.
UM, I THINK I, BUT I THINK I REMEMBER SEEING AN EMAIL EARLIER TODAY.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EMAILS TODAY ABOUT THE PROJECT, BUT I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT ENCROACHES THE MOST INTO THE SETBACK.
AND SO THAT, THAT GREAT ROOM ON THAT SIDE OF THAT UNIT IS GOING TO HAVE THE RATING OF THE WALL AND THE DELETION OF A WINDOWS.
BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR ANSWER, IT DOES NOT GO THERE.
[01:55:01]
NO MORE WALL FIRE WRITING ALONG THE ENTIRE FACADE.AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A GUESS AND SAY, IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO INSTALL SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IF WE ARE ABLE TO, IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL TONIGHT.
THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR STAFF.
UM, IN OUR NOTICE, IT SAYS, THIS IS AN ORDER TO COMPLETE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME YET.
THIS IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, SO I'M NOT SURE IT SAYS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, BUT THE VARIANCE IS TO CORRECT THAT, BUT IT SAYS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SHE WOULD SAY DUPLEX, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT LEAST.
AND I JUST WANTED TO, WITH BROOKS EARLIER QUESTION, I ANSWERED TO THAT, WHICH IS WHETHER IT WAS, WAS IT A DUPLEX OR IS IT A FOURPLEX? SO I, I DO WANT THAT ANSWERED AS WELL.
SO IS THAT A POSTING ISSUE? MR. CHAIR? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LEE ON AND ELAINE ON THIS, I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION AND IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HOME.
THAT'S WHAT THEY APPLIED FOR, NOT FOR A DUPLEX.
UH, AND LEE, WOULD YOU CONCUR THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID DUPLEX HERE? YES.
SO IT IS A POSTING ERROR THEN, IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT.
THEIR APPLICATION CLEARLY STATES A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, ENCROACHING AND SETBACK.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, WHAT WAS THAT DO LIKE AN APPLICATION PROBLEM.
WE POSTED WHAT THEY SAID THEY APPLIED FOR EXACTLY.
THE QUESTION THOUGH, ABOUT THE, ABOUT THE PLANS, WHAT THE, WHAT THIS THIRD STORY IS IT LOOK ON? UM, MMM.
YOU LOOK ON THE ELEVATION OF BUILDING ONE.
UH, THERE THEY'RE THERE, THE STAIRWELL GOES TO THE SECOND FLOOR AND THEN IT GOES UP TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, I DUNNO IF THAT'S A THIRD FLOOR OR THE ROOF, OR EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, ESPECIALLY FOR TOP DECK.
MAYBE CAN YOU, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? YES, SIR.
UH, SO THE STAIRS, THEY GO UP HALFWAY THROUGH THERE'S ENTRY TO THE SECOND FLOOR, THROUGH A DOOR, TO THE DOOR, TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SECOND FLOOR, AND THEN THEY CONTINUE TO A ROOFTOP DECK.
AND IS THAT ROOFTOP DECK THE ENTIRE ROOF OR? UM, YEAH, I, I THINK IT GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS MUCH REFERENCE TO DIVIDER BETWEEN A AND B, BUT, BUT YEAH, IT'S, IT'S SUBSTANTIAL.
I DON'T SEE ELEVATIONS OF THAT DEBT.
I CAN SEE THEM ON SHEET TWO OH ONE AND SEE THE SIDE VIEW.
I MEAN, AGAIN, IT, OBVIOUSLY IT WENT THROUGH A PERMITTING AND REVIEW.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT, YOU KNOW, LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT IS, IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN MITIGATE TO THE RECEPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS, WE'RE OPEN TO THAT.
UH, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, UM, ISSUE WITH SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX IT'S ZONED SF THREE.
CLEARLY THE USE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PROPOSED USE.
AND I WOULD ASK, UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE COULD NOT POSTPONE IT, IT'D BE HERE.
I KNOW DAVID DOESN'T WANT US TO POSTPONE, BUT IT'D BE IN A POSTING ISSUE.
WE HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ON THAT.
NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO IS THE MILITARY.
WE CALL THIS A CLUSTER AND IT'S A, IT'S PRETTY MESSED UP.
AND I WOULD PROBABLY ADVISE DAVID TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS POSTING ISSUE.
AND I KNOW YOU CAME IN LATE ON THE GAME AND I KNOW YOU'VE PUSHED MANY IRAQ UP A VERY BIG HILL COMING IN FRONT OF US ALL THESE YEARS.
DAVID IS GOING TO HEAR IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THE BETTER
[02:00:01]
CHALLENGES YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, BECAUSE REALLY ONCE I STARTED DIGGING INTO THIS, UH, IT'S NOT SETTING WELL WITH ME.SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GET WITH THIS OWNER AND, AND GET WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND SEE WHAT ELSE, WHAT ELSE YOU CAN DO.
AND I KNOW WE ASKED A LOT OF YOU THE LAST TIME, BUT MAN, THE MORE THIS THING IS GETTING SCRATCHED, THE WORST IS STARTING TO SMELL.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE ROOFTOP DECK, YOU KNOW, THE ENCROACHMENT, THAT THREE STORIES.
I MEAN, UH, SO I'M JUST GOING TO LET IT GO AT THAT, ON THOSE COMMENTS, BUT WE HAVE TO CLOSE BOND.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BECAUSE IT'S A POSTING ISSUE.
AND, AND, AND, AND I'LL SAY TO, FOR MYSELF, IF WE HAD TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THIS.
UH, AND, AND, UH, I'M LOOKING AT, SO NOW THE, THE DOORS, WHICH WERE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, THE SIDE YARDS HAVE NOW MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT MAKES SENSE OR NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY'VE MOVED THEM AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THAT LITTLE THREE FOOT STRIP ANYWAY, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, IF I QUICK TRIP, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE ELEVATION, SUPPOSEDLY THIS PROJECT IS DONE.
