Public Comment Case Number: C15-2020-0059 Contact: Elaine Ramirez Public Hearing: Board of Adjustment October 12, 2020 I am neither in favor nor do I object, at this time. I am interested in compliance with zoning requirements that apply to myself an all my neighbors. ñ uela LaDonna Casta 5913 Sierra Grande Drive Austin, Texas 78759 At the time of this writing, I cannot say if I am in favor of or if I object to this request for a variance. I know the Sparks and they are very nice people who are engaged in the community. I very much appreciate them for both. I plan to attend the hearing online. I am in the process of having some major construction work done on my property, and the contractors I’ve interviewed are very aware (and sure to make me very aware) of city permitting requirements. I can only imagine, based on the estimates I am reviewing for my projects, how much the carport with tied in roof will and has cost. In my review of the application, it looks like the stated hardships are the heat from the afternoon sun, the shape of the large corner lot, and the need for covered access to a future ramp to the front porch. It seems the carport could be shorter and still accomplish shade and covered access from the car to the porch. I look forward to learning more about this project and this process that impacts my neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. C-5 LATE BACKUP/1 C-5 LATE BACKUP/2 C-5 LATE BACKUP/3 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. C-5 LATE BACKUP/4
City Council & City Manager, WHEREAS, the members of the Austin Board of Adjustment (“BOA”), agree that fees have increased to a point that many socioeconomically challenged families in the City have been priced out of the ability to have their due process rights met at the Board of Adjustment; and WHEREAS, the BOA would like to give a fair and equitable hearing to all citizens that believe they deserve a special exception to, or a hardship variance from, the land development code; and WHEREAS, the metropolitan area of the City of Austin has approximately 11% of its residents below the federal poverty limit who would be severely challenged or unable to pay the BOA current fee thereby preventing these citizens experiencing issues with Austin’s complex land development code from being able to come to our Board for relief; and WHEREAS, further complicating the situation there is a current public health crisis in the form of SARS-CoV-2 that has resulted in mass unemployment and loss of income; and WHEREAS, there has been a noticeable lack of applications from the working or middle class neighborhoods in recent BOA cases and the majority have been for issues related primarily to commercial development and large home/real estate developers; and WHEREAS, in the past the City of Austin has a history of providing financial assistance programs to assist its citizens and has been at the forefront of implementing policy that provides equity and access to government to all i.e. Austin Energy CAP etc.; and WHEREAS, it is the desire that the City Council and City Manager support a fee assistance program for the Board of Adjustments in which the Board fully understands that the current fee structure was intended to reflect the actual cost of services provided by staff within the City, the BOA would like to be clear that any fee assistance program should not result in changes to staffing, rather, that the BOA and the staff provide a public good that should be provided by and supported with tax dollars and fees collected by the city, rather than wholly paid for by socioeconomically challenged applicants; and WHEREAS, the staff that serves the BOA provides exemplary customer service and board support duties, and our city should be proud of the professionalism and knowledge provided by its staff to residents; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY …
LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-2C Date October 12, 2020 Beatrix Jackman, Eagle Scout Subject Recommendation to Council Join the LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission in commending Beatrix Jackman on her becoming one of the first female Eagle Scouts. Rationale 1. Beatrix Jackman is a proud transgender girl, dedicated Scout, and committed advocate for the LGBTQIA+ community. once she began her gender transition. 2. Beatrix was not permitted to continue as a Scout under the Boy Scouts of America 3. When the Boy Scouts of America changed its name to Scouts BSA and allowed girls to join beginning February 1, 2019, Beatrix was able to resume her passion for Scouting including the completion of her Eagle Scout project to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. 4. The Eagle Scout rank is recognized around the world and signifies the highest level of accomplishment for a Scout. 