Picture here 2607 McCallum Drive NRHD Review Certificate of Appropriateness- New Construction 6/20/22 . Address: 2607 McCallum Dr. Year built: 1945 Status: Original house was contributing to the Old West Austin NRHD. House and garage have been demolished. New residence style: Neo-Traditional with Tudor Revival influences. Location- Old West Austin National Register Historic District 2607 McCallum Location- Old West Austin National Register Historic District 2607 McCallum Location- Old West Austin National Register Historic District 2607 McCallum West Elevation (FRONT) Previous Design Approved by HLC - July 2021 2607 McCallum Site Plan – June 2022 2607 McCallum (LEFT SIDE) Exterior Elevations – June 2022 2607 McCallum (FRONT) (RIGHT SIDE) (BACK) Exterior Elevations – June 2022 2607 McCallum Model Views – June 2022 2607 McCallum A B C A: 2605 Harris Blvd. Context 2607 McCallum B: 2527 Jarratt Ave. C: 2508 Harris Blvd. A A: 2519 Harris Blvd. Context 2607 McCallum HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS MET (NRHD properties are recommended to meet City of Austin Historic Design Standards) 1. In general, the new design focused on maintaining the scale of original homes in the district. The standards state, “The scale and massing of a new building are essential to maintaining a property or historic district’s distinctive character—more so than architectural style or decorative details. However, well-designed.” 2. LOCATION. The structure is located in line with other houses so that it does not visually overpower existing adjacent houses. 3. ORIENTATION. The orientation (front door faces street) is consistent with adjacent contributing structures. 4. SCALE. Massing of house reflects character of nearby contributing houses. 5. STYLE. Scale, proportions and massing are in keeping with nearby houses, while a replica style is avoided. (Standards state that designs in both traditional and modern styles can successfully achieve compatibility and differentiation with historic buildings.) 6. WINDOWS. Windows proportions, size and profile look to nearby contributing structures. 7. PORCHES. A porch is incorporated, and the front door faces the street, to match the pattern in the district. 8. GARAGES. The garage is placed behind the house to minimize the visual prominence. Historic Design Standards 2607 McCallum Use this sheet if new construction/addition
MARSHALL RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JULY 11, 2022 N L L L A H S R A M 1210 1208 W 13TH ST 1507 1206 1204 1202 1200 1209 1205A 1205B W 12T H S T 1203 1201 1211A 1211C L LN AL H S R A M 1207 1205 1203 1201 1204 T LM S E T ELM S Marshall Residence Architectural Review Committee Scale Date 1" = 80'-0" 07.11.2022 General Information • Legal Description: Lot 9, Block E of Shelley Heights, Vol. 3, Page 240 of the plat PROJECT INFORMATION: records of Travis County, Texas • Property ID: 109118 • Geographic ID: 0110011003 • Lot Size: 0.18 acres (7,986 sf) Planning and Zoning • Zoning: SF-3-NP • Zoning Overlays: 1. Capitol View Corridors - Red Bud Trail / Red Bud Trail SDCC 2. Residential Design Standards / Subchapter F • Neighborhood Plan: Old West Austin • Infill Options: 1. Secondary Apartment Infill Option 2. Small Lot Amnesty Infill Option • Max Building Coverage: 40% • Max Impervious Cover: 45% • Max Building Height: 32' (Per Subchapter F) • Permitted Uses: 1. Single Family Residential 2. Two-Family Residential (single family + ADU) 3. Duplex Residential Historic Status • Property is located in the West Line Historic District 1206 Marshall • Year Built: 1945 • Property Type: Domestic, Cross Gable • Stylistic Influence: Minimal Traditional • Historic Status: Contributing 1206 B Marshall • Year Built: 1980 • Property Type: Domestic, Auxiliary Garage Apartment with Front Gable • Historic Status: Non-Contributing ZONE KEY: LR: Neighborhood Commercial CS: Commercial Services MF-3: Multifamily (Medium Density) SF-6: Townhouse/Condo SF-3: Family Residence I G N N O Z & O F N I T C E O R P J N S N O I T I D N O C G N I T S I X E East Elevation North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation Marshall Residence Architectural Review Committee Scale Date N.T.S. 07.11.2022 S T N E D E C E R P D O O H R O B H G I E N 1202 Marshall Ln 1204 Marshall Ln 1206 Marshall Ln 1208 Marshall Ln Marshall Residence Architectural Review Committee Scale Date N.T.S. 07.11.2022 S T N E D E C E R P D O O H R O B H G I E N 1211C Marshall Ln 1207 Marshall Ln 1205 Marshall Ln 1203 Marshall Ln Marshall Residence …