BUT IF WE LOOK AT EXISTING ELEVATION AND THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS, THEY DON'T JUMP ONE TO THE OTHER.
SO EITHER THIS WAS NOT BUILT ACCORDING TO PLANS, WHICH CLEARLY WAS NOT LAID OUT ACCORDING TO PLANS, BUT THERE ARE STILL SO MANY QUESTION MARKS ABOUT THIS, THAT I FEEL, UM, THAT, UH, EITHER, UH, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO COME FORWARD WITH A COMPELLING REASON OTHER THAN OOPS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND REALLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS PROJECT TO US, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT.
UH, JESSICA AND WANTING TO SAY SAME THING CHAIR AT THIS POINT.
I KNOW I'M SEEING A LOT OF SHAKING HEADS AS WELL, AND I KNOW I'M NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE AT THIS TIME.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
CAN I, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
CAN I CLARIFY ON AN ORDER ON THE POSTING ERROR, THE RESIDENCE? WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN A REEF FROM STAFF AND LEGAL THAT WE NEED THE QUESTION ON IT AND I WAS SUPPOSED TO, OH MAN.
UM, OR, UM, REPOSTING FOR THE, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE IT BE POSTED AND THERE'S NO MOTIONS.
IT WOULD BE A POSTPONEMENT TO, UM, FOR, UH, REPOSTING IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, LET ME JUST, AND WHO HOLD ON.
PEOPLE WHO WAS THE SECOND OLDEST BOOK? I WAS, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, UM, I JUST WANT A QUESTION FOR DAVID.
UM, THIS SAYS SOME BUILDING ONE, IS THERE A PROPOSAL FOR A SECOND BUILDING IN THIS PROPERTY SOMEWHERE? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
NO, MA'AM NO, WHAT'S, THERE IS, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR ANYTHING.
IT'S A, IT'S A HOUSE WITH AN INTERIOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO BE BUILT.
THERE'S NOWHERE TO PUT IT IF THEY WANTED TO.
AND IT WAS TERMED CORRECTLY ON THE APPLICATION.
SO DAVID, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT A DUPLEX, NOT A DUPLEX.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS, UM, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH, WITH AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS PERMITTED BY THE, BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
THE STAIRCASES AT EITHER END, THAT'S A THAT'S WELL, THE UNITS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME WOULD APPEAR, UH, HERE WITH A PARTY WALL IN BETWEEN THEM.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 100 IN THE, IN THE LATEST STUFF THAT WE HAVE HERE, UM, AND VISIBILITY, UH, ABILITY PATIENT FOR THE BOARD, AND WE WOULD GLADLY GRACIOUSLY ACCEPT THE POSTPONEMENT.
IF YOU'LL GIVE ONE AND WE'LL, WE'LL COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH MORE DETAILS.
THAT SHOULD ANSWER EVERYTHING.
WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO, IT'S OUR PREROGATIVE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE BY A MOTION FOLKS, ONE BY A SECOND BY BROOKE BAILEY.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE, YEAH, VERONICA? SO AGAIN, CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I'M HEARING DAVID SAYING THAT IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
[02:05:01]
THERE IS NO ERROR IN POSTING THAT THAT IS THAT'S HOW THE PLAN READ OR, OR WHATEVER APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CITY.SO CAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THE POSTPONEMENT OR, OR DAVID, UM, JUST PLEASE CLARIFY, MAKE SURE THAT YOU VISIT WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS NEEDS TO BE RE POSTED OR NOT.
MA'AM ONE OF MY QUESTIONS DAN IS GOING TO BE TO FOLLOW UP WITH REAL FAST, WHICH IS, IS THIS A SINGLE HOME KIND OF, AGAIN, BUILDING THAT'S STILL ATTACHED TO FAREWELLS OR IS IT A DUPLEX? AND IF IT'S NOT A DUPLEX AND THEN WE NEED EXPLANATIONS ON HOW IT HAS SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH NOT AN ADJACENT BUILDING, BUT SOME KIND OF PARTY WALL.
CHAIRMAN, UH, WELL, HOLD ON, JUST MET MICHAEL THAT WE GOT OUT OF.
UM, SO, UM, BACK UP, BROOKE'S QUESTION FROM EARLY ON ABOUT THE SIDEWALL ARTICULATION.
I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS COULD BE CODE COMPLIANT.
AND, UM, IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET BUILT WITHOUT A VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE CODES IN PLACE FOR A REASON.
AND, UH, DON, AS YOU WERE POINTING OUT, THERE'S SOME VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE X, THE EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FROM THE PROPOSED.
AND I DUNNO IF THAT IS PART OF WHAT WAS MODIFIED.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, UM, WHAT OUR JOB IS IN TERMS OF WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
UM, BUT I DO, I WANT CLARITY ON THAT FOR MY, FOR MY OWN.
UM, JESSICA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
SOMEONE WAS POUNDING ON MY DOOR.
UM, I'M THINKING ABOUT RETRACTING MY MOTION, BECAUSE I'M WANT MORE CLARITY ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS ACTUALLY IS SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR NOT.
IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD WAIT FOR? BECAUSE I'M THINKING IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE.
NO, ANYWAYS, WE SHOULD DO IT NOW.
WELL, I THINK THE ONLY WE WOULD NEED TO SEE A COPY OF THE PERMIT, WHICH I DON'T SEE IT IN HERE.
SO YEAH, DON, UM, WILLIAM HODGES IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I BELIEVE THAT IF HE IS STAINING AND IS A BOARD MEMBER OF THAT, AND THEY ARE NOW ALL DEFER TO LEE ON THIS.
