E-1 C15-2022-0002 LATE BACKUP - IN SUPPORT — original pdf
E-1/1 -LATE BACKUP
All documents
E-3 C15-2022-0047 LATE BACKUP - IN OPPOSITION — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Stephen Stepka Ramirez, Elaine Case # C15-2022-0047 Wednesday, June 08, 2022 11:58:59 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Elaine, Please RSVP that you received this email. Thank you. I was told that replying by email was a satisfactory way to respond to a Public Hearing Notice I recently received in the mail. I am responding to case # C15-2022-0047 for the Board of Adjustment to be heard on June 13, 2022. You are the contact person listed. I object to the proposed code variance request. I feel that instead of reducing the required 10' setback to the proposed 5' on the Rear Yard Setback and compromising their neighbor they should add the 5' they are trying to gain to the front of the Garage/Studio which has ample distance to accommodate the 5'. This added 5' should be on the front side of the building that faces E.46th St. instead of compromising the neighbor and the Rear Yard Setback. Thank you. 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. E-3/1-LATE BACKUP
E-3 C15-2022-0047 LATE BACKUP - IN SUPPORT — original pdf
*** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: To: Subject: Date: David Ramirez, Elaine case C15-2022-0447 Saturday, June 04, 2022 12:52:14 PM case C15-2022-0447 4522 Caswell Ave We are in favor of the requested variance. David Orr 4509 Avenue F Austin, TX 78751 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. E-3/1-LATE BACKUP E-3/2-LATE BACKUP 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. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: E-3/3-LATE BACKUP
F-1 C15-2022-0011 LATE BACKUP — original pdf
Cindy Marabito From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Fwd: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Saturday, June 11, 2022 10:51:44 AM Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Elaine…Karl has been attending these meetings in person and was unaware the case(s) had been postponed again. Would you please include his (attached) commentary for the board to review with our other objections this Monday June 13? Thank you so much!! Cindy *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: Karl Van Nostrand < Subject: Re: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Date: June 11, 2022 at 10:28:12 AM CDT To: Cindy Marabito < Hi Cindy, how are you? Are you going to comment at the BOA meeting? I'm not going to be here (I thought this thing was finished already!). We're going out of town. I've been going in person but haven't done the online meeting. If you are commenting, would mind reading my note for the adjustment board. Feel free to forward it to the adjustors if necessary. Thanks KV. Here it is: I'm here to discuss the developers' request for hardship in comparison to the lot next door. The developer sited the lot next door as the reason for the hardship, and I'd like to tell you about those lots. The property next door has a reasonable sized home and minimal impervious cover and has preserved the heritage oak on the property. The lot next door also has undisturbed non impervious cover to absorb runoff into lake Austin. I don't think there is sufficient hardship for the developers request to increase the impervious cover to the extent they're asking based on the comparison of the lot next door. I'm not against the developer from building on his property, I think the variance should be in line with what is reasonable within the code and based on comparison to other lots. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 4:44 PM Cindy Marabito > wrote: FYI I have been in touch with Elaine to make sure my own objections and photos were included for the upcoming meeting scheduled for this coming Monday @ 5:30. She wrote back and offered this link which shows the owner’s complete request along with out objections. I was shocked to see a tree guy opting to get rid of the oaks..at least that is how I read it! See below first page of tree report and the …
F-2 C15-2022-0012 LATE BACKUP — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Cindy Marabito Ramirez, Elaine; Fwd: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Saturday, June 11, 2022 10:51:44 AM Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Elaine…Karl has been attending these meetings in person and was unaware the case(s) had been postponed again. Would you please include his (attached) commentary for the board to review with our other objections this Monday June 13? Thank you so much!! Cindy *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: Karl Van Nostrand <k Subject: Re: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Date: June 11, 2022 at 10:28:12 AM CDT To: Cindy Marabito > Hi Cindy, how are you? Are you going to comment at the BOA meeting? I'm not going to be here (I thought this thing was finished already!). We're going out of town. I've been going in person but haven't done the online meeting. If you are commenting, would mind reading my note for the adjustment board. Feel free to forward it to the adjustors if necessary. Thanks KV. Here it is: I'm here to discuss the developers' request for hardship in comparison to the lot next door. The developer sited the lot next door as the reason for the hardship, and I'd like to tell you about those lots. The property next door has a reasonable sized home and minimal impervious cover and has preserved the heritage oak on the property. The lot next door also has undisturbed non impervious cover to absorb runoff into lake Austin. I don't think there is sufficient hardship for the developers request to increase the impervious cover to the extent they're asking based on the comparison of the lot next door. I'm not against the developer from building on his property, I think the variance should be in line with what is reasonable within the code and based on comparison to other lots. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 4:44 PM Cindy Marabito <d wrote: FYI I have been in touch with Elaine to make sure my own objections and photos were included for the upcoming meeting scheduled for this coming Monday @ 5:30. She wrote back and offered this link which shows the owner’s complete request along with out objections. I was shocked to see a tree guy opting to get rid of the oaks..at least that is how I read it! See below first page of tree report …
G-1 C15-2021-0097 LATE BACKUP WITHDRAWAL LETTER — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Nathan Hobbs Ramirez, Elaine RE: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Monday, June 06, 2022 3:21:02 PM image001.png image002.png image003.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Yes, thank you for all of your help. From: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:42 PM Subject: RE: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Ok Nathan so it sounds like you will be withdrawing your variance request, correct? Respectfully, Elaine Ramirez Planner Senior / Board of Adjustment Liaison City of Austin Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr, Austin, Texas 78752 Office: 512-974-2202 PER CITY ORDINANCE: All individuals scheduling or accepting a meeting invitation with a City Official are requested to provide responses to the questions at the following link: DSD Visitor Log. Please note that all information provided is subject to public disclosure via DSD’s open data portal. For more information please visit: City of Austin Ordinance 2016-0922-005 | City Clerk’s website | City Clerk’s FAQ’s From: Nathan Hobbs [ Sent: Monday, June 06, 2022 10:28 AM To: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Elaine, great news I meet with them on Friday and they informed me I will not need a variance. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android G-1/1-LATE BACKUP From: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:27:37 AM Cc: Ramirez, Diana <Diana.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Good morning Applicants on the Mon. June 13th, 2022 BOA mtg. Agenda, Please read this entire e-mail and note all deadlines The deadline to submit the Presentation (must be submitted in PDF format or PowerPoint) is TODAY, Monday, June 6th, before 3p.m. You will need to submit a Presentation each month you go before the Board, even if you have gone the previous month(s) The deadline for Applicants participating virtually (must be by deadline, no late virtual applicant/additional speakers will be able to register) is TODAY, Monday, June 6th, before 3p.m. Presentation: If you would like the Board to follow along with you as you are giving your presentation (You will have 5 minutes to hone in on the main aspects of the case as you are presenting the case to the Board), you will need to have …
APA Monthly report 5.2022 — original pdf
Monthly Report on License Agreements 2022 - 05 May This report is in agreement with the terms outlined in Section 8.4 of the License Agreement between the City of Austin and Austin Pets Alive! with a focus on APA!’s impact on Travis county through our partnership with Austin Animal Center. Summary: Austin Pets Alive! (APA!) continues to be the city of Austin’s largest partner in lifesaving and the largest subsidizer of the city’s budget to serve Austin animals. APA! takes animals with medical and behavioral issues requiring a higher cost per animal than the average healthy animal in care. APA! focuses on these animals to have a measurable effect on the live release rate at AAC. Operations Impact APA and AAC serve the community in tandem and our combined efforts impact the live release rate across the city, county, and surrounding areas. *dogs and cats only Adoptions 468 871 1,339 S/N at the Shelter 410 565 975 In Foster 397 1,270 1,667 Intake 1,333* 1,089 2,422 AAC APA! TOTAL APA! Intakes from AAC % of Prior Fiscal Year-To-Date AAC Dog and Cat Intake 21 5,917 APA! Intake from AAC 22 (AAC reported) 939 APA! Intake from AAC 22 (APA reported)* 1,064 APA! Intake from Travis County 310 15.9% or 18.1% APA! Intake as a % of AAC Intake 5.2% APA! Travis Intake as a % of AAC Intake APA! Intakes from AAC % of Current Fiscal Year-To-Date AAC Dog and Cat Intake 22 8,551 APA! Intake from AAC 22 (AAC reported) 939 APA! Intake from AAC 22 (APA reported)* 1,064 310 APA! Intake from Travis County 11.0% or 12.4% APA! Intake as a % of AAC Intake 3.6% APA! Travis Intake as a % of AAC Intake APA! Intakes transferred from AAC: According to AAC’s data dashboard: 345 animals were transferred out of AAC to 30 partners: 190 were transferred to APA!. According to APA’s records: 214 animals were transferred to APA! plus 17 born in care that AAC does not count, for a total of 231 transfers. This is a difference of 41 pets in May, most of which were animals born after being tagged by APA or during transport to APA. These animals are not counted as “inventory” at AAC, which is why we continue to be concerned that they are not safe if 1 of 12 © 2022 Austin Pets Alive! All Rights Reserved APA! does not …
Memo to Council on Living Wage Proposal — original pdf
