40' SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 3 (PARTIAL): MAX ALLOWABLE HGT: MAX HGT FROM AVG. GRADE: BUILDABLE AREA AVG GRADE: LVL 1.0 TOP OF SLAB: INTERVAL 3 LOW POINT: INTERVAL 3 HIGH POINT: 32' 0" 31' 0" 529' 11" 534' 0" 525' 0" 526' 8" 40' SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 2: MAX ALLOWABLE HGT: MAX HGT FROM AVG. GRADE: BUILDABLE AREA AVG GRADE: LVL 1.0 TOP OF SLAB: INTERVAL 2 LOW POINT: INTERVAL 2 HIGH POINT: 32' 0" 31' 0" 529' 11" 534' 0" 526' 6" 532' 4" 40' SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 1: MAX ALLOWABLE HGT: MAX HGT FROM AVG. GRADE: BUILDABLE AREA AVG GRADE: LVL 1.0 TOP OF SLAB: INTERVAL 1 LOW POINT: INTERVAL 1 HIGH POINT: 32' 0" 31' 0" 529' 11" 534' 0" 530' 6" 535' 2" 40'-0" SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 2 40'-0" SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 1 8" 11'-53 SUBCHAPTER F INTERVAL 3 (PARTIAL) C 8'- 0 " R 6' 2 5 7' 2 5 3214 K C A B T E S R A E R ' 0 1 21" PROTECTED LIVE OAK TREE TO REMAIN. REFER TO SHEETS AS2.1 &AS2.2 FOR TREE PROTECTION. INTERVAL 2 LOW POINT 526' 6" INTERVAL 3 LOW POINT 525' 0" EXISTING 1 2" IRON ROD TO REMAIN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEW ELECTRICAL METER BLDG GRADE LOW POINT 527' 10" EDGE OF CARPORT 528' 6.75" H O H O H O ' 5 2 5 H O H O ) ' 0 5 ( ' 5 0 . 0 5 E " 0 0 8 1 ° 0 3 N ' H O H O H O H O " 8 1 2 - ' 3 3 H O H O " 4 3 3 - ' 7 1 H O H O E N I L Y T H R O E P O R P R H A O E R H O H O H O H O H O H O EXISTING ASPHALT ALLEYWAY 5'-0" R 9 ' - 6 " EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE TO BE RELOCATED TO NEW ELECTRICAL METER AS REQUIRED OH OH OH OH O H O H EXISTING UTILITY POLE 20" PROTECTED CEDAR TREE TO REMAIN. REFER TO SHEETS AS2.1 &AS2.2 FOR TREE PROTECTION. INTERVAL 3 HIGH POINT 526' 8" O H 3213 3212 O H 3211 O H O H P AC PADS (FLATWORK) 18 SF M SIDEWALK (FLATWORK) 45 SF I COV. PORCH …
WEISS ARCHITECTURE PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: DATE: EXISTING IMAGES 1406 Alta Vista Avenue Katharine Harris March 24, 2022 East Elevation West Elevation North Elevation South Elevation Page 2 of 3 Northwest Corner Southwest Corner Page 3 of 3
Charitable Feeding Organization Best Management Practices A Charitable Feeding Organization (CFO) must obtain a CFO permit to operate for the handling of time and temperature-controlled foods or for the purpose of repackaging donated foods. After a CFO registration is obtained, an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) will conduct a routine inspection annually for a CFO Category 2. During these routine inspections, the EHO will be reviewing the following items that are required per FDA Food Code, Texas Food Establishment Rules (TFER), Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 228 and City of Austin Municipal Code Section 10-3: Food Temperature above for hot foods. 70°F within the first two hours). 1. Time and temperature-controlled foods must be kept at 41°F or below for cold foods and 135°F or 2. Leftover food intended for reuse, must be rapidly cooled to 41°F or below within 6 hours (down to 3. Food must be reheated to 165°F or above before it is placed in a hot or steam well. 4. Raw foods must be cooked to the proper temperature according to the FDA Food Code. 5. Food handlers must monitor the internal temperature of hot and cold food with a metal stem-type thermometer in the 0°F- 220°F range. Thermometers should be cleaned and sanitized between use. 6. Food handlers must monitor donated food temperature received. Cold food received at above 41°F or hot food below 135°F must not be accepted. 7. Daily temperature logs of refrigeration units and food are recommended but are not required. Hand Washing use paper towels. 1. Hand washing facilities must be equipped with proper signage, stocked with hand soap and single 2. Gloves should be used to handle ready to eat foods. 3. Food handler must wash hands when changing tasks and gloves. 4. Must wash hands for 20 seconds in running warm water at a handwashing sink equipped with hot (100°F) and cold water. Food Handler or Food Manager Certificate 1. Only one Certified Food Handler may be present at any one time to oversee the handling of food or dishes for CFO Category 2. All staff and volunteers that are handling food or dishes must take an accredited food handler training course within 30 days of service as required by TFER §228.31 (d) (CFO Category 3 & 4 only). 2. One Food Manager Certificate is required a per FDA Food Code §2-101.11 TFER §228.31 and Austin City Code for a …