BUT EARLIER I CHECKED WITH LEE EARLIER TODAY CAUSE HE HAD THAT QUESTION AND I BELIEVE WE SET THAT WAS OKAY FOR HIM TO SPEAK.
MY RIGHTLY I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD THIS ISSUE BEFORE WITH ANOTHER FOURTH MEMBER, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE AND THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OR ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE FOR EXCUSAL ABSTRACTION.
A BOARD MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO STAY IN THE DIONYSUS AND TAKE QUESTIONS.
AS THAT WOULD BRING UP A QUESTION THAT I HAD FROM EARLIER, BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LIKE I AM STAYING, UH, ON THE ONE FACE BECAUSE, UH, UM, ARCHITECT IS A COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND OF MINE AND I FELT LIKE I JUST COULDN'T BE IN POWERFUL.
UH, AND SO I WAS RECUSING MYSELF.
UM, WHY I'M SAYING, WE SAID A RECUSAL IS IF YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST AND IF YOU'RE THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT, YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST BECAUSE YOU BEEN PAID FOR SERVICES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE POTENTIAL LIABILITY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, UH, PROJECT, UH, THE VARIANTS GET DENIED.
SO, UH, I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING SARAH, THAT HE WAS THE TEASING.
BUT I THINK, I THINK, I THINK IT MAY VERY WELL BE A RECUSAL, NOT AN EXTENSION ON IT.
WELL, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO ADVISE, UH, WILLIAM ON WHETHER HE WANTS TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN.
UM, THAT'S ENTIRELY HIS DECISION.
UH, I JUST WOULD SAY THAT IF HE DECIDES TO ABSTAIN, UH, HE IS IN A POSITION TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND HE IS ABLE TO REMAIN ON THE DYESS VIRTUALLY.
UH, IF HE, IF HE DOES RECUSE, LIKE YOU DID A FEW CASES AGO, HE WOULD NEED TO LEAVE THE VIRTUAL DYESS AND
[02:10:01]
NOT TAKE QUESTIONS.CAUSE I DO KNOW THAT WHEN, UH, THERE WAS AN ISSUE ON A CASE THAT WE HAD HEARD WHEN BRIAN KING WAS ON THE BOARD, HE WANTED TO ACTUALLY MAKE A PRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD.
AND, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS HE WAS NOT IN MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED.
UM, BECAUSE HE SITS ON THE BOARD.
UH, YOU ASKED ME WHILE WE'RE ON THIS SUBJECT, CAN I JUST PULL THIS RECUSAL THREAD OF IF YOU'RE FINANCIAL TIED UP WITH THE APPLICANT OR WHATEVER THE APPLICANT IS THAT PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT IS TALKING ABOUT, DOES THAT INCLUDE LIKE, IF YOU'RE ON BOARDS OF SOMEWHERE ELSE AND LIKE DONATIONS AND THINGS, IF IT'S NOT PERSONAL MONEY, BUT YOU'RE AFFILIATED WITH AN ENTITY THAT MAY TAKE MONEY, IF YOU HAVE A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SOMETHING.
SO THEN I DON'T THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO RECUSE.
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
UH, SO WE, WE HAVE WILLIAM BACK ON THE DIOCESE HERE.
SO, UH, WILLIAM, YOU WANT TO ENLIGHTEN US A LITTLE BIT? YES.
I FEEL THAT, I FEEL THAT I NEED TO EXPLAIN, UM, UH, EXPLAIN THIS HERE.
UM, I AM STAINED RATHER THAN RECUSED BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS, WHICH REQUIRE, UH, WHICH, WHICH SEPARATE RECUSAL FROM EXTENSION, THEY DEAL WITH A PERCENTAGE, UH, TWO THINGS.
ONE IS THEY, UH, THEY DEAL WITH A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.
UM, UH, THE, THE OWNER AND WHO IS NOT THE APPLICANT, MY CLIENT HERE.
UM, HE, UH, HE HAS MY PAYMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHICH ALL HAS ALL OCCURRED WELL OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
UH, I'M NOT ACTUALLY NOT TAKING PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES THAT I'M CURRENTLY FORMING.
UH, THERE THEY'RE, SO THERE ARE THEY'RE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.
UM, SO, UM, HE WOULD NOT HAVE MET THAT STATE OF THE THRESHOLD OR PERCENTAGE OF INCOME THEN, UH, HE DOES NOT NOW.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS WHY I CHOSE TO ABSTAIN RATHER THAN RECUSE.
I INITIALLY HAD TOLD MYSELF, BUT THEN, UH, IT WAS AT BEING CLEAR AFTER I READ THROUGH THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR RECUSAL THAT, UM, MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE, WITH THE OWNER DID NOT NEED THAT STAMP.
UH, OF COURSE I FELT THAT IT WAS A NECESSARY RIGHT TO, UH, OF COURSE, ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THE PROJECT.
I, UM, I WILL SAY THAT MANY OF THE QUESTIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN, OF COURSE, WATCHING, LISTENING, UH, I COULD HAVE VERY EASILY AND CAN VERY EASILY ANSWER, UM, UH, POTENTIALLY CLEARING UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED, BUT, UM, THAT IS UP TO YOU AS THE CHAIR AND UP TO Y'ALL AS THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS IN THIS FORUM OR NOT.
AND AGAIN, I WILL DEFER TO LEGAL ON THIS, UM, BUT, UH, I WOULD THINK BETTER POSTPONEMENT SHOULD POSSIBLY BE IN ORDER JUST TO ADDRESS THE LEGALITY OF RECUSING VERSUS ABSTAINING, UM, ON, ON THIS IT, UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE US A DEFINITIVE ANSWER TONIGHT, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS FOR THE LEAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.