M E M O R A N D U M TO: THRU: Mayor and Council Members Spencer Cronk, City Manager Veronica Briseño, Assistant City Manager Joya Hayes, Human Resources and Civil Service Director April 28, 2022 Living Wage Work Group Process FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the living wage stakeholder review process and transmit to Council a summary of their work and recommendations. In 2014, the City Council passed Resolution 20141016-035 which directed the City Manager to provide staff support for a stakeholder process to develop recommendations regarding the City’s living wage rate and policy. During that process, stakeholders met seven times from January to May 2015, provided their recommendation to Council, and then briefed the Council. After the presentation to Council, the City Manager in conjunction with the annual budget process brought forward a plan to increase the Living Wage rate to $15.00 per hour by 2020. Similar to the 2015 process, the Human Resources Department provided staff support by convening meetings with the community organizations who participated in the previous Living Wage Stakeholder Group. Other organizations were invited upon the Groups' recommendation. The Group met four times: January 26, February 9 and 23, and March 9, 2022. Like the previous process, this memorandum provides the Group’s recommendation to Council. The Group will present their recommendation at a future Council work session. Attached to this memorandum are the summaries of the meeting topics, major data points reviewed, recommendations from the Group, and participating organizations. HRD and the Budget Office have preliminary provided an estimate of costs associated with a $22.00 per hour living wage rate for FY23. The costs to the City budget is estimated between $18.2M to $22.8M. These costs do not include any sworn employees. City staff will provide more information on the budget impact, costs if sworn employees were included, and potential living wage rates that work within a balanced budget. We will also review our current pay grade structure, specifically the number of pay grades that will be impacted, projected increases, and how this impacts our current employees. If you have any questions before the presentation by the Group occurs, please contact me. Attachments cc: CMO Executive Team Department Directors HR Manager’s Forum Living Wage Working Group Participants, Meeting Summaries, Data Reviewed, Recommendations Living Wage Stakeholder Group Participants These are the organizations that attended at least …
Play video — original link
Play video
BOA Attendance sheet and Sign in sheet June 13, 2022 — original pdf
Backup
Backup_ATCFPB - Food Planning Presentation _June 2022 — original pdf
A Food Plan for Austin Overveiw of the Com prehensive Food Plan, Food Appendix, and Resilience Hubs What is a Food System ? The Office of Sustainability defines the food system a s a n interconnected network th a t in clu des everyth in g th a t h a ppen s w ith food —w h ere a n d h ow it is grow n , dis tribu ted a n d s old, con s u m ed, a n d idea lly recovered. Th e food s ys tem is s h a ped by its s ta k eh olders , pra ctices , a n d th e la w s th a t regu la te both . Post Consumption & Waste Diversion Processing & Distribution Production Food Justice Consumption & Access Markets & Retail Did you k now ? ● 14.7% food in security in Travis Coun ty an d 18 out of 47 zip codes in Travis Coun ty don ’t have a full service grocery store ● 16.8 acres of farm lan d are lost every day in Travis ● Less than 1% of food con sum ed in Austin -Travis Coun ty is locally produced ● 1.24 m illion poun ds of food is w asted every day in Coun ty Austin Developing Austin’s firs t ever Food Pla n Resolution In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City M anager to initiate a planning process and m ultilingual engagem ent strategy for the creation of the Austin Travis County Food System Plan, w hich shall convene experts and stak eholders to craft a 5-year plan. The Office Of Sustainability is the departm ent in charge of overseeing the achievem ent of this goal. Source: Austin City Coun cil RESOLUTION NO. 20210610-039 Why do w e need a Food Plan? ● The im pact of the Covid-19 pandem ic & Winter Storm Uri exposed and exacerbated deficiencies in our food system . ● A Food Plan w ill set clear Goals and Str ategi es to m itiga te th e im pa ct of fu tu re cris es , correct th e s ys tem ’s in equ a lities , a n d m ove tow a rd a m ore equ ita ble, s u s ta in a ble & res ilien …
ATCFPB - Food Planning Presentation _June 2022_UPDATED — original pdf
A Food Plan for Austin Overview of the Com prehensive Food Plan, Food Appendix, and Resilience Hubs What is a Food System ? The Office of Sustainability defines the food system a s a n interconnected network th a t in clu des everyth in g th a t h a ppen s w ith food —w h ere a n d h ow it is grow n , dis tribu ted a n d s old, con s u m ed, a n d idea lly recovered. Th e food s ys tem is s h a ped by its s ta k eh olders , pra ctices , a n d th e la w s th a t regu la te both . Post Consumption & Waste Diversion Processing & Distribution Production Food Justice Consumption & Access Markets & Retail Did you k now ? ● 14.7% food in security in Travis Coun ty an d 18 out of 47 zip codes in Travis Coun ty don ’t have a full service grocery store ● 16.8 acres of farm lan d are lost every day in Travis ● Less than 1% of food con sum ed in Austin -Travis Coun ty is locally produced ● 1.24 m illion poun ds of food is w asted every day in Coun ty Austin Developing Austin’s firs t ever Food Pla n Resolution