5. The process for becoming an Eagle Scout is arduous and requires the candidate to complete and/or demonstrate, before their 18th birthday: a. Active participation in the Scouts; b. Scout spirit; c. Merit badges; d. Position of responsibility; e. Service project; and f. Unit leader conference. 6. For her service project, Beatrix worked with PFLAG to make and distribute “self- soothing kits” for LGBTQIA+ youth. This included soliciting donations of supplies, coordinating a volunteer team to assemble the kits, and distributing them to organizations like Out Youth. It is necessary and appropriate for the members of the Austin City Council to recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of young leaders like Beatrix. 7. Page 1 of 2 Sources 1. Scouts BSA 2. The Story of a Scout, The Shield, May 30, 2019 Vote Date of Approval: Motioned By: Seconded By: For: Against: Abstain: Absent: Attest: _____________________________________________ Kathryn Gonzales, Vice Chair Page 2 of 2
Date LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-2B October 12, 2020 Intersex People’s Quality of Life in Austin, Texas Subject Recommendation to Council Take the initial affirmative step of recognizing the importance of, and prioritizing the quality of life of, the intersex community by: 1. Observing Intersex Awareness Day annually on October 26th. 2. Affirming and advocating for intersex people’s right to have control over their medical decisions, to be free from medically unnecessary surgeries and interventions, and to have access to psychological and peer support systems. 3. Appointing intersex people to City boards and commissions. 4. Amending Article 1 of the Bylaws of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Quality of Life Advisory Commission to read: “The name of the board is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Quality of Life Advisory Commission.” 5. Amending Article 2 of the Bylaws of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Quality of Life Advisory Commission to replace all uses of the acronym “LGBTQ” with the acronym “LGBTQI.” 6. Amending the last sentence of Article 3 Section F of the Bylaws of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Quality of Life Advisory Commission to replace the use of “his/her” with “their.” 7. Amending Article 8 Section A of the Bylaws of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Quality of Life Advisory Commission to read: “The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Quality of Life Advisory Commission will have no committees.” Rationale 1. The “I” in LGBTQI stands for “intersex.” Page 1 of 3 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Intersex is an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy. People are born with these differences or develop them in childhood. There are many possible differences in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, or chromosomes. Intersex traits are natural human variations, not disorders. Intersex people are not rare. One in two thousand babies (approximately 1.7% of the population) are born intersex, which equates to more than 16,000 people in the City of Austin. Infant intersex surgeries violate principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and self-determination. Intersex people, like anyone, can have any gender and any sexual orientation. 7. While the intersex community has some things in common with LGBTQ communities, being intersex is not the same thing as being transgender or nonbinary, and it’s not a sexual orientation. A person can have intersex bodily differences and …
LEFT ELEVATION 6 12 FINISH GRADE F.F. 100.0' TOP OF RIDGE .5 12 TOP WALL 109.0' H A L F S Z E : I 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " ( 1 1 x 1 7 ) F U L L S Z E : I 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " ( 2 4 x 3 6 ) F R O N T E L E V A T O N I . F F . 1 0 0 . 0 ' I I F N S H G R A D E I I F N S H G R A D E . F F . 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 2 PORCH 9'-5" CLG " 2 / 1 0 1 - ' 3 1 7'-8" 15'-9" LIVING 9'-3" CLG " 3 - ' 3 1 " 3 - ' 3 1 15'-9" 11'-5" 11'-5" DINING 9'-3" CLG " 3 - ' 3 1 " 0 - ' 4 " 1 1 - ' 2 8'-5" E V O T S " 0 1 - ' 6 1 I S N K . F E R KITCHEN 7'-11" CLG 8'-4" 7'-0" " 2 / 1 6 - ' 3 4'-5" " 2 - ' 9 BATH 9'-3" CLG " 0 - ' 5 MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER " 4 - ' 3 1 BEDROOM #1 9'-3" CLG BEDROOM #2 9'-3" CLG " 4 - ' 3 1 11'-2" 12'-0" " 1 - ' 5 " 2 - ' 4 13'-8" BEDROOM #3 7'-11" CLG 13'-8" LNDRY 7'-11" CLG 7'-7" " 4 - ' 9 " 8 - ' 9 TOP OF RIDGE TOP OF RIDGE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN FULL SIZE: 1/4" = 1'-0" (24x36) HALF SIZE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (11x17) EXISTING ROOF PLAN FULL SIZE: 1/4" = 1'-0" (24x36) HALF SIZE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (11x17) 12 6 6 2 1 I E G D R F O P O T I E G D R F O P O T ' . 0 9 0 1 L L A W P O T ' . 0 9 0 1 L L A W P O T ' 0 . 0 0 1 . F F . ' . 0 0 0 1 . F F . I N O T A V E L E …