I'D LIKE TO GET LEE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UH, MR. CHAIR, YOU KNOW, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ABSTENTION WOULD NOT REQUIRE A POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT.
UH, OF COURSE THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION.
IF YOU'D LIKE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, TO, TO, TO PULL ALL THE LAW.
IF, IF YOU WANTED TO BRING THIS BACK UP NEXT MONTH, UM, ABS THERE'S A LOWER BAR, UH, FOR THE PERSON WHO'S ABSTAINING.
UH, I SEE THIS ALL THE TIME AT COUNCIL WHERE YOU SEE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, STAYING ON THE DIAS, BUT ABSTAINING FROM VOTING BECAUSE PERHAPS THEY WEREN'T AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, BUT THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
WHEREAS A RECUSAL IS A MUCH HIGHER BAR, UH, WHICH REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD MEMBER TO LEAVE THE ROOM AND, UM, AND TO NOT BE PARTY TO THE FINAL VOTE.
UH, AND AGAIN, CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS WHERE SOMEONE, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS ALWAYS MY UNDERSTANDING AS AN ARCHITECT THAT IF ANY OF MY CLIENTS ACTIVE CLIENTS ON A PROJECT THAT I WAS WORKING ON, WHERE I WAS GETTING ENUMERATION FROM, YOU KNOW, THE SERVICES THAT I WAS PROVIDING THEM, THAT I SHOULD NOT BE, UH,
[02:15:01]
ANYWHERE, UH, AROUND.UM, UH, IF, IF MY CLIENTS HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE THRESHOLD IS A DIRECT FINANCIAL OR PECUNIARY INTEREST.
SO, WELL, IF YOU ARE GETTING A FEE FOR SERVICES TO BE THE ARCHITECT ON A PROJECT OR THE ENGINEER OR WHATEVER, OR YOUR, OR ONE OF YOUR DIRECT FAMILY MEMBERS IS, IS GETTING THAT FEE.
SO SORRY, CAN WILLIAM, CAN YOU, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT FEATURE THIS HI, UH, I GOT A FEED FROM, OF COURSE FROM MY INITIAL SERVICES.
UM, WHEN I WAS, WHEN I WAS, UH, SPEAKING WITH ELAINE ON THIS WAS, UH, WHEN THIS CASE FIRST CAME UP, SHE SAID, UH, I SAID, I'M NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF.
AND SHE SAYS, SHE SENT ME AN AFFIDAVIT AND I HAVE THIS AFFIDAVIT.
AND SO I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH IT.
UH, IT SAYS I, AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, UH, HEREBY ANJOS STATE, THE FOLLOWING INDOOR PERSON RELATED TO ME HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BIT BUSINESS ENTITY THAT WERE IN REAL ESTATE THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT.
UH, AND DON'T HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, PROJECT, UH, I SIMPLY REFUSE TO RECEIVED A FEE FOR SERVICE.
UM, AND SO IF YOU GO INTO READING FOR, BUT YOU SAID AS, UM, IN CASE OF A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BUSINESS ENTITY, UH, LIST THE BUSINESS ENTITY, AND IT SAYS THAT I HAVE, I WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THIS BUSINESS ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, ONE OWNERSHIP OF 10% OR MORE OF THE VOTING STOCK OR SHARES OF THIS, UM, OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY, WHICH A DON'T OWNERSHIP OF 10% OR MORE, OR $15,000 OR MORE OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS OF THIS DATE, WHICH I'VE DONE.
THIS IS KEY FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ENTITY AND THE BUSINESS ENTITY.
IT'S MY CLIENT EXCEED 10% OF MY GROSS INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
UH, AND WITHOUT HONESTLY, WITHOUT STATING SPECIFIC NUMBERS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT IS, UH, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM THIS CLIENT COMBINED FOR THIS.
AND FOR ALL PROJECTS, UH, DOES NOT EXCEED THAT I'VE DONE FOR HIM.
CAUSE HE HAVEN'T DONE SEVERAL PROJECTS FOR HIM.
IT DOES NOT EXCEED 10% OF MY GROSS INCOME FOR ANY OF THE YEARS, IN WHICH SO CLARIFY, I'M GOING TO RESTATE THAT, UM, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THIS CLIENT HAS EVER PAID ME AS OVER SINCE 2017 AND UH, LAST YEAR, UH, HAS NEVER EXCEEDED 10% OF MY GROSS INCOME FOR ANY OF THOSE.
SO IN READING THIS, I FELT, UH, I FELT THAT IT WAS, UH, IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO GO THROUGH THE ROUTE OF EXTENSION.
UH, ADDITIONALLY TO THAT, I FELT, UH, WITH ADVICE FROM LANE BECAUSE OF I'LL HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, FOR NOTARIZING THE APP AFFIDAVIT OR POSTING IT WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITH COVID AS BEING AS IT IS THAT, UM, THAT WOULD HAVE ALSO IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO BOTH ME AND THE CITY.
UM, AGAIN, UM, I HAD, UM, I HONESTLY HAD ADVISED THE CLIENT THAT, UH, HE JUST, UM, BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS A, IT IS, IT IS UP TO THE CANADA VARIANTS TO, UH, TO TRY TO CONVEY, UH, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
I COULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, IF IT, IF IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE THAT I COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, IF I, IF WE WERE MEETING IN PERSON, I WOULD, OF COURSE STEPPED OUT, UH, FROM THE DIOCESE, THE LOBBY MAKE MYSELF ABSOLUTELY SCARES.
I'M ONLY JUMPING ON HERE, UH, TO BE, TO BE FRANK AND HONEST.