Charitable Feeding Organization (CFO) Self-guided Category Determination Category Types of Food Allowed Requirements Types of Food- Handling Allowed Mobiles • Only Prepackaged non- Limited Service • Must register for a CFO Category 1: TCS* Foods. No open food o Complete the CFO General Application. CFO 1 Restricted • Beverages in closed containers. handling. Storage of shelf stable foods Fees waived. • Follow the Best Management Practices. • Whole uncut fruits and and uncut produce • No routine inspections required. vegetables. only. • Canned foods and packaged grains. • All pre-packaged TCS* Limited Service • Must register for a CFO Category 2: foods allowed. Distributes and o Complete the CFO General • Minimal handling of open portions Application. Fees waived. CFO 2 Restricted/ Unrestricted foods. • Reportioning of commercially-prepared foods allowed. commercially prepared & packaged TCS* Foods. Requiring minimal handling of open food. • Follow the Best Management Practices. • Austin Water grease trap not required. • Only one Certified Food Handler must be present at any one time. • Annual inspections CFO 3 service only. • All TCS* foods allowed. Limited Service • Must apply for a CFO Category 3 • Preparing hot or cold TCS* Heats and/or Establishment Food Permit: foods onsite for same day portions o Complete the CFO General Application. commercially prepared TCS* Fees waived. • A pre-opening inspection and routine foods for same-day inspections service. • A Registered Food Manager Certificate and Food Handlers Certificate(s) Unrestricted • All TCS* foods allowed. Full Service • Must apply for a CFO Category 4 Food • Preparing hot or cold TCS* A full-service Establishment Permit: foods onsite allowed. community kitchen o Complete the CFO General Application. CFO 4 and soup kitchen that cooks, cools and warms foods that are TCS* foods for same-day, future or delivery service. Fees waived. • Pre-opening inspection and routine inspections • A Registered Food Manager Certificate and Food Handlers Certificate(s) *TCS = Time or Temperature Controlled for Safety Foods (i.e. meat, dairy, cut melons, cooked vegetables, etc.) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant's Signature Print Name Date I have read/understand all of the items of responsibility listed above and agree to fully comply with all requirements as listed. I understand fully that any violation of or deviation from these requirements may result in the suspension of my permit and may potentially result in further legal action, such as having court charges filed.
Charitable Feeding Organization (CFO) Self-guided Category Determination Category Types of Food Allowed Requirements Types of Food- Handling Allowed Temporary Events • If already • Only Prepackaged Limited Service • Must register for a CFO Category: registered or non-TCS* Foods. No open food o Complete the CFO General permitted with • Beverages in closed handling. Storage of EHS, the containers. shelf stable foods Application. Fees waived. • Follow the Best Management registration or • Whole uncut fruits and uncut produce Practices. CFO 1 and vegetables. only. • No routine inspections required. permit will extend to the event if at the same address. • If held at separate location, must apply for CFO Temporary Event for each location. • Canned foods and packaged grains. • All pre-packaged Limited Service • Must register for a CFO Category: TCS* foods allowed. Distributes and o Complete the CFO General • Minimal handling of portions commercially Application. Fees waived. open foods. prepared & packaged • Follow the Best Management commercially- prepared foods allowed. Requiring minimal handling of open • Austin Water grease trap not required. • Only one Certified Food Handler must food. be present at any one time. • Annual inspections CFO 2 • Reportioning of TCS* Foods. Practices. Allowed up to 6 • All TCS* foods Limited Service • Must apply for a CFO Category 3 CFO Temporary allowed. Heats and/or portions Establishment Food Permit: Events per year • Preparing hot or cold commercially o Complete the CFO General If exceeding 6 CFO TCS* foods onsite prepared TCS* foods Application. Fees waived. CFO 3 Temporary Events, for same day service for same-day service. • A pre-opening inspection and routine an official request only. must be submitted to EHS. inspections • A Registered Food Manager Certificate and Food Handlers Certificate(s) • All TCS* foods allowed. Full Service A full-service • Preparing hot or cold TCS* foods onsite allowed. community kitchen and soup kitchen that cooks, cools and warms foods that are • Must apply for a CFO Category 4 Food Establishment Permit: o Complete the CFO General Application. Fees waived. • Pre-opening inspection and routine inspections TCS* foods for same- • A Registered Food Manager day, future or delivery Certificate and Food Handlers service. Certificate(s) *TCS = Time or Temperature Controlled for Safety Foods (i.e. meat, dairy, cut melons, cooked vegetables, etc.) CFO 4 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant's Signature Print Name Date I have read/understand all of …