407 E. Monroe HR-2022-070860/2022-065132 PR Cost Prohibitive Rehabilitation Current State of Property ● Garage Apartment Built in 1937 and Located in Historic Fairview Park Austin, TX ● Exhibit 1 Has been used as a rental unit with the bare minimum updates as can been seen in exhibit photos ● Exhibit 2 Garage Apartment has been tested for Asbestos and contains 40% Chrys ● Exhibit 3 Garage Apartment has been inspected for Termites and shown to be present ● Exhibit 4 Rehabilitating the Garage Apartment found to be cost prohibitive given the current state estimating to cost $533,677 for a remodel. The lot was originally purchased for $1,200,000 Hardship to Owner to make the property up to date to be able to market it as a remodel, ○ ○ ● Exhibit 5 - As stated by the structural engineer the Garage Apartment is rotting from the inside out and was not built to code ○ ○ ○ ○ Framing and Roofing is considered to be deficient and needs to all be replaced Termite damage confirmed within the walls Rotting Soffit and cracked veneer Back wall has sand bags and soil build up most likely causing rotting in the wall framing ● Exhibit 6 - Neighboring house encroaches onto the property in 2 areas. ● Exhibit 7 -Architects Statement regarding the proposed design Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7
Austin Parks and Recreation Department July 2022 Current and Proposed Fees General Fund Department Revenue Forecast FY22 Budget Revenue of $13.3 million FY22 Projected Revenue of $13.8 million The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have an impact on PARD’s FY22 revenue budget. FY23 Proposed Revenue : $14.2 million The growth estimate factors in elements, such as (but not limited to): concession contracts, interment services, pool entry fees, and summer camp registration. $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 FY19-FY22 Budgeted Revenue Vs Actual Revenue ($ Millions) $14.3 $14.4 $14.8 $14.5 $13.3 $13.8 $6.8 $7.9 2019 2020 2021 2022 Budgeted Revenue Actual Revenue 2 FY2023 Projected General Fund Revenue by Program ACL Revenue Special Events, $1,606,017 , 11% Pool Entry Fees: $2- $9 Operations and Maintenance, $1,619,496 , 12% Concession Revenue Aquatics, $3,908,453 , 28% Programming Fees: $1-$300 Community Services, $5,015,831 , 36% Cemetery , $1,864,786 , 13% Adult Internment Fees (weekdays): $1,540 3 City of Austin “FEE CHANGES/ADDITIONS FORM” • A Cost Recovery Worksheet (Excel spreadsheet) also accompanies the Fee Change form • Fees cannot exceed the cost of service • All new fees and additions must be approved by the City Budget Office 4 Current FY2023 FEE CHANGES/ADDITIONS Current FY2023 FEE CHANGES/ADDITIONS Consolidate 3 different sound fees (commercial/advertising for $30, private party for $20, and public interest or political campaign for $10) into a single amplified sound fee of $20. Consolidate 2 different variable parking fees (Parking on Parkland & Special Events and Trail of Lights) into a single variable parking fee of $3 - $25. Sound fees Parking fees Cemetery: • Disinterment / Reinterment Update certain unclear language and fees; fees range from $400 to $3,500 per service $950 to $3,050 per space • Spaces Increase space fees for Austin Memorial Park and Evergreen; fee range from 5 Current FY2023 FEE CHANGES/ADDITIONS (continued) Park Planning – Parkland Dedication Fees Per Ordinance, proposed increase were made to the following categories: Fee in Lieu of Land, Parkland Development Fee, and Total Fee in Lieu of Lan and Parkland Development. This new PLD Fee structure is proportionate to the need created by a new residential development based on the City of Austin’s current level of service. Fees range from $373 to $11,573 per unit. Aquatics - Initial Lifeguard Certification Fees Changing the Initial Lifeguarding course fees to “varies” allows the Aquatics Division to adjust course fees to attract new applicants to get certified. Lifeguard class …
Potential Fare Programs LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Advisory Commission | July 11, 2022 Agenda • Agency Core Values • Fare Strategy Review • Potential Fare Programs powered by Amp • Fare Capping • Equifare • Title VI Analysis • Community Engagement • Next Steps 3 Agency Core Values INNOVATION EQUITY SUSTAINABILITY TRANSPARENCY SAFETY 3 Fare Strategy Review Addresses transit affordability and other population needs (i.e., low income and per Title VI, race, color, etc.) Incorporates alternative fare structures (e.g., capped fares for all riders) Supports equity in future fare adjustments in alignment with Project Connect Integrated Financial Model Equity CapMetro Fare Strategy Technology Encourages increased ridership while maintaining sustainable revenue stream Maintains and creates programs for various demographics (e.g., senior citizens, military, employer- sponsored, ILAs) Encourages contactless payments, other innovations and integrations 4 CapMetro wants to make our fares more equitable. We know that our customers pay for their transit passes one trip at a time instead of taking advantage of the savings that come with day or monthly passes. Proposed Fare Programs powered by Amp Fare Capping Equifare Fare capping limits how much you pay for all your trips in a day, week or month. An additional discounted fare category for income-eligible customers 5 What is Fare Capping? Fare capping limits how much you pay for all your trips in a day, week or month. Fare capping makes sure that customers: • Never pay more than the total cost of a Day Pass in a calendar day • Never pay more than the total cost of a monthly pass in a calendar month 6 Fare Capping – Daily Cap When you pay for 2 single rides in one day, you earn a Daily Cap and ride free the rest of the day. Your daily spending is capped at $2.50 total! 