I'M ONLY JUMPING ON HERE BECAUSE I WANT TO CLARIFY MY GOOD NAME ON THIS ONE.
AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DISPARAGE YOU, UH, WHY I DID IT.
WHY DID THE THING I DID? THIS WAS, THIS WAS A, A KIND OF A DIFFICULT CASE.
I THOUGHT, THOUGHT, THOUGHT I WAS DONE WITH THIS WAY LONG TIME AGO.
UM, SO, UH, YEAH, MICHAEL, OKAY.
NUMBER ONE, I BELIEVE WILLIAM AND THE WAY HE'S READING IT AND THE WAY HE'S APPROACHING AS SUPPORTIVE 100%, BUT GOING BACK TO THE CASE AT HAND, I'VE BEEN UP HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DOCKET TO DUCK, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF LIPSTICK YOU PUT ON A PIG, IT'S STILL A PIG AND I'VE CONSTRUCTED ENOUGH OF THESE THINGS TO KNOW, AND TO WILLIAMS, TO WILLIAMS OF REPUTATION.
HE'S GREAT AT WHAT HE DOES, BUT EVEN I, MYSELF AS A CONTRACTOR HAVE BEEN TOLD CERTAIN THINGS BY MY CLIENTS THAT I FOUND OUT LATER
[02:20:01]
WASN'T QUITE ACCURATE.OR AFTER THE FACT THEY WENT AHEAD AND CHANGED SOMETHING WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD TRY TO MANIPULATE FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO CAST DISPERSION ON ANYBODY.
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, I BUILT ENOUGH OF THESE THINGS.
I'VE NEVER IN MY 30 YEARS OF HAVING MY BUSINESS AND I SOLD IT AND RETIRED, I HAVE NEVER BUILT A HOME WITH TWO STAIRCASES ON EACH END OF THAT HOME WITH A PARTITION WALL IN THE MIDDLE.
AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE THAT WHERE IT MAY GO, BUT I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING RIGHT NOW, WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS IN THE DRAWINGS ON THE PRINTS THAT AS A CONTRACTOR, I WOULD HAVE BUILT, I WOULD HAVE NEVER ON MY WILDEST DAYS EVER CONSIDERED IT TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ABOUT THAT.
SO I'LL STILL MAKE THE, BOTH THE MOTION TO POSTPONE WELL.
OKAY, WELL
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY I'LL SECOND.
IT, UH, MICHAEL YOU'RE A SECOND.
UM, SO WE HEAR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, I BELIEVE FIRST, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.
CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ON THE POST? I MEAN, IT WAS JUST A FIXED THE POSTING AIR.
WELL, IT WAS INITIALLY, UM, AND, AND THEN IT, IT, UH, GREW INTO, WE DON'T REALIZE THE LITTLE THINGS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HEAR TO FULLY EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT.
WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THE PERMITS, WHAT THE ELEVATIONS LOOK LIKE NOW, UH, YOU KNOW, AND HOW THAT EVEN GOT TO THAT, UH, THINGS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CHANGED IN THE FIELD WITHOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THEY'RE A, OF A MINOR, UM, LEVEL.
SO, AND, UH, SO, UH, SO I'VE MADE A MOTION TO DENY.
UM, AGAIN, I'M HAVING TO, AND MR. TURF, THERE HAS BEEN A MISTAKE.
THAT'S WHAT THOSE PROFESSIONALS HAVE, UH, INSURANCE FOR.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE FOR.
DARRYL, THEY HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 24 AND 25, WHICH IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THEY'RE SAYING, OH, THIS WAS APPROVED AND IT WAS APPROVED WRONGLY.
AND THIS AND THAT, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE BUILDING SHOWS THAT IT IS ENCROACHING OVER THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK LINE.
SEE THE THREE-FOOT THERE'S A THREE FOOT MEASUREMENT
WELL, AND SO YOU SEE, YOU SEE THE FIVE FOOT FROM THERE AND OH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS JUST THE OVERHANG.
BUT THE ROOF HAS CHANGED ENTIRELY FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2017, NOVEMBER 12TH, YOU LOOK AT P FOUR DASH DASH 12.
UM, THE, UH, SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME, UH, WITH, WITH LINE, UH, TO WHAT WAS, UH, APPROVED.
I FIND AN UPDATE THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT APPLICATION ONLINE, WHERE THEY DID REVISE, THEY ELIMINATED THOSE TWO CAR PORTS THAT WERE THERE, AND THAT IS DOCUMENTED IN THE CITY, INCLUDING THE ROOF CHANGES.
I ONLY SAW THE SITE PLAN, SO I KNOW THERE WAS A CHANGE.
I CAN'T SEE THE FULL EXTENT OF IT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY.
UM, AND, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ON THAT FIRST.
UM, SO LOOK BAILEY, UM, YESTERDAY AND I THERE'S JUST SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS, GOING BACK TO 2017 WHEN THEY WERE INFORMED THAT IT WAS ENCROACHING INTO US NOT TO FOLLOW UP.
IS THAT A NO, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
[02:25:03]
SORRY.BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.
I DO AGREE THAT THERE ARE THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING A WHILE BACK, BUT, UM, I THINK THERE NEEDED TO BE MORE INFORMATION.
UH, YOU ASKED ME, CAN YOU COME BACK TO ME? OKAY.
MARTHA, DID WE LOSE MARTHA? ARE YOU THERE? CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, WE'LL GO BACK TO ROME.
AND, UH, UH, YOU ASKED ME YES.
SO, UH, THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED.
UH, FOLKS THAT WAS DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE ONE OF OUR OWN IN THE MIX, UM, THERE, UM, SO I APPRECIATE, Y'ALLS WILLINGNESS TO, UH, TO HEAR THAT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT.