In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City M anager to initiate a planning process and m ultilingual engagem ent strategy for the creation of the Austin Travis County Food System Plan, w hich shall convene experts and stak eholders to craft a 5-year plan. The Office Of Sustainability is the departm ent in charge of overseeing the achievem ent of this goal. Source: Austin City Coun cil RESOLUTION NO. 20210610-039 Why do w e need a Food Plan? ● The im pact of the Covid-19 pandem ic & Winter Storm Uri exposed and exacerbated deficiencies in our food system . ● A Food Plan w ill set clear Goals and Str ategi es to m itiga te th e im pa ct of fu tu re cris es , correct th e s ys tem ’s in equ a lities , a n d m ove tow a rd a m ore equ ita ble, s u s ta in a ble & res ilien …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
20220613-03E: Vicious Dog Ordinance — original pdf
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20220613-03E Seconded By: Commissioner Jo Anne Norton Recommended changes to Vicious Dog, 3-4-7, in the City Code Date: 6/13/22 Subject: Motioned By: Recommendation The Commission recommends that City Code 3-4-7, Vicious Dog, is amended to read as in the description below. Description of Recommendation to Council [Include the backup from the May meeting here] Rationale: Currently, once a dog has been determined “vicious,” it cannot be kept in the City. Such a dog may not be a threat as long as the owner is willing to take extra precautions to avoid the circumstances that caused the bad behavior in the first place. It is also possible for dogs to get training to improve their behavior. With no other option, these dogs could end up in a shelter, or worse. They become hard to place in a new home, and without that support, their behavior may deteriorate further in a shelter. We believe the proposed change would allow dogs to stay with their owners, with the potential for improved behavior, with very little risk to the public. Vote For: 12 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (vacant) Attest: [Staff or board member can sign] 1 of 2 Proposed revision to Section 3-4-7 2 of 2 Proposed revision to Section 3-4-7 3-4-7 VICIOUS DOG. (A) An owner or handler shall take reasonable measures to protect the public from accidental contact with a dog that, by nature or by training, is dangerous to people or other animals. (B) [ An owner or handler may not keep or permit a dog to be in the city if the dog has] For purposes of this section, a vicious dog is a dog that, while running at large, has: [(1) on at least three separate occasions bitten or scratched a person in the city; (2) on at least one occasion bitten or scratched a person to an extent that the attending physician has presented an affidavit to the health authority stating that the person’s life may have been endangered by the dog; or (3) on at least one occasion:] [(a)] (1) killed a another dog, cat, or other domestic pet, fowl, or livestock, provided, however, that when the incident occurred, the killed animal was not in violation of a provision of this title relating to the confinement or physical control of animals in the City; or [(b)] (2) seriously injured another animal …
20220613-004D: Living Wage Recommendation — original pdf
M E M O R A N D U M TO: THRU: Mayor and Council Members Spencer Cronk, City Manager Veronica Briseño, Assistant City Manager Joya Hayes, Human Resources and Civil Service Director April 28, 2022 Living Wage Work Group Process FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the living wage stakeholder review process and transmit to Council a summary of their work and recommendations. In 2014, the City Council passed Resolution 20141016-035 which directed the City Manager to provide staff support for a stakeholder process to develop recommendations regarding the City’s living wage rate and policy. During that process, stakeholders met seven times from January to May 2015, provided their recommendation to Council, and then briefed the Council. After the presentation to Council, the City Manager in conjunction with the annual budget process brought forward a plan to increase the Living Wage rate to $15.00 per hour by 2020. Similar to the 2015 process, the Human Resources Department provided staff support by convening meetings with the community organizations who participated in the previous Living Wage Stakeholder Group. Other organizations were invited upon the Groups' recommendation. The Group met four times: January 26, February 9 and 23, and March 9, 2022. Like the previous process, this memorandum provides the Group’s recommendation to Council. The Group will present their recommendation at a future Council work session. Attached to this memorandum are the summaries of the meeting topics, major data points reviewed, recommendations from the Group, and participating organizations. HRD and the Budget Office have preliminary provided an estimate of costs associated with a $22.00 per hour living wage rate for FY23. The costs to the City budget is estimated between $18.2M to $22.8M. These costs do not include any sworn employees. City staff will provide more information on the budget impact, costs if sworn employees were included, and potential living wage rates that work within a balanced budget. We will also review our current pay grade structure, specifically the number of pay grades that will be impacted, projected increases, and how this impacts our current employees. If you have any questions before the presentation by the Group occurs, please contact me. Attachments cc: CMO Executive Team Department Directors HR Manager’s Forum Living Wage Working Group Participants, Meeting Summaries, Data Reviewed, Recommendations Living Wage Stakeholder Group Participants These are the organizations that attended at least …