7 Fare Capping - Monthly Cap When you pay for 33 single rides in a calendar month, you earn a Monthly Cap, and ride free the rest of the month. • Your monthly spending is capped at $41.25 total! • Monthly Cap • 33 Paid Rides • 17 Days of Riding • Benefit: ride free up to 14 days per calendar month 8 How to Get Fare Capping: Amp • Get Amp, by physical card or CapMetro App • Load money to your account - this is called stored value! • Tap your card or scan your app to …
A Food Plan for Austin Developing the City’s first Food Plan LGBTQ+ QoL Advisory Commission – July 11th 2022 What is a Food System? Food for thought ● 14.7% food insecurity in Travis County ● 38% zip codes in Travis County don’t have a full service grocery store ● 16.8 acres of farmland are lost every day in Travis County ● Less than 1% of food consumed in Travis County is locally produced ● 1.24 million pounds of food is wasted every day in Austin ● Covid-19 pandemic & Winter Storm Uri exposed & exacerbated inequities in our food system What is a Food Plan and why do we need one? ● A Food Plan will set clear Goals and Strategies to move toward a more equitable, sustainable & resilient food system and provide a coordinating structure for all food related initiatives ○ The Food Plan build on several other initiatives made by the City to tackle food system issues. ● On June 2021 Austin City Council directed the City Manager to initiate a planning process Link to full resolution What about disasters? Recent and ongoing crises have caused a spike in food insecurity and revealed inadequate preparation for expansive and culturally appropriate food distribution We are working with HSEM & other departments to develop a Disaster Food & Drinking Water Appendix Will include learnings from Winter Storm Uri, COVID-19, boil water notices, and other recent emergencies Developing the Austin Food Plan: Where are we now? A Baseline Assessment We are in the process of releasing The State of The Food System 2022. A comprehensive analysis of our food system and an updated version of previous reports from 2015 and 2018. This will be the foundation for Austin’s first-ever Food Plan Project Organization Austin Food Plan Emergency Food & Water Appendix Food Supply Chain Vulnerability Analysis City and County Staff Austin-Travis Food Policy Board Community Advisory Committee Issue Area Groups *Production AG Consultant Team *Community Food Ambassadors *To be determined General Public and Community *Access AG *Markets AG *Labor AG *Recovery AG Finding the Right Project Team and Structure Stewards and Advisors of the Process City and County Staff Consultant Team Community Advisory Committee Austin-Travis Food Policy Board Advisors on the Content Issue Area Groups General Public and Community Community Food Ambassadors Centering Equity The Austin Food Plan will center equity and the lived expertise of those most impacted by …
HEALTH Central Health Integral Care Seton Healthcare Family St. David’s Foundation COLLABORATIVE / PHILANTHROPIC Community Justice Council Interfaith Action (iACT) One Voice Central Texas United Way Greater Austin COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT NETWORK MISSION CAN is a partnership of governmental, non-profit, private and faith-based organizations which leverage mutual resources to collectively improve social, health, educational and economic opportunities in our community. GOVERNMENT City of Austin City of Pflugerville Travis County K-12 EDUCATION Austin ISD Del Valle ISD Manor ISD TRANSPORTATION Capital Metro WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Goodwill Central Texas HIGHER EDUCATION Austin Community College Workforce Solutions— Capital Area Huston-Tillotson University St. Edward’s University University of Texas ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Asian Chamber Black Chamber Greater Austin Chamber Hispanic Chamber CAN: Promoting & Supporting the Power of Collaboration for More than 25 Years Identifying opportunities to coordinate and align services among CAN partners and other community service providers. • Supporting efforts to address community challenges through collective action. • Creating civic infrastructure for civic dialogue and civic action. • Ensuring the right stakeholders are part of assessing and addressing the challenges our community faces. Increasing understanding of emerging