SO MOVING ALONG TO OUR NEW BUSINESS,
[Item S1]
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF STUFF TO DISCUSS, BUT, UM, ONAND, UH, THEN, UH, AGAIN, WE'RE SORT OF SITTING TIGHT WITH THE, UH, WITH S TWO AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS, UH, DISCUSSING THE DRAFT LDC SINCE, UM, THE PLANS, UH, FOR, THAT HAVE BEEN SORT OF PUT ON HOLD AS A RESULT OF COVERT.
[Item S3]
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO IMPACT ON S THREE RELATIVE TO OUR BUDGET CALENDAR? I KNOW THAT WE WERE SHOOTING TO HAVE A TRAINING BEFORE WE GOT SENT HOME.WELL, I WOULD CONTINUE TO REQUEST TRAINING CAUSE I THINK WE NEED TRAINING PROBABLY EVERY SIX MONTHS AT THE LEAST FOR DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COME UP.
I KNOW YOU ASKED ME AND HAS SEVERAL THINGS THAT SHE WOULD LIKE US TO BE TRAINED ON.
I MEAN, I HAVE SEEN THINGS ALSO, SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE AN ONGOING, I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS A BUDGET REQUEST, BUT IF IT IS YES, WELL, PART OF WHAT, WHAT THAT FUNDS IS THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? ELAINE, RIGHT NOW, I CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH ASKING WHEN WE CAN DO TRAINING, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE OFFICE AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK ON TRACK WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH COVID-19.
SO UNTIL WE CAN GET BACK INTO THE OFFICE, I CAN'T REQUEST ANY TRAINING.
AND ARE THERE, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE, UH, YEAH, YOU ASKED ME, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK LIKE BUDGET QUESTIONS, NOT ONLY THOSE RELATED TO THE TRAINING? UM, I GUESS IF THEY'RE GERMANE, I DON'T ASK THE QUESTION.
I BELIEVE I ASKED LEGAL FOR WHAT WE COULD ASK FOR MONEY FOR.
UM, I, I BELIEVE PEOPLE MENTIONED THE DINNERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO KNOW IF WE COULD USE, WE COULD ASK FOR AND USE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT CALLS FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT PRIVILEGED ENOUGH TO HAVE THE MONEY TO COME BEFORE US.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT THAT'S GERMANE TO THE CONVERSATION.
AND I REMEMBER YOU ASKING THAT LAST MONTH A BOARD MEMBER AND I'LL I'LL, UM, I'LL MAKE A NOTE AND FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AND THE BOARD, UH, IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO SEE IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES WHERE THINGS ARE ALREADY SORT OF HAYWIRE.
[Item S4]
ON TO S FOUR.UM, SO, UH, UH, BROOKE AND, AND JESSICA AND I HAD PUT TOGETHER, UH, DIS UH, UH, GUIDELINES BASICALLY FOR POSTPONEMENTS.
[02:30:01]
AND I DON'T THINK, UH, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, ELENA.AND SO IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE PACKET ITSELF, BUT IT IS IN, ON THE BACKUP.
SO RATHER THAN BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE BACKUP STUFF, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BUST THROUGH THAT HERE TONIGHT AND TRY TO GET TO THAT.
SO WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT YOU GUYS, EVERYBODY LOOKED AT, UH, WHAT THE, UM, A WORK GROUP HAD PUT TOGETHER SOME MONTHS AGO, UH, AS OUR SUGGESTIONS AND COME BACK WITH ANY AMENDMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN A FRUITFUL, UH, MANNER, UM, UH, ON HER AND AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH MAY BE IN PERSON OR SOME OF US MAY BE LIVE.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND AGAIN, PROBABLY THE SAME WITH
HAVE YOU GUYS EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO, UM, TALK ABOUT ANYTHING YET? NO.
[Item S6]
THEN, UH,UM, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT WE'RE TALKING FROM HOME.
UH, I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS GERMANE TO S FIVE, UM, IS, UH, WELL, LET'S GET TO THAT.
UH, SO, UM, SO
UM, I TRIED TO MAKE CLEAR TO, UM, THE POWERS THAT BE THAT WE STILL WANTED TO MEET AT CITY HALL RATHER THAN GOING NORTH OR TO THAT THE NEW ANNEX OUT AT HIGHLAND, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
UH, BUT WE STILL HAVE ISSUES WITH, UM, THE DAYS THAT WE NEED AND, UH, OFTEN, UH, MONDAY, UH, HOLIDAYS.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY THINGS FOR TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.
[Item S7]
UM, IS OUR RE LANE FOR, UH, ELECTION OF OFFICERS? IS THIS THE TIME OF THE YEAR THAT WE DO THIS? UH, I BELIEVE SO.I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN MAY OR APRIL, APRIL, I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SEVEN IN APRIL, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR MEETING.
AND THEN BY MAY IT COMPLETELY SLIPPED OUR MIND.
SO YEAH, WE'RE PUTTING IT UP FOR THIS MONTH.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE YOU TO STAY AND MELISSA, SINCE SHE'S NOT HERE TO BE MADE AS A CO-CHAIR, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL, UH, TO, UH, SATELLITES WITH A PUBLIC SERVICE ABOVE AND BEYOND.
AND AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH MELISSA NOT BEING HERE, UH, OBVIOUSLY I WOULD WANT TO GIVE HER THE ABILITY TO, UM, UH, DISPUTE THAT IF THAT'S AN ISSUE.
I DON'T THINK THAT SHE WILL, UH, I AM WILLING TO SERVE, UH, FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR SO.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? UH, THOSE NOMINATIONS.
