[00:00:03]
UM, SO I AM, UH, THE TIME IS FIVE 33 ON, UH, SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2020.
UH, AND I AM, WE HAVE A EQUIVALENT AND PRESENT, UH, AND WE WILL CALL THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER A REMINDER TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING, PLEASE PUT YOUR MICROPHONES ON MUTE.
CAUSE WE GET A LOT OF BACKGROUND NOISE.
I SEE STUFF I'M LIKE, ALL RIGHT.
UM, BECKY, THANK YOU, JESSICA COHEN HERE.
I SEE HER BOX THERE, BUT I DON'T.
WE'RE CALLING THE ROLL, MELISSA.
SHE IS WAVING HERE OR I THINK LOADING EDGE IS I MAY HAVE TO LOG IN AND MARK OUT.
BOLWELL HERE, RON MCDANIEL HERE.
THANK YOU, VERONICA RIVERA HERE.
UM, SO, UM, AS THE FOOD WE HAVE IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS DURING THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH COVID-19, THIS MEETING OF COURSE, IS BEING HELD VIRTUALLY ONLINE AND IS VIEWABLE AD, UH, W W W UH, ATX N T V.
UH, THERE WILL BE A LAG IF YOU ARE WATCHING YOUR TV.
SO JUST TRUST US, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION, UH, THAT WE'RE SEEING THE SLIDE THAT YOU WANT TO SEE, BUT YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW WHEN TO CHANGE THOSE.
UM, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE NO ONE TONIGHT THAT IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE FIVE CASES.
UM, SO WE WILL JUST MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
[A-1 Staff requests approval of August 10, 2020 draft minutes]
WITH, UH, APPROVAL OF THE, UH, 10TH, 20, 20 DRAFT MINUTES.THAT'S A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER COHEN.
AND, UH, IS THERE A SECOND WILLIAM
OKAY, SO THIS IS FOR THE MINUTES.
UM, LET ME JUST WRITING THESE THINGS DOWN.
SO WE WILL CALL THE ROLL ON THE MINUTES.
IT LOOKS LIKE SHE'S HAVING CONNECTION PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW, JESSICA, JESSICA TO WORKING JESPER.
ARE YOU THERE? SORRY, MY CAT UNPLUGGED.
WHERE IS YOUR, AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE ON THE MOTION.
SORRY, I GOT KICKED OUT FOR A SECOND.
SO I'M BACK FOR ME TO VOTE OVER IN TECHIE.
[00:05:01]
NOW.SO THE MINUTES, UH, FROM, UH, SORRY, AUGUST HAD BEEN APPROVED, UM, THIS IS FOR ELAINE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE AGENDA? NO, WE DID NOT.
UM, SO I'M SEEING NO OTHER, UM, ITEMS, UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR VARIANCES REPUBLIC.
[C-1 C15-2020-0040 Rodney Bennett for Pavan Narra 2303 Quarry Road]
ITEM C ROOM.THIS IS C 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO FOUR ZERO, RODNEY BENNETT.
UH, UH, PAUL VOLUN, UH, NORA AT 2303, UH, CURRY ROAD.
SO MR. BENNETT ARE AVAILABLE MR. CHAIR.
ON HIS SIDE, WE DID GRANT A VARIANCE ON NINE 17, 2017 FOR THE SAME VARIANCE.
THERE WAS ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF A FOOT.
AND SO WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS SINCE WE HAD ALREADY GRANTED THIS, THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR ONE FOOT MORE, ONE SQUARE FOOT MORE, WHICH IS DIMINIMOUS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS ON 2301 AND 23 FIREARM, EITHER SIDE ARE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL AS 23 AND FIVE GOT THE SAME VARIANCE IN 2004.
SO I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MICHAEL, UM, YOU HAD SAID ONE SQUARE FEET, BUT IT'S, UH, THE SETBACKS, BUT THEY'RE ASKING, I HAVE SOME THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL BRILLIANCE, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE WAS A CONDITION IN IT.
UM, BUT UPSTAIRS THE BATHROOM WOULD BE DOWNSTAIRS.
SO ARE WE GOING TO REPROVE IT, HOW IT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY? ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE BATHROOM UPSTAIRS OR, I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, IS THERE A DEED RESTRICTION AGAINST 80 YEARS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? SO I HAD HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
IT DIDN'T MATTER TO ME WHETHER THE BATHROOM WAS UPSTAIRS OR DOWNSTAIRS, DEPENDING ON HOW BAD THEY HAD TO GO TO THE BATHROOM, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
AND IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S RESTRICTIONS THAT DON'T ALLOW FOR AN ADU.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM, BUT IF THERE'S THESE RESTRICTIONS AND THIS COULD EASILY BE CONVERTED, AND THAT'S THE REASON ORIGINALLY IT WAS APPROVED WITH THE BATHROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
SO GIVEN THAT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASE AND, UH, AT LEAST, UH, TO CLARIFY THE ITEMS THAT, UH, BROOKE HAS BROUGHT UP, UM, HERE TO ENSURE THAT YES, YES.
AND I MIGHT BE UNDER THINKING THIS, BUT COULD WE NOT JUST PUT THE SAME CONDITION AND ADD THE ONE SQUARE FOOT? AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT A SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IT'S, IT'S, WE'RE TALKING LENGTH HERE.
SO IT'D BE JUST ONE FOOT, ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT NOT, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
WE'RE NOT MAILING TO APPROVE A PREVIOUS, UH, VARIANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, BY JUST BECAUSE WE HAD DONE IT OR THIS BOARD HAD DONE IT AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, WE'RE NOT BOUND TO DO IT AGAIN.
WE CAN, UM, HAVE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS.
WE CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, WE CAN HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE, UH, BECAUSE THIS IS COMING TO US AS A BRAND NEW CASE.
UM, WE NEED TO TAKE US THE MOTION FIRST, CORRECT.
ALL THE MOTION IS THERE TO FINISH THE PRESENTATION FIRST, BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DO MOTIONS, I'D ASK THE CHAIRMAN IF HE WOULD CONSIDER THAT WE'D DONE IT IN THE PAST, IN THE DIOCESE JUST TO SAVE TIME AND YOU WANT TO HEAR IT? I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
I CAN WITHDRAW THE MOTION, MR. CHAIR.
SO MICHAEL HAS WITHDRAWN HIS MOTION, SO WE'RE GOING TO JUST MOVE ON WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN AND WE'RE WAITING MR. BENNETT, AND I THINK IT'S A SORT OF 69.
IS THAT CORRECT FOR, UM, MAKING YOURSELF HEARD? CAN YOU HEAR ME, MR. CHAIRMAN?
[00:10:01]
YES, I CAN.UH, MS. CHAIRMAN BOARD, I'M RODNEY BENNET.
UH, I'M ON HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, UM, PANERA ON HIS REQUEST FOR A GARAGE ON A THREE LOT WITH A SETBACK OF 15 FEET VERSUS THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
IN 2017, THE BOARD DID GRANT A RANCH FOR 16 FOOT AND RAISE A RIDER ON IT THAT SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY HABITABLE AREA.
UM, WITH THAT SAID THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BATHROOM THERE, AND I BELIEVE THEY HAD A KITCHEN IN IT.
UM, IT'S PART GARAGE AND PART POOL HOUSE, UM, ON THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION AND ON THIS APPLICATION, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT OUR BATHROOM IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, THE OWNER WAS WANTING TO USE THAT AREA AS A ROUGH AREA OR AN OFFICE AREA.
UM, HE HAD NO INTENTIONS OF USING IT TO RUN OUT, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WE DID MEET WITH WAYNE ON OCTOBER 9TH.
AND, UM, YOU NEED A LETTER FROM, FROM BLAKE STATING THAT THEY'RE NOT IN OPPOSITION TO IT, AS LONG AS THERE'S NOT HAVE A LITTLE SPACE IN THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, AS MUCH AS MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE IT, WE UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERN.
UM, I'D HATE TO SAY THAT I'M WILLING TO GIVE IT UP IN ORDER FOR HIM TO HAVE THIS GARAGE HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO.
THE GARAGE IS IN PLACEMENT IN THE GARAGE IS, IS HARD TO GET INTO 25 FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE OF A MASSIVE OAK TREE BACK THERE.
UM, REALLY THIS IS ABOUT THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN PUT IT.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I'D BE AVAILABLE.
SHOULD Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT AROUND THERE? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE FOLKS ABOUT, IS THERE A DEED RESTRICTION ON THOSE PROPERTIES THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN ADU? I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE.
UM, WHEN I FELT THAT I DON'T REMEMBER WHY, BUT BACK THEN, I'M PRETTY POSITIVE THAT HE REQUESTED IT BACK THEN THOUGH.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, IF I RECALL, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD BACK AT THAT TIME WAS WHEN WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BECOME AN STR.
AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE, I WAS LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE.
THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE IT ALSO HAVE A KITCHEN BATHROOM.
IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME.
SO AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
NOW WE'VE ALREADY HAD A CONCESSION BY THE APPLICANT TO NOT HAVE THE HABITABLE SPACE, OR IS THAT WHAT YOUR CURRENT, IT WOULD HAVE THE BATHROOM, SO YOU CAN USE IT AS AN OFFICE, BUT IT WON'T HAVE, WOULD NOT HAVE A KITCHEN AREA.
CAUSE THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE BIG HEARTBURN ON THE LAST TIME.
WAS IT, PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT IF HE HAD A KITCHEN IN A BATHROOM, IT WAS GOING TO TURN INTO A THANK YOU THAT IT WAS GOING TO TURN INTO AN STR SHORT TERM RENTAL.
AND SO I THINK A BATHROOM IS REASONABLE, WHETHER IT'S A BATH, A POOL HOUSE, OR WHETHER IT'S AN OFFICE, IT'S A LITTLE UNREASONABLE TO, IF YOU CAN USE IT AS AN OFFICE AND I'D TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD, I DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO THE MAIN HOUSE TO GO USE THE BATHROOM.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED IN THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US IN THE BACKUP.
UM, I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID NO KITCHEN.
LET ME GO BACK TO THE KITCHEN, MAN.
LET ME GO BACK TO, THERE WAS AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN.
CAUSE THEY LISTED AS AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN, YOU'RE SAYING NO KITCHEN AND THAT KITCHEN IS FINE FOR THE MOTION.
WELL TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, THE KITCHEN'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THAT UPSTAIRS UNITS.
I DON'T CARE IF THEY HAVE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN OR, YOU KNOW, OR BARBECUE OR AREA OR WHATEVER, BUT THAT'S ALSO SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE CALL IT AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN NOW AS A FANCY BARBECUE PIT SITTING OUT THERE THAT SOMEBODY BUILT IN, IT'S NOT IN THE UNIT ITSELF.
SO I REALLY DON'T, I'M LOOKING AT IT HERE RIGHT NOW AND I DON'T REALLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT AS DRAWN.
UH, AND THAT IS ON PAGE MINDSET SHEET SEVEN 11, CAUSE I'M ALREADY ON MY, MY IPAD HERE, BUT THE ONE DRAWING THAT I'M LOOKING AT BECAUSE NOT TRUE A KITCHEN WITHIN THE ACTUAL HABITABLE SPACE.
[00:15:01]
I'M OKAY WITH IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, THAT THE, UM, THE FIRST FLOOR AREA THAT IS NOT THE GARAGE, WHICH IS, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST RIGHT OFF THE POOL THAT HAS THE KITCHEN, BUT THAT WOULD REMAIN OPEN TO THE POOL, UH, AS, AS IT'S SHOWN HERE BASICALLY.
AND THAT, UH, UH, THE UPSTAIRS WOULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO AN SDR.
AND I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BY ME, MR. OKAY.
UM, IS THERE, UH, WHAT DID WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? OKAY.
WELL, WE HAVE A SECOND BY MELISSA AND I WILL START THE FINDINGS WHILE YOU WRITE THAT DOWN.
MR. CHICKEN, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, AND, UM, UH, SO WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS IS ITEM C.
OKAY, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR FINDINGS.
REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.
DO NOT ALLOW ANY REASON WE USE BECAUSE IT'S A TRUE LOVE WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK AND SPACE FOR THEM TO PROTECT HISTORY, RESTRICTS THE BUILDABLE AREA, HARDSHIP THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO PROPERTY.
AND THAT THE NUMBER OF PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE DO NOT ALLOW FOR COVERED PARKER OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL QDA IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MOST HOMES, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OLDER AND HAVE COVERED PARKING.
FURTHERMORE, NUMEROUS PROTECTED TO REDUCE THE BUILDABLE AREA TO THIS LOCATION CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPROVE THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MOST HOMES IN THIS AREA, WHICH AREA HAVE COVERED PARKING, MOST OF THEM PREDATE THE TREE.
ANY OTHER QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE VOTE OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? OKAY.
HERE IN BERKELEY, JESSICA COHEN.
THANK YOU, DON LAYTON BURWELL.
SO MELISSA'S BACK, MELISSA, GIVING US A THUMBS UP FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU, VERONICA RIVERA? YES.
YOU GOT YOUR VARIANTS AGAIN, SO YES.
[C-2 C15-2020-0042 Harmony Grogan for Jessie Patton-Levine 2202 West 49th Street]
MOVING ON TO, UH, ITEM C TO, UM, JUGGLE HERE.SO THIS IS A, UH, ITEM C TWO C 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO FOUR TWO.
UH, HARMONY GROGAN FOR JESSE PATTON LEVINE AT 2202 WEST 49TH STREET.
UM, HERMONEY IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE, UM, GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU A QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND I REVIEWED IT AND EVEN I EVEN DROVE OUT THERE.
AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE IN HARMONY'S BEST INTEREST.
AND I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS UP NOW, CAUSE I KNOW WHERE IT'S GONNA GO.
FIRST OF ALL, THEIR HARDSHIP IS CRASHING WELL, BUT EVEN IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT ON IT, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK.
AND SO FOR THE SIDE YARD ON 49TH STREET, AFTER LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, SO TO SAVE THEM TIME AND NOT HAVE TO HAVE THEM COME BACK AND GET BEAT UP FOR NO HARDSHIP, THEY DO HAVE AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT, WHICH IS A HARDSHIP.
BUT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE IF THEY WANT TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE JUST TO SAVE THEM THE TIME, SAVE THEM, HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS SO THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST ADJUST THEIR HARDSHIP AND ALSO REQUEST
[00:20:01]
THE PROPER VARIOUS THEY'RE GOING TO NEED, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK ON 49TH STREET.I APPRECIATE WHAT MICHAEL IS SAYING.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M GLAD HE SAID THAT BECAUSE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THIS CASE THE WAY THAT IT'S PUT OUT THERE NOW, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIP, JUST ISN'T STRONG ENOUGH.
SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE BY MICHAEL VAUGHN, OLIN.
AND, UM, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE AND A SECOND BY MELISSA.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE, THE ONLY DISCUSSION MR. CHAIR IS HOPEFULLY THAT THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS JUST LISTENED TO WHAT WE ARE HEARD AND TO GET WITH THE LANE ON IT WHEN THEY REPOST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'LL JUST STOP RIGHT THERE.
I THINK THAT BETH, A NEED, SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY THEIR EXISTING HOUSE WILL BE ENCROACHING AFTER THEY DO THE ADDITIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
I THINK THAT PART OF THE CODE, MAYBE HE HASN'T BEEN COMPLETELY EXPLAINED TO THEM.
AND SO MAYBE CLARIFYING WITH THE APPLICANT AND ALSO WORKING ON IT.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, FOR THE APPLICANT, I, THIS MIGHT BE FRUSTRATING, RIGHT.
A POSTPONEMENT, BUT I REALLY THINK PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT AND YOU CAN KIND OF COUNT THE VOTES NOW.
UM, SO I WOULD JUST SAY, AS IT'S PRESENTED, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, SO YES, ON THERE.
SO I WOULD TAKE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT YOU'VE HEARD THE OTHER MEMBERS HAVEN'T SAID ALREADY, AND REALLY DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE ON IT.