issues and trends and identifying proactive strategies that may be pursued. • • WWW.CANATX.ORG CAN SUPPORTS COLLABORATIVE ACTION AIMED AT EXPANDING EQUITY & OPPORTUNITY BY: DEVELOPING TOOLS TO INFORM CREATING OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE MAKING STRATEGIC CONNECTIONS CAN DASHBOARD In 2021, CAN Published the 12th annual CAN community dashboard tracking 18 indicators that assess our community’s overall health/ well-being. RACE EQUITY ACTION FRAMEWORK In 2021, CAN published the Race Equity Action Framework to assess local needs and identify where more attention is needed. Click Here to View Tool Click Here to View Tool CAN COVID-19 RESPONSE CAN PODCAST CAN launched the “We CAN! ATX” web portal as a flexible tool to get critical information to the public during times of crisis in multiple languages as well as to help people engage in the crisis response. Click Here to View Tool In 2020, CAN launched “Get Engaged,” a weekly community calendar highlighting opportunities to get engaged on efforts aimed at advancing equity, opportunity and community well-being. Click Here to Listen or Sign-Up LANGUAGE ACCESS REGIONAL SUMMIT CAN has been working with its Language Access Action Team to develop resources that: organizations can use to improve services; and community members can use to access services. This includes establishment of the Central Texas Language Access Fund. In 2021, CAN hosted its 5th biennial …
FY23 Cultural Funding Programs Update CITY OF AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JULY 11, 2022 Concerns of Inequitable Distribution* Problem: we are trying to address 50 years of inequitable distribution of funding through the Cultural Funding programs due to the historical policies, practices, and (in)accessibility of our programs. *Data shows leadership/staff demographics FY15-FY 21 only. We recognize this is only one indicator. Equitable Funding Review Goal The desired goal is to sustain and grow Austin’s cultural infrastructure so that all may share in the economic and employment benefits of the heritage preservation and creative sectors, as well as upholding the City’s commitment to racial equity per the City of Austin’s Equity Office standards and goals. Cultural Funding Review Process Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 4.5 Launch + Listen Record + Analyze Equity Audit 9 1 0 2 • 1 town hall • 2 workshops • 39 listening sessions • 540 participants • 1,160 engagement hours • Feedback compiled and synthesized • Organized into specific themes and directions for further discussion • Staff assessment of programs • Equity trainings for staff and commissions • Heritage Tourism and Music and Entertainment added • Process audit with ODD • MJR Recommendations Program Development • 1500+ hours of staff planning • 2 public presentations • Feedback: comment box, 1:1 meetings, Q+A, direct communications, Commission meetings 2 0 2 2 Program Refinement • 1 presentation • Regular VOOH and 3 guided discussions • Arts Commission chats • Feedback collection including survey • Feedback will be used to refine the program before official launch • Evaluation is ongoing! Feedback informed every aspect of program development including program priorities, application scoring, rubrics, and process improvements. Holistic Funding Ecosystem Nexus Nurture new and emerging applicants by funding creative public projects developed through community activation and/or collaboration. Elevate Creative and administrative expenses of cultural producers that amplify equity and prioritize inclusive programming. Thrive Focused investment to sustain and grow arts organizations that are deeply rooted in, and reflective of Austin’s diverse cultures. Pilot Program Nexus in Detail Goal Contract Term Type of Funding Who can apply? Selection Process Draft Total Available Funds Draft Award Amounts Draft Number of Awardees Individuals/ Groups* (*cooperatives, non-profit organizations, businesses, partnerships, etc.) Encourage new talent Nexus 6 Months Project Funding Only 3 COA Staff + Rubric ~$500,000 $5,000 100 (50 per cycle; 2 cycles/year) Pilot Program Elevate in Detail Elevate Elevate …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-1 DATE: July 11, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0001 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Ryan Nill _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez OUT _______Richard Smith OUT _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) N/A _______Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Esteban Arrieta OWNER: Eames Gilmore ADDRESS: 10107 RESEARCH BLVD SVRD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-123 (Expressway Corridor Sign District Regulations) (B) (3), to exceed sign height of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 45 feet (requested) in order to complete signage for Target store in a “NBG-NP”, North