CHARITABLE FEEDING ORGANIZATION (CFO) CHECKLIST Modified: 1/18/2022 Use this checklist to help ensure your CFO has all the required documents to meet the requirements of Austin Public Health, Austin Water Industrial Waste and Development Services Department Commercial Plan Review. AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH https://www.austintexas.gov/department/environmental-health-services Phone Number: 512-978-0300 Ombudsman: Grisel Saenz, 512-978-0344 Application ☐ Review “How to apply for a CFO” guidance document. ☐ Review CFO Self-guided Category Determination – determine the category of the CFO. ☐ Complete the CFO General Application. ☐ Complete the pre-opening inspection Request Application – If the CFO does not currently hold an active City of Austin (COA) Food Enterprise permit. (This step can be skipped if determined CFO category is 1 or 2 or for currently existing COA permits.) ☐ Verify that the CFO name or entity on the application matches the name under the 501(c) Exemption approval document. ☐ Email applications and documents listed to EHSD.Service@austintexas.gov for processing. Inspection ☐ Inspector will contact Responsible Party on application within 3 business days to schedule appointment. ☐ Obtain a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy for the building with the proposed use. ☐ All refrigeration must be at 41F or below with thermometers included. ☐ Must have a mop sink onsite and all plumbing must be in good repair. ☐ Must have employee restrooms available. ☐ Category 3 and 4 only: 2/3 compartment dish sink must be indirectly connected to the sewer (air gap). ☐ Category 3 and 4 only: Must have hot (110F) and cold water available for use at dish sink. All other sinks must be equipped with 100F and cold water. ☐ Category 3 and 4 only: Equipped with adequate number of hand sinks (with splash guards and sink signage). ☐ Category 3 and 4 only: Walls, floors and ceilings must be smooth durable easy to clean and non-absorbent. Lights must be shielded above food preparation areas. ☐ City of Austin Smoking Ordinance signage present. ☐ Dumpster with plug on asphalt/concrete pad. AUSTIN WATER INDUSTRIAL WASTE https://www.austintexas.gov/department/industrial-waste-control-pretreatment Phone Number: 512-972-1060 For All CFO’s ☐ Proof of 501(c) status or religious organizations meeting the definition of “church” under the Internal Revenue Code, §170(b)(1)(A)(I). ☐ A written description of food practices on organizational letterhead. ☐ Copy of a completed Austin Public Health CFO General Application. ☐ Category 1 and 2 only: Completed Grease Interceptor Installation Variance Request (GIIVR) form available at https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/SSD/Pretreatment/GIIVR_blank.pdf. Category 3 & 4 …
Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members From: Brent D. Lloyd Development Officer, DSD To: Eric Thomas Residential Zoning Plans Examiner Supervisor, DSD Date: May 9, 2022 Subject: Appeal of Staff Interpretation of “Habitable Attic” Exemption from Subchapter F’s Gross Floor Area Limitations ________________________________________________________________________ The matter before the Board of Adjustment (“BOA”) is an administrative appeal challenging staff’s disapproval of residential building plans submitted for development proposed at 2212 Trailside Drive. The issue of code interpretation before the Board is whether Development Service Department’s (“DSD”) correctly applied the “habitable attic” exemption from the gross floor area requirements of Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F (Residential Design & Compatibility Standards) of the Land Development Code (“LDC”). Procedural Requirements for Appeal The Appellants represent the applicant for the building permit at issue in this case, and they timely filed their appeal on April 7, 2022. Therefore, staff believes the appeal is properly before the BOA for consideration. In acting on the appeal, the BOA may uphold, modify, or reverse DSD’s decision rejecting the proposed building plans, as provided in City Code Sec. 25-1-192, based on whether they comply with applicable zoning regulations. The burden is on Appellant to show that staff’s disapproval of the proposed plans was based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable code requirements. Following resolution of the appeal, DSD will abide by the BOA’s interpretation of the applicable regulations both for the application at issue in this case and future applications involving Subchapter F’s gross floor area requirements. Summary of Issues & Subchapter F Provisions The primary issue before the Board can be summarized as follows: In disapproving the proposed building plans, did staff correctly conclude that the proposed attic space is not exempt from