AND MICHAEL, BASICALLY THAT THE ENCOURAGEMENT IS THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INTO THE 15 FOOT, CORRECT.
ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE OR ANY TYPE OF WORK REMODELING ON THAT HOUSE THERE, THAT'S GOING TO COME UP AND THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ALSO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICANT LOOKS AT, UM, DRIVEWAYS AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO, UM, PROPER ONSITE PARKING.
AND SO YOU MAY NEED SOME VARIANCES ON PARKING AS WELL.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL VON OLIN TO POSTPONE, AND THIS WOULD BE OUR OCTOBER MEETING.
IS THAT, IS THAT SAFE TO SAY MEDICAL? YEAH.
I THINK THEY SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THEN.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY JUST TO ADDRESS THE POSTING ISSUES.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY, UH, MELISSA.
IS THERE, UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVED TO OVER TO VOTE? WHAT OF YOUR HAND? OKAY.
SO, UH, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SINCE WE DIDN'T EARLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, UH, BROOKE BAILEY.
RIGHT? MELISSA HAWTHORNE? YES.
SO, UM, MS. GROGAN, UH, IF YOU'RE STILL THERE, WE WILL SEE YOU.
[C-3 C15-2020-0043 Katherine Loayza for Robin & Lorraine Moore 4708 Colorado Xing]
TO ITEM C THREE.THIS IS A C 15 DASH 2020 DASH OH ZERO TWO OR THREE.
UH, THIS IS, UH, CATHERINE
AND, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, CATHERINE IS THE
[00:25:01]
PRIMARY SPEAKER, GOOD EVENING PARENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.THERE IS REQUESTS FOR 47 OR EIGHT COLORADO CROSSING ASSEMBLER LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY ZONING SLEPT IN PERVIOUS KIND OF RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 80.6 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER PER CONSTRUCTION OF A 348 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL.
IN ADDITION TO THE 80.6 SQUARE FEET IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE POOL COPING, THE OTHER IMPERVIOUS COVER INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR AN EXISTING PLACE.
SO 51 SQUARE FEET AND PLAYHOUSE OF 93 SQUARE FEET, WHICH THE OWNER CONSTRUCTED AFTER 2015 THAT REALIZING THAT THESE MINOR TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE USE OF THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE TOOK HER TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE.
THE TOTAL BALANCE REQUEST THERE FOR US FOR 225 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WERE INCREASED A LOT IN PREVIOUS CALLER FROM 40.2 TO 42.2%, THE OWNER WILLING TO REMOVE THE PLAYHOUSE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE POOL COPING IF NECESSARY, BUT WOULD PREFER NOT TO SIZE FOR THE POWERPOINT SCALE, THE ZONING MAP AND SLIDE FIVE, THE AERIAL PHOTO, A SIZE SIX SHOWS EXISTING AS A POST OVER THE PROPERTY.
AND IN PART TO THE POWERPOINT SLIDE, TWO SHOWS THE PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUESTED IN GREEN AND A PROPOSED MOCKUP OF THE POOL AND LOCATION IN THE BACKYARD.
THE ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIAL SHOWS A PLAYSCAPE AND PLAYHOUSE AS WELL AS THE RAINWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM.
MY USE OF HARDSHIP, THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A SMALL SUBDIVISION SIDED IN 1982, THAT WAS INITIALLY ZONED SF TO THE LOT SIZE IS 11,643 SQUARE FEET, WHICH SOME OF THE STANDARD ZONING WAS TYPICAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PROPERTIES AT THE, OF THE THOUSAND FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE LAKE, IT WAS MOVED DOWN TO THE LA ZONING OVERLAY IN 1984, BECAUSE A LOT SIZE IS ONLY ONE FOURTH OF THE REQUIRED ONE ACRE MINIMUM, LOT SIZE.
IT AUTOMATICALLY BECAME A LEGAL NONCOMPLIANCE, A LOT ON IT BECAUSE OF THE PERMISSIONS OF THE LA ZONING.
IT ONLY ALLOWS FOR A TOTAL OF 12.8% IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE LOT OF WHICH 74% HAS LEFT TWO 15 AND 35% BECAUSE OF THIS SEVERE RESTRICTION.
THE HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE IS THE ZONING, WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF THE OUTDOOR SPACE WITHOUT TAKING HIS ARYAN.
LISTEN CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY ARE RESULTED IN INSURANCE AND A BUILDING PERMIT 1993 FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENCE BASED UPON PREVIOUS COVER STANDARDS, NOT LA ZONING, WHICH IS HOW THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY WERE PERMITTED.
THE
AND AS THEIR SERVER ACCESS, THE RAIN WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED AS A CONDITION OF EXPERIENCE, WHICH WILL BE ENLARGED TO ALSO CAPTURE THE RUNOFF FROM THE POOL.
BUT ZONING TAKES AWAY THE REASONABLE USE OF THE OUTDOOR AREA OF THE PROPERTY AND CREATES A HARDSHIP BY PROHIBITING THE USE OF THE OUTDOOR SPACE ON THE PROPERTY, SIMILAR TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE STEEP SLOPE WITH DEPENDENT ON BEING ABLE TO USE THE OUTDOOR AREA, THE PROPERTY MORE FULLY AS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE ABLE TO ANSWER A LOT OF THEIR DAUGHTER TO BE ABLE TO SWIM IN OUR OWN BACKYARD RATHER THAN TO GO ELSEWHERE IS MORE CRITICAL THAN BEFORE.
SO, I MEAN, IT'S ONE OF THE FEW PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES.
THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER ENJOYS THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENEROUS OR THE AREA BECAUSE THIS LIES AT THE EDGE OF THE THOUSAND FOOT RADIUS FROM THE LAKE.
AND THE MAJORITY OF THE SUBDIVISION IS ZONED THAT STUFF TO THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS AND THE SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT HAVE STEEP SLOPE SUCH AS THIS LOT, THE AREA CHARACTER'S NOT IMPACTED BECAUSE MANY RESIDENCES HAVE SWIMMING POOLS.
I HAVE ADDITIONAL BREAKDOWN OF EACH IMPROVEMENT BY SLOPE CATEGORY, IF YOU WISH TO HAVE GREATER DETAIL.
AND ALSO I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH ALTERNATIVE IMPERVIOUS COVER INFORMATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED THAT THE PLAYHOUSE SHOULD BE MOVED IN TO A LOT OF THE POOL IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE SUBDIVISION IS OFTEN SUBJECT TO AN HLA, WHICH SUPPORTS THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL AS EIGHT PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE STREET.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND KEEP THIS LISTING PLAYSCAPE AND PLAYHOUSE IN THE BACKYARD.
SO THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR THAT.
SO, UM, UM, OTHER, UH, WELL I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
LET ME, LET ME JUST START THAT OFF.
UM, I DON'T IN THE AREA, DO YOU GET A PHOTOGRAPH? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES, BUT IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE FROM THE MORE GROUP I SAW, NO TREES SHOWN
[00:30:01]
AT ALL, IS THAT INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE TO US? THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PART OF THE POWERPOINT, YOU CAN SEE THE AREA OF SLIDE FOUR.
AND THE SECOND HALF OF THE POWERPOINT SHOWS WHERE THE, WHERE THE SWIMMING HOLE WILL BE LOCATED.
AND THERE ARE NO TREES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED.
SO, UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, UH, UH, ON THE PRESENTATION?
SHE LIKES, LET ME GO TO SLIDES.
P TO, UH, I, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A DETAILING IMPERVIOUS COVER BY SLOPE CATEGORY.
PRESENTATION THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION.
IF YOU KEEP, IF YOU KEEP SCROLLING THROUGH THOSE, THIS IS THE VERY LAST SLIDE.
WELL, YOUR LAST SLIDE SHOWS LOWER PATIO AND GRASS SLOPE SHOWING LOCATION.
WELL, I MEAN, I COULD BE STANDING IN FRONT OF A TREE, NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT THERE.
SO, UM, UH, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERHEAD PHOTO THERE'S, UH, THERE SOME TREES IN THAT AREA, I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE, UH, REPRESENTED HERE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT, A BOOK? I KNOW I JUST HIT IT, I HIT IT TWICE.
UM, AND THERE'S NO ELEVATION VIEW OF THE SLOPE.
IS THAT SIDE OF THAT POOL GOING TO BE, TO MAKE IT WORK TO THE OWNER IS ALSO ON HOLD.
UM, PERHAPS HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, I THINK, YEAH, THE BACK BACKGROUND THERE'D HAVE TO BE ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHOSE HAND WAS WAVING THERE? UH, OUGHTA, GO AHEAD.
MATT HAS A COLORED PENCIL ON IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SO MANY LINES GOING THROUGH THE SPACE MORE THAN A FOOT APART, BUT YEAH, THEY DO SEEM TO BE ONE FOOT CONTOURS.
AND SO IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE EDGE OF THE FLAGSTONE WALK THAT WE ARE AT FIVE 81 AND WE DROPPED DOWN TO AT LEAST FIVE 74, IF NOT FIVE 73.
UM, SO, UM, THAT RIGHT THERE IS, UH, ROUGHLY EIGHT FEET OF FALL, UM, UH, ACROSS THE BACK THERE, IF WE, IF WE, UH, MAINTAIN THE, THE TOP OF THAT.
SO YEAH, IT WOULD BE AROUND NINE FEET, UM, OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE BACK OF THE, THE POOL THERE.
IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
AND AGAIN, I I'VE HEARD AN OFFER BY THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE THE PLAYHOUSE TO OFFSET, UM, THE, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, THE, UH, EXCEEDING IT HERE.
UM, SO, UH, ARE THERE, UH, DURA, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND WHERE EXACTLY IT IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS UP, THERE'S A FLATTER SPACE BEHIND THE PROPOSED LOCATION AT THIS POINT.
AND IS THAT WITHIN THE PROPERTY
SO THAT WOULD BE IN THE SECOND PART OF THEIR PRESENTATION C3 A FORWARD SLASH TWO DAY FATIGUE.
IS THAT, UH, YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY IT.
[00:35:01]
JUST, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE IS SOME ROOM BEHIND THE PROPOSED LOCATION WHERE IT COULD BE PLACED WHERE IT WOULD BE ON FLATTER GROUND, IS THAT AREA BEHIND THERE THAT SPLATTER WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE LAW? WELL, THAT, THAT IS WITHIN THE LOT, BUT THERE ALSO IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.SO I THINK THAT'S THE, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT RUNS THROUGH THIS, THIS AREA THAT'S FIVE 67, FIVE 68, FIVE 69, FIVE 70.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, I SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I JUST HAD A CURIOSITY QUESTION THAT FLAT SPOT THAT DARRELL WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW FAR FROM THE HOME IS THAT, THAT SPOT, EVEN IF IT WASN'T THE DREAM, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE OWNER AND MR. MOORE ON THAT.
WELL, YEAH, I JUST WOULD ADD THAT AREA RIGHT NEAR THE BACKPAGE ABOUT PROPERTY.
THERE'S SOME SORT OF LEAN ON IT BECAUSE IT'S A GREENBELT SPACE IS HOW FAR AWAY FROM THAT, FROM THE HOUSE.
I MEAN, IT'S NORMAL TO HAVE THE POOL CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW? SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW FAR FROM, FROM THAT FLAT SPOT IS YOUR HOME.
IF YOU WERE TO PUT THE POOL THERE.
WELL, THE GREEN OUTLINE THAT YOU SEE IN THAT EXHIBIT IS 14 FEET WIDE.
SO IT GIVES YOU SOME FEEL IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT ON TWO 25 FEET DOWN THE SLOPE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S TOO FAR FOR, IN MY OPINION, TO MOVE A POOL THAT FAR OUT IF IT WAS AVAILABLE.
BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE HOUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.
AND THEN WE'RE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WHITE HOUSE OR NO, ALEXA SAYS NO.
IS THAT CORRECT? THEN AFTER I MADE THE FINDINGS, IT'S NOT THE ONLY MELISSA THE OWNER DID SAY THAT THEY WERE AMENABLE TO INCREASING THE WATER RETENTION SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND ALLOW THEM, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DENY THE KIDS WORKPLACE GATES SO THAT THEY CAN GO SWIMMING, BUT AT LEAST LET'S COMPROMISE A LITTLE BIT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE DO AND THAT THEY DO INCREASE THEIR WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THE COUGHING AS THEY DISCUSSED.
SO THAT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE, CAN YOU GET TO THE FINDINGS? OKAY.
SO, SO I, ACTUALLY, THIS IS A QUESTION MORE FOR, I SUPPOSE, UH, FOR BROOKE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE, BUT I TAKE ANYBODY'S OPINION.
HE'S NOT VERY OFTEN THAT WE SEE A CASE WHERE THE HARDSHIP IS THE ZONING ITSELF, AND I'M COMPLETELY FINE WITH THAT, BY THE WAY, IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE.
BUT THE PURPOSE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, TO THE ZONING CODE, TO THE ORDINANCE WHEN IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
BUT I SORT OF LOOK TO YOU ON THE LAKE AUSTIN ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND SO SHE SAID IT HERSELF IN THE HARDSHIP, IT SAYS IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPLIED TO THIS LAW.
AND SO MY, MY VOTE SORT OF HINGES ON YOUR OPINION OF WHETHER YOU THINK THAT LIKE OFTEN ZONING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE, OF THE, UM, OF THE, OF THE APPROVAL HERE OF THE MOTION, WHETHER YOU THINK THE ORDINANCE SHOULD APPLY TO THIS LAW.
I, UM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE ORDINANCE APPLYING TO THIS LAW, BUT IT DOES.
UM, AND I, THAT WOULD NOT BE A HARDSHIP
[00:40:01]
THAT I WOULD HAVE PUT FORWARD.I DO THINK SOME OF THE SLOPE IS BECAUSE IT'S SO STEEP AND THEY HAVE A DRAINAGE EASILY IN THE BACK.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE, MOST OF THEIR TREES ARE FURTHER TO THE BACK OF THE, UM, WHERE THAT EASEMENT IS.
SO IT TAKES AWAY THE FLAT PART OF THEIR LOT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE ZONING ITSELF DOES NOT CAUSE A HARDSHIP.
LET ME JUST PUT IT THAT WAY, BUT THERE IS A HARDSHIPS ON THAT LAW AND THERE ARE MITIGATING THOSE HARDSHIPS.
I NEVER HEARD SOMEBODY SAID, I DON'T WANT US TO OPEN THE BARN DOOR BECAUSE WE SEE SO MANY LIKE AUSTIN CASES.
AND, AND, UH, AND THAT WAS A BIT OF A RE LOOKING AT THE CASE.
I HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT, ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR VETERANS HERE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THAT WAS A BIT OF A RED FLAG FOR ME.
I FIND FOR ME ALSO, I HAD TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING AND LOOK AT THE SLOPE AND BETWEEN THE JS THEN AND WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR AND WHAT THEY HAD DONE TO MINIMIZE THEIR ASK.
UM, I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THEM TAKING OUT THE KIDS I HAVE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A TEMPORARY THING.
IT'S GOING TO GET OLD, IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN DOWN AT SOME POINT.
SO I THINK THEY JUST PICKED THE WRONG HARDSHIP BECAUSE ZONING CAN'T CAUSE A HARDSHIP IN MY MIND.
I HAD AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ON THE DOCUMENT.
THAT IS THE EXHIBIT DETAILING, THE AND PROPOSED AND PERVIOUS COVER, WHICH IS PAGE 12, C3 DASH 12.
IT SHOWS ON BOTH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
IT'S LIKE A LITTLE WALKWAY THAT RUNS FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE DOWN TO THE, I GUESS THAT'S THE BACK PROPERTY LINE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EXACTLY THAT IS.
AND DOES IT GO ON TO ANY PROPERTY BEHIND THERE? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO OWNED ABOUT AN OWNER? IT'S THAT GRAVEL PATHWAYS, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES.
THAT'S THAT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY, UM, IS, SO THEY DO OWN THAT.