C-1 C16-2022-0004 PP DS 7-11-22 — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-1 DATE: June 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0004 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne OUT _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez _______Richard Smith _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) _______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) 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: 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: 4. Granting a variance would not provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated, because: FINDING: because: OR, OR, AND, ______________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison ____________________________ Jessica Cohen …
D-1 C16-2022-0001 PP DS TO 7-11-22 — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-1 DATE: June 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0001 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne OUT _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez _______Richard Smith _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) _______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 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
E-1 C15-2022-0002 PP DS TO 7-11-22 — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-1 DATE: Monday June 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0002 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Melissa Hawthorne OUT ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___Y____Richard Smith ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Nicholl Wade ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Rao Vasamsetti OWNER: 5413 Guadalupe LLC ADDRESS: 5413 GUADALUPE STREET VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum Interior Side Yard Setback from 5 feet (required) to 4 feet (requested), in order to erect a three story condominium in a “MF-4-CO-NP”, Multi-Family-Conditional Overlay-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (North Loop Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING JUNE 13, 2022 APPLICANT NO SHOW - The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Jessica Cohen motions to postponed to July 11, 2022; Board member Brooke Bailey seconds on a 11-0, vote; POSTPONED TO JULY 11, 2022. 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
E-2 C15-2022-0044 GRANTED DS W CONDS — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-2 DATE: Monday June 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0044 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Melissa Hawthorne OUT ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___Y____Richard Smith ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Nicholl Wade ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Jason Fryer OWNER: Lucas Schlager ADDRESS: 1907 9TH ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use) (C) (2) (a) for a Two- Family Residential use 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 order to erect a principle Single Family Residence to the rear of existing Secondary Unit in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Central East Austin Neighborhood Plan) 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: BOA MEETING JUNE 13, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to approve with conditions that the city approves a root mitigation plan to the city arborist for approval in which tree the critical root zone is being impacted, no STR and limited to 0.4 FAR; Board member Darryl Pruett seconds on a 11-0, vote; GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY APPROVES A ROOT MITIGATION PLAN TO THE CITY ARBORIST FOR APPROVAL IN WHICH TREE THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS BEING IMPACTED, NO STR AND LIMIT TO 0.4 FAR. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: LDC 25-2-774 c.2.c require significant modification/demolition of the existing structure in order to add an ADU to the rear of the structure and increase the size of the primary structure, building a new primary structure in the front and a new ADU to the rear would eliminate an excellent example of 1940s architecture. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the property …
E-3 C15-2022-0047 PP DS TO 7-11-22 — original pdf
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-3 DATE: Monday June 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0047 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Melissa Hawthorne OUT ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___Y____Richard Smith ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Nicholl Wade ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Christian Gutierrez OWNER: Steven Walker ADDRESS: 4522 CASWELL AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code Section 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 remodel a Garage/Studio in a “SF-3-NCCD-NP”, Single-Family- Neighborhood Conservation Combining District-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (Hyde Park Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING JUNE 13, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Jessica Cohen motions to postponed to July 11, 2022; Board member Michael Von Ohlen seconds on an 11-0, vote; POSTPONED TO JULY 11, 2022. 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