Date Rationale LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-2B October 12, 2020 Intersex People’s Quality of Life in Austin, Texas Subject Recommendation to Council Take the initial affirmative step of recognizing the importance of, and prioritizing the quality of life of, the intersex community by: 1. Observing Intersex Awareness Day annually on October 26th. 2. Affirming and advocating for intersex people’s right to have control over their medical decisions, to be free from medically unnecessary surgeries and interventions, and to have access to psychological and peer support systems. 3. Appointing intersex people to City boards and commissions. 1. The “I” in LGBTQI stands for “intersex.” 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Intersex is an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy. People are born with these differences or develop them in childhood. There are many possible differences in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, or chromosomes. Intersex traits are natural human variations, not disorders. Intersex people are not rare. One in two thousand babies (approximately 1.7% of the population) are born intersex, which equates to more than 16,000 people in the City of Austin. Infant intersex surgeries violate principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and self-determination. Intersex people, like anyone, can have any gender and any sexual orientation. 7. While the intersex community has some things in common with LGBTQ communities, being intersex is not the same thing as being transgender or nonbinary, and it’s not a sexual orientation. A person can have intersex bodily differences and be transgender or nonbinary, but an intersex person isn’t automatically one of these things. Even though intersex is about physical anatomy, anatomy is not the same Page 1 of 3 8. thing as gender. Lots of intersex people do describe their gender as male or female. Intersex people face very similar issues to LGBTQ people. Some, but not all, intersex people are also LGBTQ. Intersex people are told they are “disordered,” just like LGBTQ people have been told for decades. Homophobia and transphobia are the reasons behind many of the problems intersex people face. It is critical that LGBTQ people work with intersex people to combat these systems of oppression and advocate for quality of life for everyone in the LGBTQI community. Sources 1. interACT Advocates for Intersex Youth 2. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, 2000 3. QWELL Community Foundation Page 2 of 3 Vote Date of …
LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-2C Date October 12, 2020 Beatrix Jackman, Eagle Scout Subject Recommendation to Council Join the LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission in commending Beatrix Jackman on her becoming one of the first female Eagle Scouts. Rationale 1. Beatrix Jackman is a proud transgender girl, dedicated Scout, and committed advocate for the LGBTQIA+ community. once she began her gender transition. 2. Beatrix was not permitted to continue as a Scout under the Boy Scouts of America 3. When the Boy Scouts of America changed its name to Scouts BSA and allowed girls to join beginning February 1, 2019, Beatrix was able to resume her passion for Scouting including the completion of her Eagle Scout project to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. 4. The Eagle Scout rank is recognized around the world and signifies the highest level of accomplishment for a Scout. 5. The process for becoming an Eagle Scout is arduous and requires the candidate to complete and/or demonstrate, before their 18th birthday: a. Active participation in the Scouts; b. Scout spirit; c. Merit badges; d. Position of responsibility; e. Service project; and f. Unit leader conference. 6. For her service project, Beatrix worked with PFLAG to make and distribute “self- soothing kits” for LGBTQIA+ youth. This included soliciting donations of supplies, coordinating a volunteer team to assemble the kits, and distributing them to organizations like Out Youth. It is necessary and appropriate for the members of the Austin City Council to recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of young leaders like Beatrix. 7. Page 1 of 2 2. The Story of a Scout, The Shield, May 30, 2019 Sources 1. Scouts BSA Vote Date of Approval: Motioned By: Commissioner Gonzales Seconded By: Commissioner Dowling For: 1. Curry 2. Daniels 3. Dowling 4. Gonzales 5. Hines 6. Martinez 7. Taylor 8. Wollerson Against: None Abstain: None Absent: 1. Baeza 2. Chavez 3. Curette 4. Doughty 5. Gonzalez 6. Gorczynski 7. Kirby Attest: _____________________________________________ Kathryn Gonzales, Vice Chair Page 2 of 2