WHAT DOES IT CONNECT TO? UH, I'M AFRAID I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE OWNER ON THAT.
THEY'RE CONNECTING TO A COMMON GREENBELT AREA.
THERE'S A SMALL PAVED ROAD THAT AT TIMES IT GETS REALLY QUIET.
I'M SORRY, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, IT CONNECTS TO A COMMON GREENBELT AREA OWNED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND SO KNOW IT'S NOT OWNED BY US.
AND YOU CAN, IS THAT, IS THAT THE HIND THIS BACK PROPERTY LINE THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT? THAT'S RIGHT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON A C THREE, UH, FOUR SLASH TWO, UM, SORT OF A U SHAPE, UH, COMMON AREA, GREEN SPACE BEHIND ALL OF THE, UH, NORTH FACING AND, AND, UH, STATION PROPERTIES THERE.
AND, AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE EXACTLY THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS.
IS IT ON THAT COMMON PROPERTY OR IS IT ON THE BACK END OF THE REAR OF THIS LOT IT'S SALE? I'LL TELL YOU THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, CERTAINLY I THINK A SWIMMING POOL IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T FAULT ANYBODY FOR IT AND PUT A SWIMMING POOL THERE.
AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON A SLOPE THAT THE CITY SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T BE BUILDING ON A, WHEN THERE APPEARS TO BE A AREA BEHIND WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THE SWIMMING POOL AND YOU EVEN HAVE A PATH THAT GOES DOWN THAT WAY.
SO YOU WOULD ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AREA.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SUPPORT THIS.
CAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE A HARDSHIP.
AND IN THAT YOU DON'T GET TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, WHERE YOU WANT TO DO IT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE HARDSHIP WE NEED TO FIND MR. CHAIRMAN.
YES, MICHAEL TOPOGRAPHY AND THE SLUG, DARRYL JUST TYPOGRAPHY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HARDSHIP.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A HARDSHIP AND THIS HOUSE PRIOR TO 1984, HE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF YOU HAD PUT HIS POOL.
AND PRIOR TO THAT, CAUSE IT WAS 1984 WHEN THE LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY TOOK OVER HIS PROPERTY, BUT HIS PROPERTY EXISTED IN HIS HOME EXISTED PRIOR TO THE LAKE HOUSE AND OVERLAY, BUT TYPOGRAPHY AND I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE I WOULD.
THAT'S WHERE I WOULD HAVE GONE IS A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WELL, AND, AND SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND HERE IS THE ASK ON THIS.
UM, VARIANCE IS, UH, INCREASING THE,
[00:45:01]
UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER.AND THE COVER OF THE POOL IS ONLY THE COPING OF THE POOL.
SO IT WHICH, YOU KNOW, THIS WIDE OF AN AREA AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE POOL.
UM, AND IT, UH, OBVIOUSLY IT'S TIED TO SLOPE, UH, AS THE ORDINANCE, UH, UH, UH, DICTATES IN LA, IS THERE ANYTHING, BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMOUNT OF BEEN PRODUCED PEPPER.
I ASKED ME, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT WHEN WAS THE HOUSE, WHEN DID THE APPLICANT BUY THE HOUSE? WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 2014, 2014.
SO THAT GIVES ME A LITTLE HEARTBURN BECAUSE I'M KIND OF SCREWED ON THIS AS FAR AS JUST NOT GETTING TO BE WHAT TO DO.
AND KNOWING THAT THAT WAS THE CASE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE LAND.
SO I'M, I'M A LITTLE, I'M A LITTLE WEARY ON THE HEART AS WELL.
I UNDERSTAND TOPOGRAPHY, AND THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, BUT, UM, I'M A LITTLE WEARY ABOUT SOMEONE BUYING SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING WITH, AND THEN THEY'RE UPSET THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT THING WITH IT.
UM, I FEEL LIKE AS A BOARD TALKED ABOUT THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, AS FAR AS LIKE, WE'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT OUR, THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR FUNCTIONALITY WITHOUT THAT R-CHOP BUT IF SOMEONE HAD SOME PUSHBACK NOT PERSPECTIVE, UM, SOME NUANCE TO WHAT I JUST SAID, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR ME JUST TO SIT DOWN AND I PRAY WITH ALL OF Y'ALL IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, UH, THE TOTAL ASK ON THIS PROJECT ON A LOT THAT IS 11,643 SQUARE FEET IS 225 SQUARE FEET.
IF YOU TAKE EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING AND COMBINED TOGETHER.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M GOING WITH THE, WITH THE SLOPE.
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S, IT IS FAR AWAY ENOUGH AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO INCREASE THE WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM.
I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM, THE LAKE CONDITION THAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED YET, BUT MELISSA, I SEE YOUR HAND UP.
MY FINDINGS AND SOMEONE'S OPINION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT WAS MY QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD APPLY TO THIS, WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD APPLY TO THIS LAW.
MAYBE I CAN SORT OF THE IDEA THAT IT SHOULDN'T, IN WHICH CASE IT'S AN, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD BE A SLAM DUNK.
MY POINT IS THAT IS THAT I'M SORT OF ROLLING THIS AROUND AND I ACTUALLY AM KIND OF WARMING UP TO THE FACT TO THE IDEA THAT THAT SORT OF THIS STUFF SHOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS LOT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT LIKE AUSTIN ZONING WAS INTENDED FOR.
I JUST WANT EXACTLY NERVOUS ABOUT, I'M JUST VERY NERVOUS ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I MEAN, THE CASE WE JUST SAW EARLIER IS ANOTHER ONE OF THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHERE SOMEBODY DID SUBDIVIDED A LOT PRIOR TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE COMING IN, AND THEY DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO THEM CAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR.
AND SO, ANYWAY, I'LL GET OFF MY SOAP BOX HERE, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU THE QUESTION IS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AND I BOTH AGREED THAT IF THIS WAS ON THE BLUFF, THAT WAS NOT YOUR FINDINGS AND THE SAME THING I SEE BROKEN IN THE BACKGROUND, THE SAME THING BROKEN.
I READ, WE VISITED THESE MANY, MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS CAUSE I'M A BLUFF AND IT HAD A WATERFRONT.
I PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT, BUT IF IT GETS AWAY FROM THE LAKE, A LOT HAS TO DO WITH THE CAT SYSTEM, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT'S BEHIND IT BEING ADRENALINE IS GOING TO GO INTO THE BANK.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR RUNOFF, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO MANAGE THEIR RUNOFF AND HAVE OFFERED TO MANAGE IT, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
NOT IT, NOT TO MAKE A PUN HERE, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS CASE ISN'T THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.
ARE THEY, DO YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP FOR AWHILE? YEAH.
I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO LAST COMMENT ABOUT THE PURCHASING OF THE LAW, BECAUSE THIS COMES UP OFTEN,
[00:50:02]
IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE LOTS OF APPLICANTS THAT COME HERE AND THEY HAVE BOUGHT A LAW THAT HAS ISSUES AND THEY WANT TO GET A VARIANCE.AND I THINK WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT.
AND HE'S COMING TO THIS BOARD.
IF WE, IF THEY KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT.
AND THEY THINK THAT THE ROD HAS A HARDSHIP, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REASON FOR THEM NOT TO ASK BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS TO ADDRESS THESE THINGS.
SO IF THEY HAD A REAL HEART SHIT, TO ME, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING.
AND BEFORE WE GO BACK TO MELISSA AND MELISSA, WE ARE COMING BACK TO YOU.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, I ALSO WOULD HAVE HEARTBURN A LITTLE BIT IF IT WAS FACING ONTO THE LAKE.
UM, I, IT ISN'T, UH, IT'S FACING ONTO A GREENBELT THAT PATIENT OFF TO THE LAKE.
IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE FROM BLAKE ACTUALLY.
UH, THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UH, POOLS ARE NOT UNUSUAL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT DOOR AND COOPER SAY THEY HAVE A POOL.
ALRIGHT, MELISSA, UH, ANY FINAL WORDS BEFORE YOU DO YOUR FINDINGS? NO, I'M JUST, I THINK I MUST BE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OLDER BECAUSE I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THIS PROPERTY BEFORE.
AND I REMEMBER IT BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF A DECK.
CAUSE WE ACTUALLY HEARD A CASE HERE IN 2015 AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND YOUR HOUSE IS ON A LOT THAT'S SLOPED AND THEN YOUR USABLE BACKYARD SQUARE FOOTAGE IS THIS BIG.
AND SO I KIND OF, BECAUSE THE POOL IS ACTUALLY GOING IN AN AREA WHERE THERE AREN'T TREES AND IT IS A GRASSY AREA THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND, YOU KNOW, WITH MY LUCK, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT KIDS PROBABLY IN COLLEGE THAT THEY BUILT A LITTLE PLAYHOUSE FOR.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FINDINGS.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, HAD YOU ACCEPTED OR, OR, UH, ANY OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS, I HAVE ONE CONDITION THAT IS GONNA ATTACH THEIR VARIANCE FOR, UM, RAINWATER COLLECTION.
SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE, UH, WITH THE ADDITIONAL RAINWATER COLLECTION, UH, MOTION BY MELISSA AND A SECOND BY OTHER.
SO IF YOU CAN DO THE FINDINGS WILL THEN DO ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS THIS LOT WAS PLANNED WHEN IT WAS ZONED SF TWO AND THE SLOPE RESTRICTIONS AND THE NET SIDE AREA CALCULATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AT THE TIME THAT THE SUBDIVISION WAS PLANNED AND FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN EXISTING HOME, THE SENDING CAP, CERTAIN OVERLAYING IS VERY RESTRICTIVE AND THIS DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR LA AND IT'S ALREADY, UM, CONSTRUCTED.
AND SO AN ACCESSORY ADDITION, IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO ARCH CHIP.
THE BRILLIANCE IS REQUESTED AS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IS THE HOME SITS ON A HEAVILY SLOPED LOT.
IT HAS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE BACK.
IT IS HEAVILY TREED AND AS PROPERTY WAS PLANNED AT HER SFTS, IT REALLY DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LA ZONING.
AND IT'S FARTHER BACK FROM THE LAKE AND HAS A GREEN BELT AND A, A DRAINAGE WAY THAT THAT WOULD FILTER ANY ADDITIONAL GRAY WATER FROM THE 225 SQUARE FEET, UH, REQUESTED THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL AREA, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AS OTHER HOMES DON'T HAVE THE EXTREME SLOPES RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR BACKYARD AND WITH THE DISTANCE FROM THE LAKE AND THE MAJORITY OF THE SUBDIVISION BEING ZONED SFC.
IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE TO BUILD ANYTHING HERE WITHOUT A VARIANCE AS WE'VE SEEN ALREADY, OR YOUR CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.
JASON, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF JASON POPPING A LOT OF PAIR OF THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
AS MANY HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD THEIR OWN POOL.
UM, IT WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
AND, UH, IT IS BEING DESIGNED TO, TO PUT IN A VERY MINIMAL, I'VE BEEN KIRBY IMPERVIOUS COVER AND RAINWATER COLLECTION WILL BE FIRED FOR THE ADDITIONAL 225 FOOT A SEAT IN THE SYSTEM THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY FOR THE DECK.
THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SIX AND THEN I'M DONE.
[00:55:01]
OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE VOTE? AND AGAIN, THIS WILL TAKE, UH, ELENA MY CORRECT NINE OUT OF THE 11 VOTES TO PASS.THANK YOU, JESSICA COHEN? YES.
THANK YOU, MICHAEL BOTTLE? YES.
YOU'VE GOTTEN YOUR VERY INTERESTING, JUST A MATTER OF HOUSEKEEPING HERE.
WHERE'S THAT? UM, I DO NOT THINK WE DID FINDINGS ON C1.
UM, AND, UH, MICHAEL, WERE YOU INCLUDING THE FINDINGS? THE FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE FINDINGS WILL BE DEFINED IT'S OKAY.
UM, SO, UM, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[C-4 C15-2020-0044 Eduardo Ponce for Scott McElwain 1209 Taylor Street]
THIS IS, UH, C UH, C 15 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO FOUR FOUR.UH, A PONCE, UH, FOR SCOTT, UH, MICK ELWIN.
I HAD, UH, 1209 TAYLOR STREET AND, UH, WE HAVE SOME FULL SHEET, UH, ADJACENT FLYERS TO SPEAK, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE MR. FIRE, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE, I AM AVAILABLE AS LEAVING BEAR MEMBERS.
HE SAYS, JASON FRYER FROM FORESIGHT STUDIO HAS GOTTEN A BAD RAIN, UH, FEBRUARY OF UNITS AND GET THROUGH AS QUICKLY AS HE CAN.
AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON 10TH STREET.
THIS IS A CONDITION IN WHICH YOU SEE YOUR SHADOW FROM THE LIMITED OUTSIDE WITH 57 52 56 47,
AND THAT RAISE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM THAT I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU TODAY.
ONE ITEM THAT I BRING UP TO ALL OF THE ARCHITECTS IS THAT ON ANY DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PRESENT, THEY NEED TO HAVE THE DISCLAIMER REQUIRED BY TBA E SO FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, UM, THAT NEEDS TO ABSOLUTELY MATT.
BUT I HAD WAS, UM, A TWO FAMILY, UM, JONING IS LIMITED TO TWO STORIES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A, A THIRD STORY HERE.
I WAS ATTIC, ESSENTIALLY THAT WE WOULD CONSUME IF IT WAS POPPING, WERE APPROVED.
AND THIS WAS VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE STRETCHERS SEVERAL.
SO THERE'S A HABIT OF SHOWED THAT HABITABLE ATTIC RESTRUCTURE HABITS, WHICH WOULD NOT EXTEND PAST THE FOOTPRINT.
[01:00:01]
WHAT'S THAT, BUT IT'S STILL, DEPENDING ON SATISFYING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.I JUST PERSONALLY, I THINK WITH THE DORMERS AND THE WINDOWS AND THAT THIRD STORY, BECAUSE IN THE THIRD STORY, YOU HAVE THE MASTER BEDROOM, MECHANICAL MASTER BATH, AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE TENANT, I THINK OF BEING IN THE ATTIC, IT'S SORT OF HIDDEN IN THE ATTIC WHERE THIS HAS TO MAKE THE MASSIVE, IS THIS A LITTLE MORE, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE HOUSE.
SO, UM, QUESTION AND THEN A STATEMENT.
UM, WHAT I CONFIRM WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THIS NEW PROPERTY, THIS NEW BUILDING, YOU ARE CALLING THIS THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE, OR CONSIDERING THIS, BECAUSE I SAVED THIS, TRIED TO SAY THIS IN THE NICEST WAY POSSIBLE.
YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE PERMISSION BY RESIDENTIAL REVIEW.
DID YOU HAVE A THREE STORY, THREE LEVEL ADU WITH A HABITABLE ATTIC, IF THE, IF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOT, INCLUDING HER HABITABLE? WELL, TWO THINGS HERE, THE FIRST IS, IS THAT THE DIFFERENT FOR TWO FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, YOUR SECONDARY RESIDENCE IS LIMITED TO TWO STORIES, TWO LEVELS.
THEY DON'T ALLOW THIS SORT OF LEVEL.
IF THE STATIC EXEMPTION IN EVERYTHING I'M SAYING, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS, TRIED EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
UM, THE SECOND IS THAT IF YOU, EVEN IF YOU'RE AT AN EXEMPTION, EXEMPTS YOU FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA AND CALCULATION OF LEADING YOU IT'S SUFFERED SECOND PERIOD RESIDENCE ITSELF.
AND SO, UNLESS YOU ARE IN WHAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO, LET'S SAY THAT YOU GET A VARIANCE FOR HAVING THIS LAW, WHICH IS UNDER 57 50.
LET'S SAY THAT YOU GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT AREA OF YOUR, YOUR, YOUR SECONDARY RESIDENCE IS STILL BY CODE BY THE REGULATION, WHICH, WHICH REGULATES TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
YOU'RE STILL LIVING IN 15% OF LOT AREA.