I SEE A LOT OF SECOND, WE GOT MISTAKEN FROM WILLIAM AND JESSICA AND, AND HE ASKED ME, UH, CAN WE JUST VOTE ON THAT BY AFFIRMATION? UH, WE COULD DO, IS THERE ANYONE WHO OPPOSES THAT? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, THEN IT IS A UNANIMOUS SOAK.
I AM HONORED TO SERVE YOU GUYS.
WELL WITH A QUESTION MARK, I HEAR A QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF THAT.
[Item S8]
S EIGHT, AGAIN, THIS IS THE, YOU KNOW, SIGNED REGULATIONS THAT CAME UP EARLIER.UM, AND I TRIED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO, UH, PLANNING STAFF THAT IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH SIGN REGULATIONS THAT THEY KNOW OF FOR MONTHS ON END, UH, AND THEY DON'T FLAG IT TO US, THAT THAT'S SORT OF A BREACH OF TRUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HEAR VARIANCES AND STUFF, AND IT WAS ONLY BY HAPPENSTANCE.
I HAPPENED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS EVEN THIS, IN FACT, IT APPEARED ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S AGENDA SAYING, UH, IT WAS, IT WAS VERY VAGUE AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER I GOT DIRECTLY WITH JERRY RUSTO AND THAT I FOUND OUT WHAT, WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THAT THERE HAD BEEN A MISTAKE THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING CASES FOR A FEW MONTHS ON THIS.
UH, AND NOBODY ON PLANNING COMMISSION, NOBODY ON PLANNING, STAFF REACHED OUT TO US TO DISCUSS ANYTHING, RELATING TO THE STUFF THAT WE DO AS PART AND PARCEL TO, TO OUR, OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THE DEMANDS THAT WE HAVE TO, TO DO OUR JOB,
[02:35:01]
YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE SIGN BOARD AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.AND SO, UH, ANYWAY, I TRIED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE BETTER DISCUSSION THAT SAID I HAVE YET TO HAVE, UM, MR. LYNN TYSON, UH, GET BACK WITH ME ON ANYTHING EITHER.
UH, OTHER THAN IN WRITING, UH, IN TERMS OF MAKING PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD, I WANTED TO HAVE JERRY RESTO AND OR SOMEBODY ON PLANNING, STAFF DISCUSS WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS WERE OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION IS HEARING WITHOUT OUR INPUT.
AND, UH, AND THERE WAS NOBODY HERE AVAILABLE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO THAT.
SO I I'LL SAY I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED, UH, BUT I'M GONNA KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT AND TRYING TO HOLD IT FOLKS SPEAK TO THEM.
THERE'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF STILL A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN I FEEL, AND I'VE, I'VE CAUGHT THAT VIBE COMING OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT TOWARDS THE BOE.
AND IT GOES BACK TO A COUPLE OF PREVIOUS CHAIR, UM, BOARDS, AND, AND I MEAN, IT, IT, IT, IT WAXES AND WANES OVER THE MULTIPLE YEARS THAT I'VE SERVED ON THIS BOARD.
UM, I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE BOARD, IF YOU MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE A SIT DOWN, UH, AND BECAUSE WHATEVER HEARTBURN THEY MAY HAVE BEEN, BECAUSE SOME OF THE ACTION IT'S CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR PREVIOUS CHAIRS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE IF TAKEN IN THE PAST AS CREATED HEARTBURN, UH, WE ARE ALL WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME GOAL, WHICH IS TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT MAKE, UH, CODES AND, AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION A LITTLE BIT SMOOTHER THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THAT DEPARTMENT THINKS WE'RE GOING TO GO AWAY CAUSE WE'RE NOT.
AND IT'S ALSO NOT A MATTER THAT WE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO STONEWALL AND CONTINUE, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS TAKEN A HIGH ROAD AND NOT CALLED BOMB ON SOME VERY BLATANT MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE, BUT, UH, THAT HAVE COME FROM STAFF AND COME FROM THAT DEPARTMENT COME FROM THAT DIRECTOR IN GENERAL.
AND WE HAVE REALLY BEEN TAKING THE HIGH ROAD ON IT.
WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND PUT ALL OF THAT BEHIND US AND GET TO A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, TO WHERE, WHEN WE'RE CALLING THEM TO COME TO A PRESENTATION, WE'RE NOT CALLING THEM TO BEAT THEM UP.
I'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED STAFF 99% OF THE TIME, BUT WE DO NEED THEM AND THEY NEED US BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THE CITIZENS AND THE TAXPAYERS OF AUSTIN IS STILL GOING TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO HAVE VARIANCES IN WAIVERS AND ISSUES GRANTED TO THEM THAT IS BEYOND STAFF'S ABILITY TO DO SO, RIGHT.
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE POSITION.
SO IT MIGHT BE A SITUATION WHERE, UH, IN JERRY, I'VE KNOWN JERRY FOR YEARS, UH, AND, AND, AND HE'S A GOOD GUY, BUT I DO KNOW THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, AND I FELT IT THROUGH THE POLITICAL REALM.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUS BACK IN ANOTHER LIFETIME CHAIRMAN OF ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY HERE, THAT WE TOOK BULLETS NIGHT AND DAY, THERE'S THIS, THIS IS SHERIFF SCHISM THAT HAS THIS, THIS BAD VIBE THAT HAS STARTED TO DEVELOP IN GOING INTO THE NEW CODE NEXT.
AND I KNOW PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF CODE NEXT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE KNEW WE, AND WE FELT IN BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, BOTH POLITICAL AND ON THIS BOARD ITSELF, THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DOING SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MANY THINGS THAT IT WAS MOVING TOO FAST AND IT WAS BEING RUN TOO FAST.