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-4b Seconded By: Nancy Nemar Date: October 14, 2020 Subject: Human Animal Support Services (HASS) Motioned By: Craig Nazor Recommendation The Animal Advisory Commission recommends that the City of Austin Animal Services participate in the HASS pilot program as a tier 1 city. Description of Recommendation to Council HASS will fundamentaly transform animal sheltering from the outdated 120 year-old pound/shelter model into the human animal support services model that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis. This new model will provide community based support and services that value all humans, all animals and their bond. What are the goals? • Rehoming without using the shelter kennel • Lost and Found without using the shelter kennel • Keeping Pets with Family by providing medical and behavioral support • Public Safety Reimagined • Intake to Placement ASAP What is HASS? ● HASS provides CASE Management to find the RIGHT pathway for each individual animal and person ● HASS is creating a network of community fosters who are able to accept animals instead of putting them in a shelter kennel ● HASS is sheltering animals who have no other legitimate option ● HASS is a transition - as programs are built, animals and people use those programs What HASS is not. ● HASS is NOT leaving animals on the streets to die ● HASS is NOT forcing people to be part of the network of support ● HASS is NOT preventing animals from entering the shelter who really need to be there ● HASS is NOT a sudden beginning 1 of 2 Rationale: HASS will be the most significant change to Animal Services any of us will ever participate in. Therefore it is our expectation and request that the City Council do the following as part of any resolution. a. Set up a task force of city employees, citizens, commission members and public officials to work on fully integrating Animal Services with Human Services initiatives. b. Set clear performance metrics that show shift in services, budget, efficacy of new programs and outcomes. Vote For: 8 Against: 3 Abstain: 1 Absent: one vacancy Respectfully submitted. Attest: AAC Chair 2 of 2
Food Policy Board Work Planning Session October 12th, 2020 Our Agenda ● Welcome, Objectives, & Meeting Norms ● Opening Conversation Circle: Board Dynamics ● Overview of Focus Group Results and Q&A ● Personal Reflection: What are the tensions inherent in the board’s work? ● Conversation Circle: What are your top one or two priorities for the board for the coming fiscal year? ● Closing Objectives • Share insights from focus groups with board members • Prioritize key focus areas and other feedback to inform FY20- 21 work plan Proposed Meeting Agreements ● Be present & engaged ● Share the space; speak up, hold back ● Avoid assumptions, ask questions ● Be open to learning ● Expect unfinished business ● Define acronyms ● Utilize conversation circle approach Conversation Circle Alejandra Rodriguez Boughton Sharon Mays Andrea Abel Ryan Rosshirt Karen Magid Kara Prior Ellen Sweets Felipe Camacho Emily DeMaria Nicola Joi Chevalier Kacey Hanson Joy Casnovsky Template by Training for Change Opening Conversation Circle ● S = Separateness: the amount of diversity in perspective, expertise, and background among group members ● T = Tuning: the level of listening deeply, reflecting, and making sense of challenges together ● A = Action: the number of opportunities to act on ideas or innovate with group members ● R = Reason to work together: the benefits that are gained from working together Which of the four categories do you think the board is weakest in? Conversation Circle Alejandra Rodriguez Boughton Sharon Mays Andrea Abel Ryan Rosshirt Karen Magid Kara Prior Ellen Sweets Felipe Camacho Emily DeMaria Nicola Joi Chevalier Kacey Hanson Joy Casnovsky Template by Training for Change Focus Group Results 5 Year Headlines ● Austin Voters Pass Local Food Bond Setting the Stage for Major Investment in Local Food System Transformation ● Food Policy Board Spurs Innovation in the Local Food System, Figures out Way Around the ‘Good Ol’ Boy Food Network’ ● Food Policy Board Disbanded Due to Effective Infiltration of Food Into All of the Spaces Where it Needs to be Discussed ● City Creates Department Focusing on Food and Water ● City and County Make Food a Priority in Annual Budgets ● Austin/Travis County Policymakers Know it’s About Food, But it’s Not Really About Food ● Austin and Travis County Understand Joint Connections in Food System… What Happens in Austin Impacts Travis County and Beyond Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree …
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20201012-4b Seconded By: Nancy Nemer Date: October 14, 2020 Subject: Human Animal Support Services (HASS) Motioned By: Craig Nazor Recommendation The Animal Advisory Commission recommends that the City of Austin Animal Services participate in the HASS pilot program as a tier 1 city. Description of Recommendation to Council HASS will fundamentaly transform animal sheltering from the outdated 120 year-old pound/shelter model into the human animal support services model that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis. This new model will provide community based support and services that value all humans, all animals and their bond. What are the goals? • Rehoming without using the shelter kennel • Lost and Found without using the shelter kennel • Keeping Pets with Family by providing medical and behavioral support • Public Safety Reimagined • Intake to Placement ASAP What is HASS? ● HASS provides CASE Management to find the RIGHT pathway for each individual animal and person ● HASS is creating a network of community fosters who are able to accept animals instead of putting them in a shelter kennel ● HASS is sheltering animals who have no other legitimate option ● HASS is a transition - as programs are built, animals and people use those programs What HASS is not. ● HASS is NOT leaving animals on the streets to die ● HASS is NOT forcing people to be part of the network of support ● HASS is NOT preventing animals from entering the shelter who really need to be there ● HASS is NOT a sudden beginning 1 of 2 Rationale: HASS will be the most significant change to Animal Services any of us will ever participate in. Therefore it is our expectation and request that the City Council do the following as part of any resolution. a. Set up a task force of city employees, citizens, commission members and public officials to work on fully integrating Animal Services with Human Services initiatives. b. Set clear performance metrics that show shift in services, budget, efficacy of new programs and outcomes. Vote For: 8 Against: 3 Abstain: 1 Absent: one vacancy Respectfully submitted. Attest: AAC Chair 2 of 2
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-1 DATE: Monday October 12, 2020 CASE NUMBER: C15-2020-0050 ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Ada Corral (OUT) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____William Hodge ___Y____Don Leighton-Burwell ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Veronica Rivera ___-____Yasmine Smith (OUT) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Martha Gonzalez (Alternate) ___-____Donny Hamilton (Alternate) n/a APPLICANT: Rick Rasberry OWNER: Meredith Dreiss ADDRESS: 3002 SCENIC DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (4) (a) to increase shoreline frontage from 20 percent (maximum allowed) to 30 percent (requested), (30 percent existing) in order to remodel an existing Boat Dock in a “LA”, Lake Austin zoning district. Note: This section of the Land Development Code (4) the Width of a dock measured parallel to the shoreline of the lot or tract where the dock is proposed, and including all access and appurtenances, may not exceed: (a) 20 percent of the shoreline frontage, if the shoreline width exceeds 70 feet. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING OCT 12, 2020 The public hearing was closed by Chair Don Leighton-Burwell, Board Member Don Leighton-Burwell motions to Postpone to November 9, 2020, Board Member Michael Von Ohlen seconds on an 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 9, 2020. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: ______________________________ ____________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Don Leighton-Burwell Chairman Diana Ramirez for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-2 DATE: Monday October 12, 2020 CASE NUMBER: C15-2020-0053 ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Ada Corral (OUT) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____William Hodge ___Y____Don Leighton-Burwell ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Veronica Rivera ___-____Yasmine Smith (OUT) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Martha Gonzalez (Alternate) ___-____Donny Hamilton (Alternate) N/A APPLICANT: Michael Gaudini OWNER: Thomas Bercy ADDRESS: 900 OLD KOENIG LN AND 5916 N. LAMAR BLVD. VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) to decrease the required setback and increase the maximum allowable height requirements of Article 10, Compatibility Standards, Division 2 –Development Standards, Section 25-2-1063 (Height Limitations and Setbacks for Large Sites) a) (B) (2) reduce setback from 25 feet (minimum allowed) to 0 feet (requested) b) (C) (1) (b) increase height limit from 30 feet (maximum allowed) to 60 feet (requested) c) (C) (2) (b) increase height limit from 40 feet (maximum allowed) to 60 feet (requested) in order to erect Vertical Mixed Use project with on-site affordable units in a “CS-MU-V-CO-NP”, General Commercial Services – Mixed Use – Vertical Mixed Use - Conditional Overlay – Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Brentwood Neighborhood Plan) Note: The Land Development Code Section 25-2-1063 (B) A person may not construct a structure 25 feet or less from property: (2) on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located. (C) The height limitation for a structure are: (1) two stories and 30 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from the property: (b) on which a use is permitted in an “SF-5” or more restrictive zoning district; or (2) three stories and 40 feet if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from property: (b) on which a use is permitted in an “SF-5” or more restrictive zoning district is located. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING OCT 12, 2020 Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to Postpone to December 14, 2020, Board Member Brooke Bailey seconds on an 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 14, 2020. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-3 DATE: Monday October 12, 2020 CASE NUMBER: C15-2020-0054 ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Ada Corral (OUT) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____William Hodge ___Y____Don Leighton-Burwell ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Veronica Rivera ___-____Yasmine Smith (OUT) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Martha Gonzalez (Alternate) ___-____Donny Hamilton (Alternate) N/A APPLICANT: Mari Russ OWNER: Matthew Satter ADDRESS: 3612 GOVALLE AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use) (C) (5) (a) to increase the total area of a Second Dwelling Unit; unit not to exceed 1,100 total square feet or Floor to Area Ratio of 0.15, whichever is smaller (maximum allowed) to 2,000 square feet (requested) and (b) to increase the second floor area of a Second Dwelling Unit; 550 square feet on second floor (maximum allowed) to 1,100 square feet (requested) in order to erect an Accessory Dwelling Unit in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence- Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Govalle Neighborhood Plan) Note: 25-2-774 (C) The Second Dwelling Unit: (5) may not exceed: (a) 1,100 total square feet or a floor-to-area ration of 0.15, whichever is smaller; and (b) 550 square feet on the second story, if any; and (6) may not be used as a Short Term Rental for more than 30 days in a calendar year if the second dwelling unit was constructed after October 1, 2015. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING OCT 12, 2020 The public hearing was closed by Chair Don Leighton-Burwell, Board Member William Hodge motions to Postpone to November 9, 2020, Board Member Darryl Pruett seconds on an 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 9, 2020. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: ______________________________ ____________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Don Leighton-Burwell Chairman Diana Ramirez for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-4 DATE: Monday October 12, 2020 CASE NUMBER: C15-2020-0057 ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Ada Corral (OUT) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____William Hodge ___Y____Don Leighton-Burwell ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___N____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Veronica Rivera ___-____Yasmine Smith (OUT) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Martha Gonzalez (Alternate) ___-____Donny Hamilton (Alternate) N/A APPLICANT: Lauren Jones OWNER: Bryan E. Mayo ADDRESS: 901 TERRELL HILL DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) a) from 25 feet (required) to 15 feet (requested) and b) Standards, Article 3, 3.3 to increase the finished floor elevation of the first story from 3 feet (maximum allowed) to 8 feet (requested) above the "average elevation" in order to erect a Single Family Residence in a SF-3”, Single-Family Residence zoning district. Note: Article 3, 3.3.3 (B) (2) Gross Floor Area states Porches, basements, and attics that meet the following requirements shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area: (B) 2. The finished floor of the first story is not more than three feet above the average elevation at the intersections of the minimum front yard setback line and the side property lines. from setback requirements to decrease the minimum front yard setback from Section 25-2 Subchapter F, Residential Design and Compatibility BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING OCT 12, 2020 The public hearing was closed by Chair Don Leighton-Burwell, Board Member Michael Von Ohlen motions to Postpone to November 9, 2020, Board Member Rahm McDaniel seconds on a 10-1 vote (Board member Darryl Pruett nay); POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 9, 2020. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: ______________________________ ____________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Don Leighton-Burwell Chairman Diana Ramirez for