AND SO, SO I I'M, I'M I'M I GOT TO COME OUT RIGHT OUT AND SAY, THIS IS THAT I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS WISE FOR THIS BOARD TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR, I CAN FOR THIS CONDITION, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED.
UM, I'M NOT A, I'M NOT A FINGER ESSENTIAL REVIEWER, BUT I I'VE DONE ENOUGH OF THIS, THAT I CAN SAY THAT THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROVABLE.
UM, AND I I'M SYMPATHETIC TO I'M COMPLETELY SYMPATHETIC.
I, UM, I'M GOING TO SAY, SAY SOMETHING VERY UNPOPULAR, WHICH IS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON ON A BASIC SENTENCE, WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
HOWEVER, I KNOW THE RULES AND THE RULES ARE SAYING THAT MORE ADU IS GOING TO NEED TO BE NO BIGGER THAN 847 SQUARE FEET NEVER INCLUDED ANY, UM, ANY, UM, IDIOTIC EXEMPTIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A WEIRD SUGGESTION, WHICH IS I'M GOING TO SUGGEST YOU WOULD TALK.
AND I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU, IF YOU WANT TO STILL DO TWO UNITS ON THE SLOT, YOU WOULD RETURN WITH A SCHEME WHERE THIS HOUSE IS CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY FRONT SONG, HOLLY, BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, THERE ARE TIMES I KNOW THIS AREA VERY WELL, AND YES, WE HAVE THESE THREE BLOCKS FROM TAYLOR, HOLLY, AND YES, WE HAVE PLENTY OF RESIDENCES FACING ALL ON THE SAME LOSS POINT IS FACING TAYLOR.
BUT DID YOU CONSIDER YOU EITHER, I GUESS, WITHDRAW, MODIFY
[01:05:01]
YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST TO, TO CONSIDER THE HOUSE FACING TAYLOR AS THE SECOND YEAR OF RESIDENCE, YOU ARE COMMITTED TO DESIGNATE A, AN EXISTING, AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS A SECONDARY RESIDENCE.THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HINGE UPON MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS THE AREA OF THAT EXISTING RESIDENCE.
I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY VERY SMALL.
MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER WHAT IS THE EXISTING HOUSE I'VE ASKED THEM, GIVEN CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO APPROVE WITH VARIANCE? IF WE UNDER THE CONDITION THAT WE, WE MADE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, THE ADL, AND WE BASICALLY MAKE THE NEW STRUCTURE AS THE PRIMARY, I'M GOING TO DEFINE THE YOUNGEST IN TERMS OF MY TIME ON THE BOARD.
I'M ACTUALLY THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THIS BOARD ASSIGNMENT AND FAR TOO SERIOUS COLLEAGUES HERE ABOUT ONLY THAT THERE, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH POLICY AND GOT JUST BEFORE WE GO.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THE ASK LIST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN.
AND I THINK IT'S NOT APPROACHING IT.
THEY WERE SEEING THIS DESIGN BECAUSE I AGREE.
I'M NOT SURE ON THE STUDENTS TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD BLOCK, I THINK IN TERMS OF SIZE.
SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE 57, 50 SQUARE FEET IS REQUIRED AND THEY HAVE A 56 47.
SO THAT'S THE ASK IS, IS BUILD A BOLT WITH TWO, UM, TWO, SO TWO FAMILY, LOT WITH LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I THOUGHT HE SAID THAT HE SAID 1864 ON THE EXISTING, NOT EIGHT 64, WHICH IS CORRECT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO SEE IT? 800, 801,000 SQUARE FOOT.
IT WAS A SAID 1000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE EASILY IS VERY MUCH THE CASE.
THIS PROJECT IS SO FAR IN THERE.
WE'D LIKE TO PUT A PROJECT PROPERTY ON HER, BUT WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY PURPOSELY ON THE PROPERTY TO THE POINT OF BERLIN SECOND STRUCTURE.
AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS YOU MAY WANT TO POSTPONE TO EXPLORE WHETHER YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU NEED.
EVEN THOUGH TO ME, THE VARIANCE, ISN'T A PROBLEM TO ME.
AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT HAS NOTHING REALLY TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'RE ASKING HERE.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A LOT SIZE BEING JUST A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET UNDER, UM, AND ALL THE REST OF IT IS NOT FOR US UNDER OUR PURVIEW.
IT'S NOT WITHIN WHAT LIKING EMOTION OR VOTING ON.
SO I, SOMETHING FOR HER BENEFIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE BECAUSE THE OTHER IS IRRELEVANT TO US, TO BE HONEST AT THIS POINT.
UM, OR IF WE SHOULD POSTPONE FOR HIM TO LOOK AT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ATTACH TO THE VARIOUS THAT ALL, I MEAN, IF HE NEEDED ANOTHER PARENTS YOU'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR HIM.
SO I'M NOT REALLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THE DESIGN AS MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE ADVICE AND WHAT WAS BEING SAID, BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
I AGREE WITH BROOKE, BUT TO ANSWER WILLIAM'S QUESTION IS, UH, WE'VE HAD THESE COME UP IN THE PAST WILLIAM AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
WE USUALLY DON'T JUST GRAB, UM, A VARIANCE, UH, AN OPEN CHECKBOOK, UH, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A VARIANCE WHERE SOMETHING'S ENCROACHING INTO SETBACK OR SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE TOO HIGH LIMITATION, OR IF IT'S PIERCING THE VEIL, WE WANT TO SEE, UM, UH, DESIGNED AND RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS AND THINGS THAT GO WITH IT.
HOWEVER, GOING BACK TO WHAT BROKE ALSO SAID ABOUT THIS, WHICH I THINK IS CORRECT, IS WHAT THEY'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR IS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT SIZE SO THAT THEY CAN DO.
UM, SO THEY CAN, THEY CAN DO BUILD TWO RESIDENCES FOR THEM TO GO, UH, TO, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND ARE WE'VE ALL BEEN THERE AND THEY GET DENIED BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE IT, THAT'S THEIR CALL.
I THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE IS A 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT AREA, A LITTLE BIT OVER THAT A HUNDRED, THREE SQUARE FEET IS IT TO BE EXACT, BUT, UH, THEN WE, UH, AND, UM, I'M
[01:10:01]
OKAY WITH GRANTING THAT, BUT, UH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THEIR BAPTISMAL BY FIRE WHEN THEY GET, GO TO REVIEW AND THEY START GETTING DENIED.WE'RE NOT GRANTING THEM A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE THIRD STORY OR THE ADDICT OR LORD KNOWS WE'VE HAD ATTIC ISSUES.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? MELISSA WILL TELL YOU WE'VE HAD ATTIC ISSUES.
WE'RE NOT GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
WE'RE JUST GRABBING A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT SIZE TO GIVE THEM THAT ADDITIONAL HUNDRED JUICE FOR FEET SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD.
I DON'T CARE IF IT'S AN IGLOO, BUT IF THEY CAN BUILD SOMETHING, AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ON THEIR PROPERTY, HAVING SAID THAT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE JUST THAT.
AND THEN THEY'RE ON THEIR OWN AFTER THAT, MR. CHAIR.
BUT THEN JESSICA HAS A QUESTION SECOND TO THE MOTION.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION AFTER JESSICA, AFTER WHOEVER'S LEFT, I'M HAVING A LITTLE SHUTTLE WITH THE HARDSHIP.
I MEAN, I AM 100% BEHIND 80 YEARS, ESPECIALLY IN MY DISTRICT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND IT'S A SMALL ASS KIND OF CLOSE FOR LIKE A SPECIAL ASK, LIKE, WHY AREN'T WE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE THAT NOBODY ELSE GETS TO GET? UM, I'M MISSING THE HARDSHIP.
SOMEHOW SOMEONE WANT TO HELP WITH THAT.
BUT YEAH, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE ADU AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING ON THE SECOND UNIT.
THAT SECOND UNIT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MARRIOTT, WHAT IT IS, IF THIS DOES HAPPEN A LOT ON THAT SIDE IS THE LOTS.
AREN'T ALWAYS THE PROPER LOT SIZE.
A LOT OF THEM ARE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
A LOT OF THEM ARE LOT SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.
THERE'S A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET SMALLER THAN THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE FOR THEIR ZONING.
AND THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.
THEY HAVE TO DESIGN WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR THREE STORIES, THEY'RE THAT DESIGN.
THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT IT WITH RESIDENTIAL REVIEWS AND IT PROBABLY WON'T FLY.
AND THEN IF THEY WANT SOMETHING ELSE, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO MATCH UP WITH A LOT OF THE SUBSTANDARD, LOTS THAT ARE IN EAST AUSTIN.
IT'S A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OUT OF 57.
I DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT ALL THAT OTHER STUFF ABOUT THE PLAN DESIGNS.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, WHY, WHY SHOULD THEY GET THIS EXTRA A HUNDRED FEET? BECAUSE IT'S COMPLEMENT IN THAT AREA.
AND WE GRANTED PRETTY REGULARLY BECAUSE THESE LOTS WERE PLOTTED SO LONG AGO ALSO WAS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, ZONING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY DRAWINGS ON SOME OF THOSE LOTS IN EAST AUSTIN.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT IS THAT MAKES IT OKAY FOR ME.
IS IT IS SOME OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THESE CHIVERS NEIGHBORHOOD 50 FEET.
THAT'S CORRECT IN THIS LOT IS 46.9.
SO WITH THAT NOT REQUIRED, IT'S ALL GONNA DEPEND BECAUSE THAT WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR, FOR THE LOT SIZES, THE REAR, AND USUALLY WHEN THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTING IT'S FOR THE FRONT, IF THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE.
UM, SO WHEN THEY ASKED FOR A VARIANCE, WHEN THERE'S A VACANT LOT, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE WIDTH BECAUSE IT'S NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO THIS IS AN EXISTING NONCOMPLIANT LOT RIGHT NOW.
CAUSE IT WAS BUILT AS IS WHENEVER IT WAS.
SO, WHICH DEVELOP A ROLE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LESS THAN THE FIFTH, THAT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY RESIDENTIAL REVIEW WHEN THEY GET UP THERE, BECAUSE IT LOOKS FROM THE PROPOSAL THEY SENT.
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SETBACK AVERAGING OFF OF HOLLY STREET.
AND HOLLY IS NOT THE FRONT TAYLOR IS, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE HOLLY THE FRONT AT THAT POINT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE WINNER.
MY SHOW, YOUR HAND BACK UP, MELISSA.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE THREE LOT BECAUSE THE ACTUAL EXHIBIT SHOWS A 15 FOOT SETBACK AND I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT I DON'T KNOW EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, EVEN THOUGH I DO KNOW THAT, BUT SMALL ODD AMNESTY IS PART OF THIS PLAN THAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE THREE LOT AND 25 FOOT SETBACK ON EACH SIDE.
I'M SORRY, WAS THAT
[01:15:01]
SETBACK IS GOING TO BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL.SANDY WAS THAT WE WERE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP THAT UP WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING AROUND THROUGH THAT AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE TOTAL THAT WE HAVE,
UH, SO, UH, I'M, I'M CONVINCED THAT AGAIN, I, I DEF DEFERRED TO, UH, TO MORE EXPERIENCED COLLEAGUES.
AND SO WHEN IT COMES AGAIN, I CAN CERTAINLY SUPPORT ASKING FOR TWO FAMILY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY, INSTITUTE'S YOUR FAMILY HERE.
UM, HOWEVER, I WAS GOING TO EVER, I'M GOING TO BEGIN, I'M GOING TO, I GUESS THIS IS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT YOU WILL HAVE TO.
IT'S ALL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LEGAL, I GUESS IT'S A NONCOMPLIANT ROCK CONDITIONS BEFORE WAS ZONING, SO IT'S LESS THAN 50 FEET.
UM, BUT, UM, IF, UH, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT THE INTENDED USE OF THIS IS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET THE 854 SQUARE FEET ON THAT, UM, YOU WOULD BE WELL ADVISED LATER ON, WELL ADVISED TO MOVE THE FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE LOT TO HOLLY STREET AND TAKE FROM EXPERIENCE AND NOT TRYING TO SPEAK OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF BOARD HERE.
BUT RATHER TO SAY THAT THERE IS, IF ANYONE YOU COULD ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO HAVE THE, THEY HAVE THE SECOND YEAR UNIT IN THE FRONT, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE AREA IN THE BACK.
SO I WILL SUPPORT I'LL SUPPORT VARIOUS, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS CONDITION HAPPENS ELSEWHERE AND I'M A BIG BELIEVER THAT IT AND OTHER PEOPLE GET IT AND YOU SHOULD GET IT TOO, BUT JUST TO BE MORE WARRANTS, IT'S FREE ADVICE.
MA'AM, I'M JUST WANTING TO CIRCLE BACK AROUND, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION ABOUT HARDSHIP, BECAUSE FROM THAT QUESTION, ALL I'VE HEARD IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS OTHER PEOPLE.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE, BUT WHERE MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT MAYBE WE CAN SLOW DOWN THAT PART.
SO WE CAN REALLY ARTICULATE THE HARDSHIP BECAUSE ALL I'M HEARING GETS BETTER.
SO CAN SOMEONE OR JESSICA, DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? SO THAT'S TECHNICALLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS IF I CAUGHT THAT CORRECTLY, RIGHT.
I, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, JESSICA.
AND, AND, AND THAT, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO FEET OF WIDTH ON THIS, UH, ON THE WHOLE LOT.
UM, AND THAT THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARE TRYING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS ONE ON A TECHNICALITY TO, TO A LARGE EXTENT IS SHORT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UH, BUT THE INTENT OF, OF WHAT, UH, THE COUNCIL IS TRYING TO DO TO HAVE MORE DENSITY IN THE CENTRAL CITY, BY BEING ABLE TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT A LOT THAT WE'RE VERY CLOSE HERE, GO AHEAD AND JUST LOOK THIS UP IN THE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A CODE MEXICANO OR CODE NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, OR WHATEVER.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN COME BEFORE US.
SO THERE IS THAT TO THINK ABOUT, I WILL SAY THAT WE ONLY HAVE THE CODE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND, AND SO UNTIL THAT'S THE THING, ANOTHER CAUTIONARY WORD THAT I WOULD GIVE TO THE DEVELOPER OR TO THE ARCHITECT HERE IS YOUR PREVIOUS COVERAGE, 44.7%.
UH, SO, UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND HIGHLY THAT YOU, UH, WHEN YOU SELL THIS OR, OR DEVELOP THIS, THAT YOU GIVE THE OWNERS SOMETHING THAT SAYS, BY THE WAY, YOU CAN'T PUT A PAVER DOWN, YOU CAN'T PUT UP TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT PAVER DOWN WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CODE.
I'M TIRED OF SEEING THESE PROJECTS MAXED OUT AND THE, UH, HOMEOWNER OR NEW TENANTS
[01:20:01]
THINKS THEY CAN DO THINGS WITH THEIR LAW.UM, AND I THINK THAT'S DISSERVICE TO THE PEOPLE WHO END UP, UM, THAT HAPPENED IN THESE, UH, THESE PROPERTIES.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER, I JUST, I, AND I, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK REALLY QUICKLY, UH, TO, UH, UH, TO COMMISSIONER SMITH TO YOUR, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S THE DATA AND ALSO TO FINISH YOUR COMMENT C FOR PAGE NINE, C FOUR NINE, AND THE OTHER PRESENTATION SHOWS THAT, UH, SEVEN OF THE PROPERTIES ON THIS STREET HAVE THIS CONDITION.
AND SO IS IT A HARDSHIP THAT YOU DON'T GET? WHAT ARE, WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE I CAN SEE WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE? I THINK THE FLIP SIDE IS, IS THAT, IT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR MUSIC CLEARLY IS A CONDITION THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
AND IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT LIKE TO ME, IT'S LIKE THE CONDITION WE SPOKE UP IN THE LAST, IN THE LAST CASE, UH, NOT FOR THE ZONING, THEN WE, THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE.
SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS ALL I WANT TO SAY.
THERE ARE STILL A LOT ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY.