IT IS WHAT IT IS, AND WE'RE HERE NOW.
AND WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE, NOW, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
THIS IS IN WE'RE GOING INTO THE NEW NORMAL, AND IT MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND SIT DOWN AND HAVE A MEETING I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO GO.
UH, I THINK YOU AS CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE THERE, MELISSA AS WELL.
MELISSA HAS A GOOD RAPPORT WITH HIM.
UH, I, IN ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER ON THE BODY MAY WANT TO, UH, ATTEND, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A SIT DOWN AND NOT JUST REQUESTED FROM STAFF, NOT JUST REQUESTED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BACK IN THE DAY WHEN I USED TO BE REAL POLITICAL.
NOW I USED TO, I USED TO THROW BOMBS AND KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES NATE LATER, I DIDN'T CARE.
AND I'M NOW RETIRED AND I'M IN THE SAME POINT.
I DON'T CARE IF I GIVE YOU A COORDINATOR OR NOT, BUT MY GOAL IS TO DO THE BEST THAT I CAN FOR THE CITIZENS AND FOR THE TAXPAYERS,
[02:40:01]
AS WELL AS TRYING TO MAKE THE CITIES RUN SMOOTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW.UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE MADE A FORMAL REQUEST TO BE THE CITY MANAGER, GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AN OPPORTUNITY TWO, OKAY.
HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB SINCE HE'S BEEN HERE.
HE'S REALLY BEEN ABLE TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD.
AND IF WE DON'T GET A RESPONSE FROM THEM, THEN I WILL.
I'VE BEEN, AS I'VE STOOD UP IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL AND I HOLD AS A MATTER OF FACT, MAYOR BRUCE TODD TOLD ME I SHOULD HAVE HAD MY TONGUE SHAVED BECAUSE I JUST CALL IT AS I SEE IT.
I DON'T MIND CALLING PEOPLE ON WHAT MY SON CALLS THE CARPET DANCE, BUT LET'S, LET'S TRY TO MAKE AN OPERA, GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN, WE CAN MEET AND FIND OUT HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SO OPPOSITIONAL.
THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY, I'M OFF MY MO BOX AND Y'ALL CAN TAKE IT.
UH, AGAIN, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO WRITE A LETTER, UH, ASKING FOR THAT MEETING.
AND, AND, UH, MICHAEL, IF YOU VOLUNTEERED YOURSELF, I THINK MELISSA, YOU AND I COULD START, UH, THE DISCUSSION, UH, BECAUSE AGAIN, IN, UNLESS WE'RE DOING A PUBLIC FORUM, IT CAN'T BE A, UH, A QUORUM.
UM, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND BASICALLY AGAIN, TRY TO, UH, BUILD SOME BRIDGES HERE, UM, UH, WHERE, WHERE THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME ISSUES.
SO, UH, I WILL, UM, TAKE ACTION ON THAT.
[Item S9]
RIGHT.AGAIN, YOU KNOW, UH, OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH MELISSA AND HER FAMILY, UM, IN TIME OF ALREADY DIFFICULT TIMES OF HAVING A LOSS IN THEIR FAMILY LIKE THAT.
[Items S10 & T]
OTHER, UH, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS, STAFF REQUESTS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OKAY.DID YOU HAVE SOME ODD NEW BUSINESS OR NO? UM, BEFORE WE ADJOURN, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT, UM, AND SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE US BEING ABLE TO JUMP BACK AND, UM, AND GET THE JOB DONE.
UH, BUT I THINK THAT WE, AS A BOARD WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, THE STRAIN THAT WE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE IN, UM, OR MEMBERS PLEASE SLEEP, PLEASE DRINK WATER, PLEASE TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.
UM, AND FOR THOSE THAT MAY STUMBLE ACROSS THIS AUDIO WITHIN THE ETHER, I'D LIKE TO SAY WHILE WE SOMETIMES STUMBLE AND SOME, SOMETIMES OF STRIVE INTO THIS NEW, LET US ALL REMEMBER WHAT HISTORICALLY HAS MADE HUMANS SO SPECIAL.
AND THAT IS OUR CAPACITY TO LOVE FEROCIOUS.
UH, IMPORTANT AT THIS TIME, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY, NO, WE ACTUALLY MET OUR QUOTA.
THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH SCREENS AVAILABLE.
YOU WERE WATCHED A LOT TONIGHT.
AND IN TERMS OF, OF, UH, THE SOLIDARITY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UH, EARLIER WITH STAFF, I'D LIKE TO THANK, UH, LEE AND, AND ELAINE, BOTH FOR, UH, WHAT YOU GUYS DO FOR US.
UH, I HAVE FELT VERY WELL SUPPORTED.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS COMING IN AS CHAIR, UH, WAS, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE.
UH, AND YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SPOT ON AND I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO.
AND THE OTHER TWO SHOUT OUTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IS TO KELLY CLAPPING IN THE BACKGROUND THERE.
SO PRACTICALLY BEING A BLURRED MEMBER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WITH AS MANY TIMES AS YOU FILLED IN, AND ALSO TO, UH, MARTHA FOR, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, FILLING IN THE GAPS HERE WHEN WE HAVE, UH, PEOPLE THAT, UH, THAT CAN'T, UH, CAN'T PARTICIPATE.
SO WITH THAT, UH, I WILL, UH, UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE, YOU'VE GOT TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AND WE WILL SEE YOU GUYS IN A MONTH.
WE WOULD GO ON SATURDAY NIGHT AND LET THE HAMMER DOWN, LET THE HAMMER DOWN AND LEAVE ROBBER ON THE GROUND.
WHAT A POWER OF SOUND HAVE MERCY ON THE TOWN.