Burnet Gateway-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Gateway Neighborhood Plan) Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-123 Expressway Corridor Sign Regulations (B) This subsection prescribes regulations for freestanding signs. (3) The sign height may not exceed the greater of: (a) 35 feet above frontage street pavement grade; or (b) 20 feet above grade at the base of the sign. BOARD’S DECISION: POSTPONED TO MARCH 14, 2022 (AE DENIAL); March 14, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Darryl Pruett motions to postpone to April 11, 2022; Board Member Melissa Hawthorne seconds on a 10-0 vote; POSTPONED TO APRIL 11, 2022. April 11, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to postpone to May 9, 2022; Board Member Richard Smith seconds on a 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO MAY 9, 2022. May 9, 2022 POSTPONED TO JUNE 13, 2022 BY APPLICANT; June 13, 2022 POSTPONED TO JULY 11, 2022 AS PER APPLICANT’S REQUEST; July 11, 2022 WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT FINDING: 1. The variance is necessary because strict enforcement of the Article prohibits and reasonable opportunity to provide adequate signs on the site, considering the unique features of a site such as its dimensions, landscape, or topography, because: OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: AND, 4. Granting a variance would not provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated, because: ______________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair ____________________________ for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-2 DATE: July 11, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0004 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Ryan Nill _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez OUT _______Richard Smith OUT _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) N/A _______Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) OWNER/APPLICANT: Apple Tree Holdings LLC-Tony Nguyen ADDRESS: 4507 IH 35 SVRD NB VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-123 (Expressway Corridor Sign District Regulations): (B) (2) (b) (i) to exceed sign area of 107 square feet (maximum allowed) to 200 square a) feet (requested) and (B) (3) (a) to exceed sign height of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 50 feet (requested) in b) order to provide signage for a multi-tenant professional office in a “LO-NP”, Limited Office- Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Plan) Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-123 Expressway Corridor Sign Regulations (B) This subsection prescribes regulations for freestanding signs. (1) One freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. Additional freestanding signs may be permitted under Section 25-10-131 (Additional Freestanding Signs Permitted). (2) The sign area may not exceed: (a)on a lot with not more than 86 linear feet of street frontage, 60 square feet; or (b) on a lot width more than 86 linear feet of street frontage, the lesser of: (i) 0.7 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or (ii) 300 square feet. (B) This subsection prescribes regulations for freestanding signs. (3)The sign height may not exceed the greater of: (a) 35 feet above frontage street pavement grade; or (b) 20 feet above grade at the base of the sign. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING JUNE 13, 2022 POSTPONED TO JULY 11, 2022 (AE DENIAL); JULY 11, 2022 POSTPONED TO AUGUST 8, 2022 BY BOARD (AE DENIAL) FINDING: 1. The variance is necessary because strict enforcement of the Article prohibits and reasonable opportunity to provide adequate signs on the site, considering the unique features of a site such as its dimensions, landscape, or topography, because: OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: AND, 4. Granting a variance would not provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-1 DATE: Monday July 11, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0048 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Ryan Nill _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez OUT _______Richard Smith OUT _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) N/A _______Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Rodney Bennett OWNER: Diana Patterson ADDRESS: 2500 SPRING LN VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (D) (Fences as Accessory Uses) to exceed the average height of six (6) feet or a maximum height of seven (7) feet (required) for a solid fence along the property line in order to construct a ten (10) feet (requested) tall masonry wall/fence along Bowman Avenue in a SF-3-NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (WANG Neighborhood Plan). Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed an average height of six feet or a maximum height of seven feet. Homeowner was Granted a fence variance in 2010 from 6 ft. to 8 ft., C15-2010-0034. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING JULY 11, 2022 POSTPONED TO AUGUST 8, 2022 BY APPLICANT 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 ____________________________ Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-2 DATE: Monday July 11, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0056 __Y_____Thomas Ates __Y_____Brooke Bailey __Y_____Jessica Cohen __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne __Y_____Barbara Mcarthur __Y_____Ryan Nill __Y_____Darryl Pruett __-_____Agustina Rodriguez OUT __-_____Richard Smith OUT __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen __Y_____Nicholl Wade __-_____Kelly Blume (Alternate) N/A __Y_____Carrie Waller (Alternate) __Y_____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Daniel Fields OWNER: Halley Wuertz ADDRESS: 1305 SINGLETON AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section(s) a) 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to erect a Single-Family residence in the rear. b) location at least 10 feet to the rear or side of the principal structure (required) to a Two- Family use location at to the front of the principal structure (requested) in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Chestnut Neighborhood Plan) 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use) (C) (2) (a) for a Two-Family Residential use Note: Per LDC (C) The second Dwelling Unit: (1) must be contained in a structure other than the principal structure; (2) must be located: (a) at least 10 feet to the rear or side of the principal structure; or (b) above a detached garage Applicant is proposing to change use of Principal structure (front) to the Two-Family Residential Use and construct a detached Principal Structure to the rear. BOARD’S DECISION: July 11, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to approve with conditions that it ties the current house to presentation item D-2/3 (proposed site plan), house stays where it is, limited to 0.4 FAR, no new parking spaces in front and no STR (Short-Term Rental); Board member Melissa Hawthorne seconds on a 11-0 vote; GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS THAT IT TIES THE CURRENT HOUSE TO PRESENTATION ITEM D- 2/3 (PROPOSED SITE PLAN), HOUSE STAYS WHERE IT IS, LIMITED TO 0.4 FAR, NO NEW PARKING SPACES IN FRONT AND NO STR (SHORT-TERM RENTAL). FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: new house and ADU would require the demolition of the existing 1953 cottage, contributing to the erosion of scale and character that is representative of small mid and early 1900’s cottages of the Chestnut Neighborhood. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-3 DATE: Monday July 11, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0057 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Ryan Nill ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___-____Agustina Rodriguez OUT ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Nicholl Wade ___-____Kelly Blume (Alternate) N/A ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) OWNER/APPLICANT: Aaron Seifert ADDRESS: 8114 CACHE DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section(s) 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum street side yard setback from 15 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to complete a shed in a “SF-3”, Single-Family Residence zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: July 11, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to approve with condition that the variance only applies to the proposed structure (new shed) Board member Melissa Hawthorne seconds on a 11-0 vote; GRANTED WITH CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE ONLY APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE (NEW SHED). FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: other properties have a 5 foot setback on the side of their property, however the street side setback is 15 feet because of homes location which limits the buildable area in this lot, also unique to the property is the 40 foot easement. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: a 40 foot easement on the back of this property, a tree with a critical root zone that don’t want to infringe upon, a retaining wall that would cause structural issues if built across it, for that reason need to be able to build within 15 foot setback that has been set by the city. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the drainage/utility easement is not in every backyard, it is specific to the property. 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: the structure will still be setback 5 feet from out property line, which is 15 feet from the street. ______________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison ____________________________ Jessica …