SO MELISSA, I SAW YOUR HAND, ONE THING TO ADD, SORRY, I'M HAVING A LOT OF BUFFERING ISSUES.
SO I DON'T, CAN'T TELL WHEN YOU CAN HEAR ME WORKING HIM.
SO REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE ACTUAL DENSITY AND WANTING TO PUT A 0.4 FIR ON IT, THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING PARTICULARLY WITH THE SMALL, ODD, AND MISTY AND FDR CALCULATIONS.
YOU COULD ALWAYS GET 2,400 SQUARE FEET IF YOU WANT IT TO BE IN PROPORTION WITH A LOT.
IT IS A CONSIDERATION THAT YOU COULD PUT, PUT RABBITS IN THE ACTUAL CALCULATION OF WHAT IS 0.4.
I WOULD AGREE WITH WILLIAM THAT ON THE STREET, THERE ARE, THERE ARE UNITS ON BOTH SIDES.
AND I DO THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE THIRD LOT SETBACK ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS ABOUT THE 25.
SO MELISSA, ARE YOU WANTING TO ADD THE 0.4? I'LL LEAVE THEM TO THE MOTION MAKER.
I JUST PUT IT ON A THOUGHT, HAVE YOU DOWN LIKE APOLOGIZE? YES.
SO AM I MY LIKE THIS CONVERSATION ISN'T IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY ELSE HAS IT.
I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE, FROM LIKE IN MY FUTURE DECISION MAKING, RIGHT? BECAUSE HE HAS A BOARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR COMMISSIONER PRUITT ON THIS TOPIC ARE BEAR.
SOME OF US ARE VERY ADAMANT ABOUT THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO GET A VARIANCE.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T HEAR THAT ARTICULATED.
SO MAYBE IT'S WHEN THERE'S AN AMNESTY CALLS, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING NEW, RIGHT.
MAYBE WHEN AMNESTY IS BOUGHT IN THERE, THAT DIDN'T THE HARDSHIP ARTICULATED IN THE HISTORICAL WAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THAT TRIGGER HAPPENED, BUT WHEN THAT SWITCH HAPPENED, CAN YOU JUST SAY
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF, BUT THEN I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO I DON'T PLAY ONE ON TV, BUT YOU SAID IT PERFECTLY, IT, IT WE'VE DONE IT, UH, UH, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S OUTLANDISH AND WAY OUT THERE, AND THEN NORMALLY THE FAR ISSUE, AND I'M GOING TO DEFER TO, UH, MY SECOND MAKER HERE, IF SHE WANTS TO INCORPORATE THAT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
THAT'S, IT'S BEEN HISTORICALLY ARTICULATED THAT WAY.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, SO A LOT OF TIMES KNOW, UNDERSTANDING YOUR CONCERN.
A LOT OF TIMES WHEN SOMEONE ACTUALLY READS THE FINDINGS, THE READING OF THE FINDINGS ACTUALLY BRINGS A BOX.
ACTUAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD, READ THE FINDINGS.
ARE WE GOING TO ADD THE POINT FOR HER CONDITION?
[01:25:02]
I'M OPEN TO IT.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY EXCEPTED.
I MEAN, THERE'S THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
ARE YOU SAYING FOR FAR FOR BOTH STRUCTURES OR JUST THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WHOLE LOT, BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SMALLER BLOCK.
SO A SMALLER FIR IS APPROPRIATE TO GET SOME GREEN SPACE AROUND THOSE STRUCTURES.
WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON? THE REASON WE USE IS ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE HE SEES ASSESSOR JOB PLANNING, PLAN, OUTLINED OBJECTIVES TO INCLUDE PRESERVING HOME OWNERSHIP, PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MAINTAINING AN INCREASING NUMBER OF HOMEOWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS, 5,750 SQUARE FEET.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE IN THE PROPERTY THAT THE SF THREE LABS PRIZE IS NOT SF THREE LOT SIZE, LESS THAN LAP MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR TWO FAMILY.
RESIDENTIAL PREVENTS THE LOT FROM MEETING SOME OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MAJORITY OF LOTS TO THIS AREA, MAJORITY OF LOTS IN THIS AREA ARE NOT TRUE.
LOTS, A LOT PRESENTS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMES, THE STREET FRONTAGE AREA CHARACTER, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE ADJACENT LOTS.
AND MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO CLOSE THAT WITH, UH, JUST A LITTLE WORD OF CAUTION TO THE APPLICANT I'VE BEEN ON HERE A LONG TIME.
AND I REMEMBER QUITE A BIT, AND I STILL GOT A BLOT OF THESE IN THE BAG.
VERY, VERY HARD PRESSED TO PUSH ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT AND WITHIN WHAT WE'VE GIVEN HIM, BECAUSE IT'S UNUSUAL.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE FINDINGS, YOU, ONE OF THE FINDINGS WHERE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO FIND RELATES TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, BUT THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD SO FAR IS THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE LOT SIZE AND THAT'S IT.
SO I'M WONDERING IF IT'S EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR US TO HAVE THE FINDING THAT RELATES TO ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AT ALL, WHERE WE CAN, UH, PUT, UH, UH, ADDITIONAL LAND USE, UH, LIMITATIONS ON THERE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE, IF I MAY LET ME, LET ME MAKE AN AMENDMENT, HOPEFULLY THIS WILL MAKE YOU FEEL ALL RIGHT, DARYL, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 5,007, 50 SQUARE FEET RESTRICTS THE INCREASE OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA.
THE EXISTING LOT SIZE IS 5,647 SQUARE FEET JUST SHORT BY 103 SQUARE FEET OF MEETING.
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS VERY WELL PERTAIN STRICTLY TO THE 103 SQUARE FEET TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER QUESTION.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO BE IN THE RECORD, ELAINE.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER QUESTION, NO, WE CAN'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT BLOW DOWN THE LAW.
WE CAN JUST SAY, OKAY, YOU GOT A HUNDRED, THREE SQUARE FEET THAT YOU ASKED FOR.
UH, AN FAR THAT'S BEEN SET NOW YOU MAKE IT WORK.
UH, ANY MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE THE ROLL? OKAY.
AND GOT A WELCOME AND THANK YOU TO DON LAKE BURWELL.
WELL MCDANIEL, DID WE LOSE ROOM? OKAY.
ROME IS OFF THE DIOCESE RIGHT NOW.
NOW, GIVEN THE FAR LIMITATIONS I'M IN FAVOR.
[01:30:01]
ALRIGHT.SO, UH, YOU'RE A VERY, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED, UH, WITH THE CONDITION OF, UM, CAN WAIT FOR FAR CAP.
[C-5 C15-2020-0048 James Flowers for Emelie Henzel 4700 Milburn Lane]
SO MOVING ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM FOR TONIGHT, UH, OR OUR FINAL CASE, I SHOULD SAYUH, AND THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS DESCRIBED IN OUR AGENDA AND THE APPLICANT, UH, THAT WE HAVE, OR THE PERSON SPEAKING IS ARE MS. FLOWERS AT, UH, OR JOHN FLOWERS, SORRY, AS A PRIMARY SPEAKER AND EMILY IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
HELLO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BUT EVEN MRS. JOHN FLOWERS, I'VE MENTIONED THEM, THE APPLICANT FOR EQUITY 700 MOBILE AND LANE, UH, CLIENT EMILY FLOWERS, WHO IS MY LIFE, AND IT'S ON CALL AS WELL.
UM, SO, UH, WE WERE APPLYING FOR A BILLION TO POTENTIAL USE SPECIFICALLY AT THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT THAT A SECONDARY OR AN ADU, UH, FOR A COPY, LIKE RSP, AT LEAST 10 FEET TO THE REAR OR SIDE OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ALLOW THAT, TO, UH, BE AMENDED, TO ALLOW US TO BILL WILL BE ADDED TO PROBATE.
AND THE SPECIFIC INTENDED BED DAYS WOULD BE TO ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE ON THE WATT, WHICH IS A SMALL 800 SQUARE FOOT BUNGALOW.
AND TO CONVERT TO THE, UH, ADU WHILE BUILDING A NEW PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHICH HAS A LARGE OPEN SPACE.
UM, SO LOOKING AT, UH, PATRIOTIC SIDE OF THE PRESENTATION IS BASICALLY PROPOSED YOUR CANDIDATE FIVE PLUS SEVEN, HAVE FULL DETAILS YET, BECAUSE THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE CONDITIONAL ON THE VARIOUS, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT SHOWS THE CURRENT ONE STORY HOUSE IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND THE, UH, THE, UH, TENTATIVE RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE REAR, UM, PRI FIVE SHOWS AN AERIAL VIEW, JUST HIGHLIGHTING THE OPEN AREA TO THE REAR.
THAT'S MORE THAN WHAT, MORE THAN LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT THERE.
FIVE, SIX SHOWED A COUPLE OF BASIC PICTURES SHOWING THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND THE REAR OF THE LOT.
SO MOVING ON TO SLIDE SEVEN, THE PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS VARIANCE, THAT THE HARDSHIP IS THAT PROTECT THE TREES IN THE SLOT.
THERE'S LARGE PROTECTED TREES, MISS ROTTEN, SPECIFICALLY TWO OF THEM LOCATED NEAR THE FRONT OF THE LOT ARE THE PRIMARY REASONS WE'RE APPLYING FOR US.
UM, SO TO CHOOSE AT THE FRONT CONNER ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURE, UM, AND ESPECIALLY THE SCIFEST, THEY HAVE VERY LARGE, UH, PROTECTED, BUT ALMOST ENTIRELY COVERED THE, UM, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CURRENT HOUSE.
UM, SO THOSE TWO TREES, UM, ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING OFF A LARGE PORTION OF THE FUND A LOT.
UM, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO USE THE REST OF THE LOT FOR, UM, AND BASICALLY ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES OUR INTENDED BEARING TO PUTTING THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN, UM, AND UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD THE ADU IN THE REAR, WHICH WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
UM, SINCE WE WANT TO USE THIS AS A LONGTERM FAMILY HOME, UM, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT PRIMARY HOUSE IN THE BACK.
UM, THE SECOND, UH, YOU KNOW, SMALLER JUSTIFICATION FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER, ALLOWING US TO PUT THE LITTLE BIT HOME FROM THE 1948 AND LEAVE IT IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
UM, WE THINK WE'RE FITTING BETTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND PUT THE IN WITH THE LARGER HOME KIND OF HIT MORE TOWARDS THE BACK OF A LOT, UM, ON SLIDE NINE AND 10, I HAVE PICTURES SHOWING BOTH THE TREES, UH, NINE SHOWS, THAT'S CONDOM CYPRESS ON THE WEST, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES THAT BOTH VERY CLOSE TO THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT HOUSE AND THE PLAN DOES A GOOD JOB OF SHOWING JUST HOW BIG THOSE TOWNS REALLY ARE.
UM, AND, UH, YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED TO COVER WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY.
UM, AND I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
YEAH, I, UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS CAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOME SUCCESSFUL, SOME NOT.
UM, SO I'M ASKING HIM THESE STORIES.
IS, ARE YOU PLANNING FOR YOUR NEW PRIMARY RESIDENCE TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE? UM, AT THIS TIME YOU'RE PLANNING FOR TWO STORIES.
AND SQUARE FOOTAGE WE'RE PLANNING FOR ABOUT 2,500.
MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THE TWO STORY IS YOU ARE NOW LOOMING OVER YOUR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD.
[01:35:02]
UM, AND THEY'VE LOST OUR PRIVACY IF THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR PRIMARY.SO I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN WITH THE TWO STORY BACKLOG.
THEY UNDERSTAND KEEPING THAT NEIGHBOR CHARACTER, LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE DONE IT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME HAS BEEN NICELY DONE, AND THE PRIMARY IS IN THE BACK TO KEEP THE LITTLE HOUSE IN THE FRONT.
BUT SAM HAS BEEN THIS BIG TWO STORY HOUSE IN THE BACKYARD THAT THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE APOLOGIES OUT OF MY BAG.
UM, SO, UM, YEAH, I, I HEAR THAT, UM, I ACTUALLY DID GET SUPPORT FROM MY NEIGHBORS FOR THEIR SPECIFIC BINS.
UM, AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT ON THIS SPECIFIC LOT, I'LL BOTH OF MY NEIGHBORS TO EITHER SIDE HAVE A LARGE TWO STORY HOMES THAT ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE LOT ALREADY.
UM, SO THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A BACKYARD AT ALL.
THEY HAVE A TWO STORY, UM, EITHER ADU OR PRIMARY HOUSE ALREADY BACK THERE.
UM, AND NAVY ON THE RIGHT HAS A LARGE, LARGE TWO-STORY DUPLEX THAT TAKES UP THE MAJORITY OF THEIR LOT.
SO, UM, I THINK, I THINK I DID, YOU KNOW, UH, SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO A COUNTER A DIFFERENT SITUATION, BUT I THINK FOR OURS, UM, IT WAS LESS OF A CONCERN FOR THAT.
UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY, UM, YOU HAVE TO DO OKAY, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BAILEY, TO YOUR POINT, MANY OF THE 80 YEARS ARE SECONDARY RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA ARE ALSO TWO STORIES.
UM, MY QUESTION FOR YOU ARE RATHER THAN MY STATE OR JUST MY STATE, THIS IS, THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE, WHO KNOWS IF IT WILL EVER HAPPEN.
UM, WE'LL SET TO ADDRESS WITH THE PRESERVATION.
UM, AGAIN, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE, I HOLD ALL THESE SPORTS, PARTICULARLY SMALL, DO IT.
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT, UM, I THINK THAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY AND MAY OR MAY NOT SEE, UH, SOME REQUESTS FOR SOME CONDITIONS THAT RELATE TO WHAT IT IS YOU PLAN TO DO IN, UM, I'M NOT SUGGESTING, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UH, OTHER, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE APPROVAL, THAT'S IT MUCH LESS THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT NONE OF THEM ARE 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
YOU, YOU, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TWO STORY.
THAT'S THIS THING THAT HAS A SECOND FLOOR FOOTPRINT LIMITATION OF FIVE 52, ESSENTIALLY REMOVING THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE TO THE BACK OR THE FRONT OR THE FRONT PROPERTY, THE SMALLER OF THE TWO DWELLINGS.
IS THAT GOING TO BE USED AS A PRESTIGE? THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE FTR ARE INTENDED TO USE IT AS A FAMILY GUEST HOUSE.
WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FAMILY TO LIVE OUT OF TOWN, BUT IT'S QUITE OFTEN, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE KIND OF A PLACE TO STAY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY STAY FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME.
UM, I WOULD ADD TO THAT AS WELL.
THE CURRENT HOUSE FALLS UNDER SQUARE FEET AT THE SINGLE STORY RATIOS OR ANYTHING.
SO OBVIOUSLY TO MEET EVERY DAY, EVERY OTHER PART OF THE CODE FOR THIS PROPERTY, WE'RE THE PINAL, UM, PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK INSTEAD OF UNNECESSARILY DEMOLISHING THE FRONT STRUCTURE AND KIND OF REDOING THE WHOLE LOT.
UH, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
IF WE DIDN'T CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND THAT, UM, IS THERE, UH, IS THERE A MOTION, UH, WILLIAM, GO AHEAD.
IT SOUNDED LIKE HE WAS ABOUT TO MAKE THE MOTION.
[01:40:01]
AM MORE CLEAR NOW.SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND BY WRONG.
UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, ARE WE READY TO VOTE THEN? IS THAT WHAT I'M SEEING ALREADY TIME? LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE, UM, I'M HAVING A LITTLE TECH ISSUE ON MY END.
I AM NOT ABLE TO SEE THE, SEE THE PRESENTATION, SEEN THE APPLICATION ON MY END.
I'VE LOST ACCESS TO THE CITY'S SITE.
THERE'S EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WAS ABOUT TO ASK THE SAME THING.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM HERE.
IT CANNOT ACTUALLY SEE THE ITEM OR THE PRESENTATIONS THAT ARE RESIDENT AT THE CITY YET, MELISSA.
SO I CAN GET THE PRESENTATIONS OPEN, BUT I HAVE TO OPEN THE FINDINGS OPEN.
YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO OPEN THE FINDINGS ON MY END.
WILLIAM, ARE YOU, UH, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE FINE WITH THE FINDINGS THAT WERE IN THE APPLICATION THAT SAYS MELISSA COULD PROBABLY READ THOSE OFF FOR THE RECORD AND THEN I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE FINDINGS.
SO CAN WE MOVE THIS OR CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND READ THOSE FINDINGS TO US? ZONING REGULATIONS, APICAL PROPERTY DINNER ALLOW FOR REASONABLY RECESS.
THERE ARE TWO LARGE PROTECTED TREES NEAR THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE LOT, MAKING IT EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ANY NEW STRUCTURES OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIZE OF THE CRITICAL ROOTS OF THE TREES.
A LOT ZONING ALLOWS FOR A PRIMARY HOME AND ACCESSORY HOME.
AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SMALL ENOUGH TO FALL INTO OUR ACCESSORY, GLOWING IT RULES, EXCEPT FOR THE PORTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT, THAT IT HAS TO BE TO THE REAR AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN JUST SAID IT HAS TO BE THE REAR.
SO THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE LOCATION THAT YOU'VE ARE SHADES TOWARDS THE PARKING LOT AND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
IN ADDITION TO THE OWNER'S CHOICE TO BUILD THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AT THE SPLIT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AT THE FRONT OF LINE MAKES THIS HARDSHIP.
WE NEED TO THIS LOT, AS OTHER OWNERS IN THE AREA, DO NOT HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF SIDES OF TRACE ON THEIR LOTS, ESPECIALLY THE CAPE IN THE SAME RESPECT, THE BARRIERS, THE OTHER LINES, THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERALLY PROPERTIES LOCATED.
THE PROPERTY IS THE ONLY ONE AREA THAT IS FLANKED BY ON BOTH SIDES BY PROTECTED TREES.
ALL OTHER LOTS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES HAVE NO PROTECTED TREES OR HAVE A SINGLE TREE ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER ALLOWING PLAN CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE EXISTING TREES TO PROTECT THEM ABOUT TOMORROW EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT YOU CHOOSE ON THIS PROPERTY BLANKING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS THE OPTION FOR UTILIZING THIS LAW CHARACTER.
THE BOOTS WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER, THAT AREA JASON, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIRED USE OF ADJACENT CONFIRMING PROPERTY PAIR.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IS ONLY GRANT'S REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE SWAP AT THE STANDARD LOCATION FOR PRIMARY AND SECOND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY.
IF THE, THIS IS PRE, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE BUILT IN THE 1930S WILL REMAIN AS IS AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND WILL BECOME THE ADU.
AND A NEW, LARGER STRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT AT THE BACK OF THE LOT TO SERVE AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
THIS WILL ACTUALLY PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA BECAUSE THE OLDER, MORE TRADITIONAL HAND WILL CONTINUE TO STAND AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL EXISTING TREES, BUT PROTECTED AND NON-PROTECTED WILL BE MAINTAINED WHERE THEY ARE WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DAMAGE.
DID YOU CHECK THE ONE THING I'D LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE CANNOT BE CHANGED? THAT IS CORRECT.
WELL, WE CAN DO THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IF THAT CANNOT BE INCREASED, WHAT WOULD YOU BE? OKAY.
I GUESS WITH THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER BAILEY THAT SAY THAT THE FOOTPRINT COULD NOT BE INCREASED, ALLOWS THEM TO REDUCE IT, UM,
[01:45:01]
RIGHT, RIGHT.GET THE FOOTPRINT CAN'T BE INCREASED.
I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE ALLOWED TO COME IN WHEN YOU DO IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY TO PERHAPS SAY THAT IT HAS TO MEET THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SIZE CANNOT BE INCREASED TO AN EXTENT THAT CANNOT BE AN INCREASE TO AN EXTENT BEYOND THAT, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY TWO FAMILY, THE RULES FOR TWO, TWO FAMILY DEVELOPED.
WELL, MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THE WHOLE ARGUMENT FOR HAVING A HOUSE IN THE BACK IS MAINTAINING THIS LITTLE HISTORIC HOME.
RIGHT? SO I'D LIKE THEM TO MAINTAIN THAT LITTLE HISTORIC HOME AND NOT ADD ON DECK ON THE BACK OR HAVE SOME KIND OF, I MEAN, TO SAY, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO TOUCH IT.
IT'S A LITTLE MUCH TO SAY AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE CRITERIA AND IT'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND I DON'T FEEL THAT THE LIMIT, THE LIMITATION OF KNOWING INCREASE OR DON'T TOUCH.
I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE WE COULD SAY THAT THE GROSS FLOOR AREA, BECAUSE IF THEY BUILT IT, AS YOU SAID, A CONDITIONAL OFFER, IF THEY BUILT A JACK OR A COVERED PORCH OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT WOULD NOT ADD TO THE GROSS FOR AIRBNB, PEOPLE CAN SAY THAT THE FIRST FLOOR AREA, THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL, JUST TO BECOME A SECONDARY RESIDENCE OR THE GROSS, THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE SHALL NOT INCREASE WITH THAT TO ME.
NO INCREASE IN GROSS FLOOR AREA.
THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO THE MOTION MAKER.
HOW ABOUT AGREEABLE? AND I, I ACTUALLY, UH, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE TWO THINGS.
MY FIRST REQUEST IS THAT THE RAMIREZ CHILDREN STAY ON CAMERA AT ALL TIMES, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE CUTE AND THEY MAKE THIS WHOLE EXERCISE MORE FUN.
UH, THE SECOND, THE SECOND ONE WAS, UH, WITH THE MOTION MAKER, HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING THE BIT FROM THE APPLICATION ABOUT THE RETENTION OF THE HEAD.
ONE OF THE FINDINGS WAS THAT THE, WAS THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOT, UH, WAS NOT, UM, UH, DAMAGED, I SUPPOSE, BECAUSE THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS RETAINED AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S REALLY, WHAT IS, UH, WHAT MAKES THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD I CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD HAVE PUT THAT IN THE PHONE NOW THAT OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT SAID THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY HAD THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S GERMANE TO THE CASE.
AND I THINK HE'S OKAY WITH IT.
I JUST ASSUMED REMOVE IT FROM THE FINDINGS.
ALRIGHT, JESSICA, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND.
I PREFER SINCE THEN, BUT THEY'VE OFFERED IT AS PART OF THAT.
THEY'RE OFFERING IT, THE CONDITION FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THAT FRONT UNIT TO MAINTAIN ITS CURRENT CHARACTER.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT SPRINGDALE AREA.
TRY TO KEEP IT FROM LOOKING OVERLY MODERNIZED STUDY.
I, I, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLY ANTI DEVELOPER DOES THAT MAKES SENSE? IT'S A BEAUTIFUL LITTLE STRUCTURE LIKE THIS.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL TELL YOU.
AND HONESTLY, LIKE I SAID, I CAN SPARK EMOTION ABOUT IT.
I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO A PLACE IN THIS CITY WHERE WE ACT LIKE RETAINING AN EXISTING BUILDING, PREVENTS GENTRIFICATION.
AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT FACADE ANYMORE.
I I'M SAYING LIKE, IF WE'RE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING BUILDING, I THINK THAT'S GOOD PROBABLY, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING DISPLACED IS BEING RETAINED.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A TWO YEAR ZONING THERE.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO CREATE, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S OKAY.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S RETAINING THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF IT, BUT LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT PEOPLE AREN'T BEING PUSHED OUT OF SPRINGDALE BECAUSE WE KEPT THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THE BLOCK.
THIS LITTLE COLLEGE TOWN WENT AWAY WHEN THEY MADE SLACKERS.
LIKE, I GUESS THAT SHIP HAS SAILED, BUT IF OTHER PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME, THAT'S FINE.
[01:50:01]
I ACTUALLY BROKE.AND THEN MELISSA, I HAVE TO STRONGLY DISAGREE BECAUSE PEOPLE BUY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
A LOT OF TIMES FOR THE CHARACTER I'M IN A STRONGLY GENTRIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE OTHER REASONS I BOUGHT MY HOUSE WAS FOR THE CHARACTER OF IT OR NOT THE SAME THING.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE REASON I BUILT IN ADDING TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS MY WHOLE STREET WAS THE SAME WAY.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT HOW IT IS TODAY.
BUT TO SAY THAT PEOPLE, IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO TO DEPRECATION, NO, I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AND THE FEEL OF WHEN THEY WALKED DOWN THE STREET, AS FAR AS THE RESIDENTIAL FABRIC, MELISSA.
SO KEEPING A STRUCTURE FOR, TO TEAR DOWN A STRUCTURE, TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE.
THE SAME SIZE BEHIND IS KIND OF GRACEFUL AND BEING THAT THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES ON EITHER SIDE THAT ARE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE LOT, THAT HER BOTH TWO STORIES COULD JUST TEAR DOWN A HOUSE WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXISTING STREETSCAPE IS IT'S KIND OF SILLY.
I MEAN, I CAN SEE WHY HE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
AND I DO THINK IT LENDS TO THE FABRIC OF THE VARIANCE THAT HE'S KEEPING THE STRUCTURE.
AND I THINK AS LONG AS KEEPING THE STRUCTURE KEEPS TO THE ADU, SO AP YOU SIZE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S AN ADDITION OR NOT.
I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY DARN CLOSE YOU.
AND I GREW UP SAYING THE REASON WHY AS THE PERSON ON THE SECOND, I KNOW THAT, BUT YOU GOT TO TALK.
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO INTERRUPT ME? WELL, BECAUSE WHEN I WAS TALKING TO WITHDRAW THE SECOND CONVERSATION, THE REASON WHY, THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT THIS UP IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE ARE USING AS PHENIX AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR CHARACTER.
AND I THINK THAT'S A, AND I THINK IT'S TURNED INTO A, I THINK IT'S TURNED INTO A, GET OUT OF JAIL, FREE CARD FOR GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT IN OUR CITY.
SO I, LIKE I SAID, I CAN LIVE WITH THE MOTION OR THAT I CAN LIVE THE MOTION WITHOUT THE FINE, BUT I WILL WITHDRAW MY SECOND.
SO I MEAN THE 80 SIZES, LIKE 13 OR 14 SQUARE FEET DIFFERENCE.
SO TO PICK THE LIMITATION THAT IT HAPPENS TO MEET THE ADU SIZE AND IT BALANCES THE LOT.
DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IF YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND.
I'M GLAD TO SECOND THE MOTION.
SO WE HAD A MOTION ALREADY THAT, UH, IS, UH, TO ALLOW TO APPROVE, UH, WITH NO INCREASE IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE FOOT UNIT.
AND, AND THAT'S THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE.
ARE WE SAYING THAT WE'RE AMENDING THAT MOTION, THE BODY OF THE MOTION, IT'S THE FINDING, BUT LISTEN, IF THE, IF THE FINDING STAMPS YOU GOT A SECOND, I COULD DROP MY SECOND.
IT SOUNDS LIKE MELISSA'S COMING IN PLACE AND THAT'S FINE.
SO I SAID, I'M NOT ATTACHED TO IT.
I'M JUST SAYING NOBODY ASKS ELSE TO GET TO THE FINDING.
THEY'RE NOT PERSONAL TO ME IF YOU WANT, IF THEY WANT TO BE STRICKEN THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND CAN DO THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE LIMITATION ON THE 80, YOU KEEP THE STRUCTURE WAS PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE MOTION THAT OTHERS AGREED TO.
AS, AS, AS THE MOTION MAKER, I DO WANT TO RETAIN THAT JURY TO ATTAIN THE, UH, THE FINDING REGARDING THE CHARACTER.
SO FOR THAT REASON, THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINDING EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THE CHARACTERS RETAINED BECAUSE THE EXISTING DWELLINGS, I SIGNED IT.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND WITH AS, OKAY.
WE HAVE A SECOND WITH MELISSA, UM, AND, UM, IN WRONG, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARITY ON THIS.
UM, JESSICA, I SAW YOUR HAND UP AND I SAW YOUR HAND UP.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT WE STILL NEED TO HAVE RESPONSE AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES LITERALLY IN A CIRCLE THAT IS BEING REPLACED WITH HOMES THAT ARE NOT WHAT I INTENDED TO MOVE IN NEXT TO, BUT FOR ME CHARACTERS, IS IT? YES, IT IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AESTHETICS.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT, IF, IF I MAKE IT JUST
[01:55:01]
A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND WIPE OUT A HOUSE, SO MY NEIGHBORHOOD I'M GOING TO DO IT.THAT'S HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE EVERY TIME.
UH, VERONICA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU NOW FINDINGS ARE BACK UP? SO AT LEAST I WAS ABLE TO GET INTO ME.
YEAH, IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE CAN JUST COME BACK AND FORTH.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE GOT ELAINE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING SOME UPDATE OR SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR MEETING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY A, UH, COMMISSIONER HODGE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER POSSIBLE, UH, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN GROSS, UH, FOR THE, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE.
LIKE I SAID, THIS IS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINDINGS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING AFTER WE VOTE THOUGH, BUT YES, MICHAEL? YES.
UH, SO YOU'D GOTTEN YOUR VARIANCE WITH THAT CONDITION.
SO I THINK WHAT JUST HAPPENED WAS REALLY INTERESTING.
UM, ESPECIALLY AS A BORN AND RAISED AUSTINITE FROM A HISTORICALLY DISENFRANCHISED COULD BE DEED THAT IS OFTEN DISPLACED.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BEHOOVE US AS A GROUP TO REALLY SIT DOWN AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS CHARACTER MEANS.
WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING IF THE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT TRIPS US UP AND WE HAVE, AND THERE, AND A LOT OF, I WOULD SAY EMOTION IS ATTACHED TO IT.
VALID EMOTION IS ATTACHED TO IT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD EXERCISE FOR US TO ACTUALLY WALK THROUGH WHAT WE DO WITH, WHAT DOES THE HARDSHIP MEAN WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT CHARACTER? UM, AND I THINK THAT COULD REALLY ELEVATE, I THINK THE CONVERSATION TO THE COUNCIL WILL WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT IN A FUTURE MEETING, THAT'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT DOES CHARACTER MEAN AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TRULY STABILIZE AND KEEP THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, SO I, I I'LL JUST SAY THAT I SAW BOTH, I UNDERSTOOD BOTH.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNICATION STYLE OF BOTH.
UM, BUT I THINK IT WAS FRUITFUL NONETHELESS AND, AND WORTHWHILE TO HAVE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT THREAD IN A LATER MEETING.
WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING YOU JUST SAID, OH, YOU DIDN'T, I DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
SO, UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS AS PART OF OUR UPCOMING TRAININGS THAT, UH, ELAINE, UH, HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON TRYING TO MAKE HAPPEN.
AND IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT WHERE WE CAN'T ALL BE IN THE SAME ROOM.
SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEARING WITH OUR, UH, UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.
[D-1 Discussion of the August 10, 2020 Board activity report]
ON TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM D UH, ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING OUR, UM, AUGUST 10TH OF 2024 ACTIVITY REPORT.THE ONLY THING I DID WANT TO SAY IS I DO LIKE THE FORMAT AND I DO LIKE THE WAY THEY THEY'RE PROVIDING THE SUMMARY, BECAUSE IT GIVES US, I THINK SOMETIMES WHILE WE'RE ACTUALLY UP HERE OR UP HERE ON ZOOM, OR IF WE'RE UP ON THE DICE, SOMETIMES WE FORGET HOW MANY WERE APPROVED, HOW MANY WE DENIED, AND WE THINK WE'RE MAKING ALL THESE APPROVALS WHILE WE'RE IN REALITY.
IT'S SOMEWHAT OF IT IS PRETTY WELL BALANCED.
SO THE WAY THERE THEY'RE BEING PROVIDED WITH THE SUMMARY, THAT LITTLE SUMMARY PAGE THERE, WHAT WE PROVED, WHAT WE DENIED, WHAT WAS POSTPONED.
[02:00:01]
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD FORMAT.I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT CONTINUE.
WELL THANK DIANA RAMIREZ FOR THAT.
YOUR SISTER IN ARMS. UH, ALRIGHT.
[D-2 Discussion and possible action regarding on an Open BOA Alternate Position; need Mayor Adler to make appointment, ASAP]
TO, UH, AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, I SENT ANOTHER REQUEST TO, UH, THE MAYOR TO FULFILL THE ORDER TO FILL THE, UH, OPEN ALTERNATE POSITION.AND ELAINE TOLD ME TODAY THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT ONLY, SORRY, NEW ALTERNATE IS DONNIE HAMILTON.
UM, I DID REACH OUT TO HIM TODAY AND HE DID RESPOND ACTUALLY A FEW MINUTES AGO.
UM, JUST STATING THAT HE IS GLAD TO BE ON THE BOARD AND HE CAN'T WAIT TO START WORKING AND HELPING OUT THE COMMUNITY.
AND THANKS FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE IN MAKING THAT HAPPEN.
[D-3 Discussion and possible action regarding postponed BOA Training; and, Staff & PC Coordination Workgroup (Leighton-Burwell, Hawthorne, Von Ohlen & Bailey); coordination with COA Planning Staff (including reporting, presentations and general accountability) and Planning Commission (including LDC overlap (e.g. Sign Regulations, etc).]
THREE.UM, SO, UH, IT'S GOTTEN MORE COMPLICATED, BUT, BUT, UH, WE HAVE, UH, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO, UH, DO THE TRAINING.
SO THERE WERE SOME ISSUES AS ELAINE HAD SPOKEN TO ME EARLIER ABOUT, UH, WE HAVE TO BASICALLY GET OUR TRAINERS INVOLVED, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A CITY CLERK'S OFFICER WITH, TO DOCUMENT THE TRAINING.
SO DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? UM, SO WE'RE JUST WAITING ON SAY QUICK, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH ALL THEIR MEETINGS, CAUSE THEY'RE CONDUCTING PRETTY MUCH EVERY SINGLE, UH, WORD AND COMMISSIONS MEETING.
I'M ALSO PREPARING FOR THE ELECTIONS THAT ARE COMING UP, SO THEY ARE EXTREMELY BUSY.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET IT DONE ANYTIME SOON OR AT LEAST START.
UM, SO I'M WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT, BUT AS SOON AS I HAVE SOMETHING AVAILABLE, I'LL RELAY THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.
AND MAYBE IT'LL, UM, COINCIDE WITH THE VACCINE, OUR FINGERS CROSSED.
UM, ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION ON ITEM D THREE? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD FOR, UM, IS YES, THANK YOU.
UH, IS, UH, A, UM, UM, A GREATER LEVEL OF SUPPORT.
SO AS YOU GUYS KNOW, I SIT ON PLANNING COMMISSION AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER AND, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION HAS QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT, UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, REPORTS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT FROM STAFF.
AND I REALIZED THAT THEY PLAY A DIFFERENT ROLE THAN WE DO, BUT THERE BEEN SOME TIMES THAT I'VE BELIEVED THAT, UH, HAVING, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT WOULD BE, UH, SO I AM CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT.
[D-4 Discussion and possible action regarding UNO Sign regulations – requesting presentation by City Staff (Jerry Rusthoven); and staff guidance on LA (Lake Austin) cases.]
ROLLS US INTO, UH, ITEM D, WHICH IS, UH, TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, UM, SOME REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PORTED TO OTHER PARTS OF TOWN, UM, AND ALSO SOME STAFF GUIDANCE ON, UM, THE LA, UM, BUT LIKE AUSTIN ZONING CASES.AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN PUSHING, UH, AND I'VE HAD SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH JURY REST OPEN ABOUT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, REGULATIONS.
AND HE HAD SAID THAT IN MY LAST EMAIL, OR, UH, TO ME WAS THAT AS SOON AS IN COMMISSION, UM, DID WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO TO FIX THAT, THAT HE WOULD TALK TO US ABOUT IT.
BUT I HAD ACTUALLY HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO HIM THAT WERE NOT PERTINENT TO ANYTHING PLANNING COMMISSIONER IS DOING.
AND I TOOK HIM TO TASK A LITTLE BIT AND I APOLOGIZE TO HIM IF I WAS, UH, CURT IN MY, UM, UM, CORRESPONDENCE.
HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE SUPPORT FROM STAFF AND THAT WHEN WE ASK, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, THAT WE SHOULD GET ANSWERS FROM, FROM, UH, CITY STAFF IN ORDER FOR US TO, TO DO ARTWORK.
SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH ON THAT.
MICHAEL, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, MR. CHAIR, I'VE READ JERRY'S LETTER AGAIN, UH, THIS AFTERNOON.
AND, UH, MY, MY QUESTION IS IN HIS LETTER, HE TALKS ABOUT AN AMENDMENT BEING, BEING SUBMITTED TO BOTH PLANNING, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING, AS WELL AS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND MY QUESTION IS, HAS AN AMENDMENT BEEN INITIATED AND WHAT'S THE STATUS ON IT? I MEAN, HE'S BETTER, BUT HE'S NEVER REALLY FOLLOWED UP ON IT.
[02:05:01]
AND I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF WHERE I'M SITTING IS THAT IF I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION LIKE WE HAD TO IN THE PAST THAN MY DECISION'S GOING TO BE BASED ON WHERE THAT, UH, WHATEVER APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WHAT TYPE OF SIGN HAS GOT GOING ON.AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE ONLY PLACE I'M GONNA BE APPLYING NUNO IS AROUND DUNO.
I KNOW WHAT CITY COUNCIL I'VE HEARD THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, WHAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY MADE WALK TO, YOU KNOW, APPA APPLIED ACROSS THE CITY.
BUT UNTIL I GET SOMETHING, MY, I, I FEEL THAT MY ROLE ON THIS BOARD ON THIS COMMITTEE, UH, ON THIS COMMISSION IS TO FIND RELIEF.
AND SO IF, IF WE CAN GET AFTER THIS LETTER WENT OUT A MONTH OR TWO AGO, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING BACK FROM THEM THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE HOW I SEE FIT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF MY POSITION AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND MY PURPOSE OF BEING APPOINTED IS GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S EVER EVEN A, IN A MAD MAN, I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE I'VE GONE OUT AND I HAVEN'T FOUND YET.
AND TO, TO ADD, UH, SOME, UM, DEPTH OF CONVERSATION TO THAT.
SO IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER, UM, COUNCIL PASSED THE ORDINANCE THAT WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT WAS PASSED IN THE WORDING WERE NOT IN SYNC.
AND SO CODES AND ORDINANCES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS LOOKED AT THAT AND, AND MOVED IT FORWARD.
I DO NOT KNOW, HONESTLY, UH, AND, AND I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT WHETHER OR NOT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FORWARDED THAT TO COUNTY COUNCIL YET, OR NOT TO JUST CORRECT THE, THE WORDING, RIGHT.
BECAUSE THE WORDING WAS NOT IN SYNC WITH WHAT COUNCIL THOUGHT THEY WERE PASSING.
SO ALL THEY'RE DOING IS SOME CLERICAL BASICALLY FIXING THAT WHAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED AS PART OF THAT WERE THE OTHER IMPLICATIONS.
IF YOU KNOW, WHY THEY'RE STILL CALLING SOMETHING IN THE NORTH BURNET GATEWAY, UM, THE UNIVERSITY CITY, SAME REGULATIONS, EVEN THOUGH WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS TO, AGAIN, APPLY THOSE TO OTHER SECTIONS OF TOWN.
AND IN WHAT I HAD ASKED FOR WAS WHAT'S THE INTENT, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME A LAW IS, UH, IS PAST VERSUS AN INTENT BEHIND WHAT IT IS THAT IT'S TRYING TO DO, UH, LESS VISUAL CLUTTER, WHATEVER IT IS.
UM, AND, AND, UM, AND THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M ASKING STAFF TO SAY, WHY, WHY WERE THESE ORDINANCES PUT FORWARD? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE DONE SO THAT WE HAVE AN, A WORKING UNDERSTANDING.
SO WHEN SOMEBODY'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT, THAT WE GO, OKAY, WELL, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS THIS, AND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS STILL IN SYNC WITH THAT.
SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT OR NOT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET GREATER STAFF INVOLVEMENT FROM A PLANNING STAFF IN PARTICULAR THAT IS INVOLVED IN, IN SOME OF THE WRITING OF THESE ORDINANCES TO KEEP US APPRISED AND ABREAST OF, OF INTENT.
AND I THINK IS, AND I AGREE WITH THE COMMENT THAT JUST SAY ABOUT INTENT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I KNOW COMMON SENSE AND BUREAUCRACY IS LIKE JUMBO SHRIMP.
IT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN OXYMORON, BUT, UH, I, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO APPLY COMMON SENSE.
MY COMMON SENSE THAT I MAY APPLY MAY NOT BE IN SYNC WITH WHAT THEIR INTENT IS, AND UNTIL THEY CAN CLARIFY THEIR INTENT, THEN ALL I CAN SAY IS, AS WE ONE VOTE ON THIS BOARD IS THAT I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GO WITH COMMON SENSE.
YOU KNOW, SO HOPEFULLY THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD AND EXPRESS THE CLARIFIED.
AND THEN I THINK WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES AS THEY MAKE THESE CHANGES, THEY MAKE THIS CLARIFICATION, THESE AMENDMENTS, AND HERE WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN COMMISSION, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT APPLY RELEASED, AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES HAVE A VERY BIG IMPACT ACROSS THE CITY.
AND WE GET LEFT OUT OF THE FOLLOWUP WHEN, WHEN SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS AND THESE THINGS ARE MADE, AND THEN WE HAVE TO SORT OF FUMBLE OUR WAY THROUGH.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY WHERE I WAS COMING FROM.
I WOULD, MY CURIOSITY IS, OKAY, A LETTER WAS SAM DON'T PAT ME ON MY HEAD AND TALK ME IN THE EYE AT THE SAME TIME, THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SET, NOT THE SAND, OR HAS BEEN INTRODUCED WHERE WE ADD ON IT, BECAUSE IT IMPACTS OUR DECISIONS.
[02:10:01]
UNTIL THEY, I HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT'S WRITTEN, RIGHT.AND THE THING, AND TONIGHT I CAN UNDERSTAND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT THIS BOARD WAS DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM THE CODE AND RELIEF FROM ZONING.
WHEN WE FIND IT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE BURDENSOME ARE NOT APPLIED IN A, IN A, IN A APPROPRIATE MANNER.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST WHERE I WAS COMING IN IN BERKELEY.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS, AS I AGREE, WE CODE IS, IS WHAT WE ARE DRIVEN BY.
BUT WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEY'VE WRITTEN IT, PAUL, YOU KNOW, THEY WENT, OOPS, WE FORGOT TO INCLUDE THAT WORD OR WHATEVER.
AND IT CHANGES THE WHOLE MEANING OF IT AT THAT POINT.
AT VERY LEAST I WOULD ASK, HEY, LET US KNOW THAT THEY SAID, WE HAVE AN OOPS HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT.
AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT.
AND SO WHILE IT'S NOT IN PLACE, YET WE GOOFED IN AND IN SIX MONTHS FROM NOW SHOULD BE SIX.
AND THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES APPARENTLY, IS IT AT LEAST SIX MONTHS OR SO TO FIX SOME OF THESE MISTAKES? I'M NOT SURE WHY IT TAKES THAT LONG, BUT IT TAKES THAT OFF.
I'M MOVING ON AT MAZARS ADDITIONAL STUFF.
WELL, ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
DO WE, DO WE, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD PERSONALLY.
I APPRECIATE THE LETTER FROM JERRY AND I THANK YOU FOR GETTING IT OUT THERE AT OTHER, BUT DO WE KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT'S IN THERE IN THE DOCKET OR IN THE PIPELINE THAT'S COMING TO IT THAT WOULD PUT US IN A POSITION OF APPLYING THEIR INTENTION TO FIX THE ORDINANCE? I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT WE'RE ONLY THAT LETTER FROM G FROM JERRY THAT WAS, UH, PUT TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, TO GET, UH, ABOUT TRYING TO FIX THAT GOOD.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT'S COMING AT US THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PUT US IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO CHOOSE TO APPLY.
YEAH, BUT THEN AGAIN, I HAPPENED TO STUMBLE ON TO THAT.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER THINGS OUT THERE THAT WE'RE JUST NOT AWARE OF, WHICH IS WHY I'M TRYING TO OPEN UP GREATER DISCUSSION BETWEEN, UM, PLANNING, STAFF AND OURSELVES.
[D-5 Discussion and possible action regarding on the draft LDC; BOA LDC Workgroup Report (Workgroup Members: Leighton-Burwell, Hawthorne, Cohen, Hodge and Smith)]
THIS IS, UH, BEEN TABLED BASICALLY UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO, UM, MEET AGAIN AND, AND, OR AT LEAST UNTIL EFFORTS ON THE LDC, UM, THE REWRITE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE JUMP-STARTED AGAIN.SO I THINK THAT WE, UH, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID THERE,
[D-6 Discussion and possible action regarding on the FY 2020-21 Budget Calendar - New Workgroup (Cohen, Smith and Von Ohlen) to look at access to BOA for lower income applicants and possible funding to help those without resources to pay current fees.]
WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM D SIX, UM, UH, AND, UH, ON ITEM D SIX, UH, YASMIN, UH, AND, AND THE WORK GROUP, UM, SORT OF IN THE 11TH HOUR AT OUR LAST MEETING, CAME UP WITH SOME WORDING.UM, AND I LITERALLY, AS SOON AS WE GOT OFF OF OUR MEETING, UH, LAST MONTH, UH, WROTE THE LETTER THAT I COPIED TO ELAINE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYONE TO COUNSEL TO TRY TO ENCAPSULATE THAT DISCUSSION AS BEST I COULD.
I DID GET SOME STUFF THAT, UM, CAME TO ME, UH, WITH GREATER CLARIFICATION AFTER I PRESSED SEND.
BUT, UH, BUT THE IDEA WAS THAT WE WOULD GET THAT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND THAT THEN INDIVIDUAL, UM, BOARD MEMBERS COULD, UH, LOBBY AND SPEAK TO THEM ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT AND WHY WE PUT THAT FORWARD.
AND THE OTHER GROUP MEMBERS WERE EMAILING BACK AND FORTH RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING ACTUALLY.
AND AGAIN, SUPER SHOUT OUT TO JESSICA BECAUSE SHE PULLED A LOT OF WEIGHT ON THIS.
UM, BUT I DID WANT TO LET, UH, THE BORDEAUX, AND IT WAS THE CALL.
I HAD THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF US BEING ON HERE THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, NATASHA, THAT US AND HARPER HAS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING A RESOLUTION, UM, BASED ON OUR RECOMMENDATION.
AND SHE ASKED THE SUB COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH HER THE WEEK OF HER OFFICE, THE WEEK OF THE SIX IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOMETHING BY THE 13TH DEADLINE IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE POSTED, UM, AND FOR US TO GO FORWARD.
SO IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE IS TRACTION.
UM, AND I'M, I WOULD LOVE FOR MY SUBSIDY MEMBERS TO ALSO SPEAK ON THIS, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT WE DO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE THING.
UM, JESSICA, WE PROMISED TO PULL MY WEIGHT AND WE MEET WITH HER AND THEY'D BE INDIVIDUALLY.
WE ALL CONTINUE TO PRESS OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, LETTING THEM KNOW IT'S COMING.
WE WOULD LOVE YOUR SUPPORT, OR IF THAT, SO BE YOUR WISHES, RIGHT.
I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO, BUT WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SO JUST PROVIDING THAT FEEDBACK.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US ABREAST OF THE EFFORTS
[02:15:01]
AND STUFF LIKE THAT.AND, AND YEAH, WHATEVER THE WORK GROUP CAN DO TO CONTINUE THAT I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL.
TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE WE'RE AT.
I DID CHANGE SOME OF THE WORDING AND IN A COUPLE OF THE, WHEREAS, UH, TO ADJUST MELISSA'S, UH, REQUEST FROM THE LAST MEETING ME TO DISCUSS THE REALITY.
AND THEN MINE'S DIRECTOR TO SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN ENOUGH RANGE, UH, BETWEEN OUR BOARD LIAISON AND AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE LIKE WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK, WE SHOULD HAVE AN ANSWER BY THE END OF THIS WEEK.
SO WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE SOMETHING BY THE NEXT BOARD.
ALL I WOULD ASK IS THAT ANYTHING THAT IS CREATED BY THE WORK GROUP BE FORWARDED ON TO A REGIONS SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WHAT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD, UH, SINCE WE GAVE KIND OF A BLANK CHECK ON THAT LAST TIME.
SO OF COURSE ABSOLUTELY CAN, AS SOON AS I FINALIZE IT, I WILL SEND IT TO LANE SO SHE CAN SEND TO EVERYBODY.
WELL, I WAS, I WAS WONDERING LAST MONTH, I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD BASICALLY WANTED TO KIND OF GET THIS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND THAT, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
UM, BUT, BUT MOVING FORWARD, I STILL, AND I THINK I EXPRESSED THIS LAST MONTH.
I STILL THINK THIS IS THE EXACT WRONG WAY TO GO ABOUT FIXING THE PROBLEM THAT I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND IS THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DIRECT TRANSFER OF MONEY, YOU KNOW, ONE GROUP OF APPLICANTS TO ANOTHER GROUP OF APPLICANTS, UH, JUST BECAUSE, UH, THE FILING PLEASE HAPPEN TO BE, YOU KNOW, TOO MUCH FOR A CERTAIN, UH, UH, SUBSET OF, OF APPLICANTS.
AND, AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE EXPLORING OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR FIXING THAT RATHER THAN WE'RE NOT JUST STUCK IN THIS ONE IDEA THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT THUS FAR.
IT'S MICHAEL, TO ADDRESS THAT.
I THINK WHAT WE FOUND OUT WAS WE FOUND THAT LEGALLY, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM AN APPLICANT AND GIVE IT TO ANOTHER.
SO WE FOUND THAT WAS DETERMINED AND JESSICA CORRECT ME IF I WAS WRONG, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMEWHAT OF WHAT WE WERE WAS DETERMINED, BUT WE ALSO DID FIND OUT THAT THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT WAS ALREADY ALLOCATED TO THIS BOARD THAT CAN BE UTILIZED FOR THAT TYPE OF HELP DISADVANTAGED CITIZENS, OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO WE'RE NO LONGER TAKING IT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND FROM THE INCREASING THE APPLICATION BY ACTUALLY TAKING IT FROM THERE BECAUSE BY LAW, IF IT GOES IN FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT'S GOT TO BIND TO THAT PURPOSE.
SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION MAKES IT A LITTLE BETTER.
AND THAT WAS MY CONCERN LAST MONTH WAS THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO BE PURSUING AS, AS THE WOMEN.
AND I, I JUST, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CORRECT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
AND THE VEHICLE FOR GETTING THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THAT CONTEXT? UM, YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY, I, I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD DEFINITELY THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND AS MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF REMEDIES AS POSSIBLE, NOT GET TUNNEL VISION, ALL THAT MAKES SENSE.
I WOULDN'T DATE AND THE REDISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES HERE, UH, PARTICIPANTS IN OUR MEETINGS, RIGHT.
I THINK THERE IS SOME UNDERLINING, UM, SENSE OF COMMUNAL FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE THE SAME RESOURCES AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO COME BEFORE US, I THINK IS A, IS A GOOD THING.
UM, IF YOUR BASIS FOR SAYING IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING IS SOLELY BECAUSE IT'S NOT LEGALLY CAPABLE AND LEAH WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE LEGAL MEMO OF THAT, THAT I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE FOR ME, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOT A PROTECTIVE, PROTECTED CLASS.
I DON'T BELIEVE IS PROTECTED CLASS.
UM, SO I DON'T, IF WE LEGALLY CAN'T DO THAT, LIKE YOU SEE THE LEGAL MEMO ON THAT, BUT I JUST WOULDN'T MAKE GATE AVENUE AT SOMETHING THAT HAS MARRIED RIGHT.
IN MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S ABOUT
[02:20:01]
ENSURING ACCESS, MELISSA, I CAN SEND YOU THE PRESENTATION THAT LEGAL BOOM, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO ABOUT CONSTANT SERVICE.SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO PRECEDENT, MELISSA, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THE FACT THAT OUR FEES HAVE TO BE REFLECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL COST OF HANDLING VARIANCES? SO IT WAS THAT DOESN'T HELP ME OR ADDRESS WHAT I JUST SAID.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT I SENT IT TO DON AND IF I DIDN'T ALL RECTIFY THAT NOW YEAH.
IF YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEND IT TO HER LANE SO THAT THEY CAN BE SENT OUT TO THE WHOLE BOARD, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, JESSICA.
I WAS GOING TO ASK TO GET A COPY OF THAT TOO, BECAUSE MAYBE, UM, WELL FIRST WOULD JUST ADDRESS COMMISSIONER PRUITT'S CONCERN.
I AM EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED FOR FUNDING SOURCES.
IT JUST, WE'RE TRYING TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL THAT WAS SOMEWHAT FUNDED.
SO THAT MONEY WOULDN'T BE COMING FROM THE CITY'S COPPER, YOU KNOW, ITSELF, ESPECIALLY WITH, YOU KNOW, COVID-19 HOT TEXAS DOWN ALL THIS MONEY THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING FOR THE BUDGET NOW.
BUT MR. SHADE, I AM TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES.
IT'S NOT GOING TO, I THINK THE WHOLE THING OF COST OF BUSINESS, MAYBE THE COST OF BUSINESS IS SOMEBODY PITCHING IN VERSUS SOMEBODY ELSE CAN, CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SERVICES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORDING WORKS, BUT THERE HAS TO BE WHEN THERE'S A COST OF DOING THAT IN A LOT OF BUSINESSES.
SO THAT IT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
UM, AND THAT'S, UH, BUT I, I DON'T, I'M NOT, I'M NOT.
SO THAT'S JUST COMING DOWN AS A BOARD SOLVE THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT RONICA.
UM, I BELIEVE LEE WAS ON AND I THINK HE CAN ADDRESS THAT WITH REGARD TO COST OF SERVICES.
SO IF HE CAN GET BACK ON TO HEAR FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, UH, WITH REGARD TO THAT, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT COURSE.
UM, SO I DON'T HAVE A QUICK AND EASY ANSWER FOR YOU ON COST OF SERVICES.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, ARE THERE ANY PARTICULARLY, UH, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER THAT YOU HAVE IN THAT REGARD? LET ME GET STARTED WITH COMMISSIONER PRUITT AND THEN, UM, I KNOW COMMISSIONER SNICK HAD A LITTLE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE ON THAT.
SO I THINK IF, UH, IF MAYBE BOTH OF THEM CAN SEND THEIR QUESTIONS TO ALLY AND THEN YOU CAN WORK ON IT ON A MEMO FOR US, OR JUST ANSWER COST OF SERVICE, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING COST OF SERVICE IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IN STATE STATUTE.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF MY WHEELHOUSE, BUT I HAVE COLLEAGUES WHO CAN HELP ME WITH THAT.
AND I'M HAPPY TO, TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM.
AND I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT COMMISSIONER SMITH OR PUT ON, ON THE LINE, BUT I THINK IF WE COULD GET SOMETHING FROM Y'ALL, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR OUR LEGAL COUNSEL.
AND MY CONCERN IS EVEN IF IT'S, EVEN IF IT WERE LEGAL TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT IT COSTS TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR CAN WE DEVIATE AND WHAT CAN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DEVIATING FROM THAT COST OF SERVICE? FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SAID, WELL, IF YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY AND YOU MAKE X AMOUNT OF MONEY PER YEAR, AND THAT'S UNDER THE POVERTY LINE, SO YOU GET HELP.
WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF ENTITIES THAT OWN LOTS HERE IN THE CITY THAT ARE, ARE SINGLE ASSET ENTITIES.
IF THAT, IF THAT LAND ISN'T INCOME PRODUCING AND THEY WOULD BASICALLY FALL INTO THAT SAME SORT OF REVENUE, A NUMBER IF THEY WERE AN INDIVIDUAL.
SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS EVEN IF IT WERE LEGAL, HOW ARE WE EVEN GOING TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR HOW WOULD COUNSEL IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT
[02:25:01]
AND ANSWER FOR INSTANCE.SO WE HAD, UH, INCREASED OUR FEES SIGNIFICANTLY, UM, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE BOARD SAID WAS THAT WE WANTED, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY, UM, WHEN COMMERCIAL, UM, YOU KNOW, W MAKING VERSUS HOMESTEADING BASICALLY.
AND, UM, AND COUNCIL HEARD US AND, UH, CHANGED THE FEE STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO OUR WISHES, HOW THEY DID THAT.
I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY, THEY, AND SO I THINK THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE WORD WITH ALL TO NECESSARILY SOLVE THAT.
AND SO W WHAT WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO DO AGAIN, WE HAVE A CERTAIN INTENT BEHIND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
I THINK WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS QUITE FRANKLY, FOR US TO TRY TO SOLVE IT HERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL JURISDICTION OR THE WHEREWITHAL, I THINK, TO DO THAT.
BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE IS A UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEMS AND THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS ENSURE ACCESS TO THOSE BOARD, UH, FOR FOLKS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED.
THAT'S, THAT'S ME TRYING TO WRAP IT UP.
JESSICA, HE WENT TO WRAP IT UP.
I MEAN, THAT'S FINE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, REMEMBER THERE IS CURRENTLY A METHOD IN PLACE FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD OUR FEES TO APPLY, AND THEY HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING.
AND THE MONEY COMES OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUNDS.
THIS, THIS WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT.
SHE PRESENTS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL THAT THEY COULD LOOK AT VERY EASILY SEE THAT HAD ALL THE PROBLEMS SOLVING RUBBER STAMP AND PUT INTO PLACE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND AGAIN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT YOU CAN GIVE US IN TERMS OF INSIGHTS LEAVE.
AND THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THERE ONCE IT'S POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYONE'S EYES AGAIN, I WOULDN'T SPEND TOO MUCH STOCK.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF WE CAN DO IT LEGALLY, LIKE EVERY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE JUST SHUT DOWN.
I THINK MY GUT SAYS YES, BUT THIS ISN'T MY LANE'S, I'D RATHER THAT YOUR GUT TELLS ME YES.
POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS AND THEN EVERYONE DIES.
I'M SENDING THAT OVER TO YOU NOW LANE.
UM, ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEM?
[D-7 Discussion and possible action regarding Workgroups Update: Transportation Criteria/Code Recommendations Workgroup (Smith, Hodge & Corral)]
THAT'S ALSO BASICALLY BEEN TABLED UNTIL, UM, ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DEAL, DEAL WITH ALSO, UH, OVERLAP WITH, UH, LVC, UH, UNLESS THERE WERE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
[D-8 Discussion and possible action regarding alternative meeting dates and locations]
UH, ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR POSSIBLE ACTION, UH, REGARDING ALTERNATE MEETINGS AND DATES.ON MONDAY ON MONDAY COLUMBUS DAY.
IT'S NOT A SILLY HOLIDAY, SO IT'S NOT A CITY HOLIDAY.
SO WE ARE MEETING NEXT MONTH ON.
AND AGAIN, RIGHT NOW, NO, I THINK MEET, ENGAGE IN LOCATIONS ARE PROBABLY A MOOT POINT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY CAN BE IN THE SAME ROOM.
UH, AND I'M HOPING THAT A LOT OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WILL BE MOVING TO, UM, THE NEW LOCATION UP AT HIGHLAND MALL.
UM, ONCE WE ARE MEETING IN PERSON AGAIN, SO THAT WE MAY GET A HIGHER PRIORITY TO, TO, UH, UM, TO, UH, CITY HALL, UM, CAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE FROM CITY HALL.
[D-9 Announcements]
UH, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? YES.JESSICA, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S AWARE, BUT FUNNY, ESPECIALLY SHANNA.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT EVERYBODY HAVE A GOOD YEAR.
IT'S THE JEWISH NEW YEAR THAT I'M JEWISH AND IT'S THAT BIGGER PICTURE.
CAN WE HOPEFULLY HAVE A BETTER NEW
[02:30:01]
YEARS PAST ONE, PLEASE? YEAH, FOR SURE.[D-10 Discussion of future agenda new business items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests]
UH, ANY, ANY ITEMS FOR, UH, TO ADD TO THE AGENDA AND, UH, FOR, UH, ANY NEW BUSINESS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, LIKE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE ADDED.I SECOND THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD THAT TOO.
IT WOULD BE REALLY COOL IF WE COULD DO AT THE MEETING AFTER, BUT IT WILL BE REALLY COOL.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S, I THINK NOVEMBER, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING WHERE WE SHOULD DEFINITELY DISCUSS IT.
I WISH I HADN'T, I DON'T WANT TO RESTART THE DISCUSSION, BUT I, I WAS WITH YOU COMMISSIONER SMITH.
I CAN SEE THINGS ON BOTH SIDES.
I THINK IT IS A DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY WISE AND HAVING, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE.
AND I THINK THAT IT IS A, IT IS SOMETHING WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE OCTOBER WOULD I WOULD MOVE AGAIN.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GREAT, UM, I MEAN, PART OF WHAT LAND DEVELOPMENT COACH DO RIGHT, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGE THINGS LIKE AREA CHARACTER, RIGHT? SO, UH, SO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A PLANNING STAFF OF, OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN UNDERSTANDING THE LOGISTICS OF, UM, AREA, CHARACTER LAYOUT, YOU KNOW, UH, LAND PLANNING AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE ALL PART AND PARCEL TO THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AS PART OF OUR TRAINING SO THAT WE HAVE A BIT OF A, A, UH, INSTEAD OF US GETTING INTO, WELL, I THINK IT'S THIS, YOU KNOW, I JUST THAT TO HAVE A SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT OR A PRESENTATION ABOUT IT, AND THEN PUT IN OUR 2 CENTS, JESSICA, IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN JUST ADD INTO A ITEM.
UH, AGAIN, I, I TRY TO PULL ALL OF THIS STUFF TOGETHER, BUT YES, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IT INTO D THREE AS SOMETHING THAT OUR CLIENTS COULD WELL DO FOR US.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE MORE BECAUSE HE WORKED FOR LEE, BUT IF BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MEETING, HE COULD JUST SEE AND LET US KNOW, ARE THERE ANY APPELLATE CASES IN THE COURT SYSTEM THAT HAVE KIND OF INTERPRETED WHAT THIS MEANS TO MAKE A FINDING AND HAVE IT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE NOT A VARIANCE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER, THE AREA CHARACTER.
THERE MAY NOT BE ANY CASES WHATSOEVER, BUT BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE COURTS HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT INTERPRETATION OR WHETHER THAT INTERPRETATION BY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN UPHELD ON APPEAL.
I'M VERY HAPPY TO PROVIDE A MEMO TO THE CHAIR AND THE, AND THE BOARD ON THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE ADJOURN AGAIN? I THANK ALL OF THE MEMBERS FOR BEING HERE.
IT'S GOOD TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON BOARD, UM, UH, AND, UH, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME LEE, UH, ELAINE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UH, AND, UH, AND CONTINUING TO DO IT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, WHICH IS IN SOME WAYS EASY.
CAUSE I GET TO STAY HOME, BUT IN OTHER WAYS I ALREADY, UH, I LIKE TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM AS YOU GUYS.
UH, I WILL, UH, CALL THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:07 PM AND WE'LL SEE YOU GUYS NEXT MONTH.