calculation of gross floor area under Subchapter F’s exemption for habitable attic space based on measurement of ceiling height? Review History The initial application and plans were accepted by Residential Intake on November 16, 2021. The first master comment report was sent by the coordinating reviewer on December 8, 2021, with rejection comments from the zoning reviewer and technical building code reviewer. City of Austin | Staff Report re: BOA Appeal (2212 Trailside Dr.) 05/09/2022 | Page 1 of 4 The first formal update was received on December 20, 2021. The second master comment report was sent by the coordinating reviewer on January 10, 2022, with rejection comments from the zoning reviewer. The zoning reviewer met …
From: To: Subject: Date: Susan Van Nostrand Ramirez, Elaine 2715 and 2717 Long Bow Trail Variance Request Hearing Tonight May 9th Monday, May 09, 2022 12:00:02 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello Ms. Ramirez, In regards to case number: G-1 C15-2022-0011 & G-2 C15-2022-0012 I live across the street from this property. I attended the last hearing and spoke in opposition to this variance exception. The variance was denied at that time. I am unable to attend tonight due to my son's baseball game. I would say the same thing I did last time. I spoke to the builder and asked for them to build something smaller that fits in the small lot. He said no, he was going to build his 1.2 million dollar three story white houses or he wouldn't make enough money. I have lived here for over 20 years and moved to this neighborhood to enjoy space, light and nature not huge three story white walls built on a tiny lot where he has to clear all the trees and cut out the mountain. I am asking that this builder be denied to increase the impervious cover from 5% to 40%. I would plead to the board that this is wrong and the rules are in place to protect our lakes and he refused to compromise. Respectfully, Susan Van Nostrand 2706 Long Bow Trail 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.
From: To: Subject: Date: Susan Van Nostrand Ramirez, Elaine 2715 and 2717 Long Bow Trail Variance Request Hearing Tonight May 9th Monday, May 09, 2022 12:00:02 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello Ms. Ramirez, In regards to case number: G-1 C15-2022-0011 & G-2 C15-2022-0012 I live across the street from this property. I attended the last hearing and spoke in opposition to this variance exception. The variance was denied at that time. I am unable to attend tonight due to my son's baseball game. I would say the same thing I did last time. I spoke to the builder and asked for them to build something smaller that fits in the small lot. He said no, he was going to build his 1.2 million dollar three story white houses or he wouldn't make enough money. I have lived here for over 20 years and moved to this neighborhood to enjoy space, light and nature not huge three story white walls built on a tiny lot where he has to clear all the trees and cut out the mountain. I am asking that this builder be denied to increase the impervious cover from 5% to 40%. I would plead to the board that this is wrong and the rules are in place to protect our lakes and he refused to compromise. Respectfully, Susan Van Nostrand 2706 Long Bow Trail 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.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20211213_4.a.i_Supporting Values-Based Procurement Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerable links in our local food system, resulting in food supply chain disruptions that caused economic harm to households, food service workers, small businesses like grocery stores and restaurants, public institutions like schools no longer accessible for school lunches, and the broader food industry across our region. Covid-19 revealed the flaws in a food system built for profit and efficiency at the expense of access and justice. The crisis demonstrated why we need to build a food system that is more transparent, sustainable, humane, and accountable, especially in the era of Climate Change. A strong local and regional economy can pivot quickly to meet changing demands for food. When confronted with supply chain disruptions, our local and regional farms, processing plants, distribution channels, and businesses make our communities resilient. Institutional food purchasing is an enormous lever for change and a critical tool for equity. The Good Food Purchasing Program is a values-based procurement framework that helps public institutions better understand the source of the food they purchase and provides a methodology to quantify the impact of that food along five core values: nutrition, local economies, valued workforce, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare. This procurement framework, developed by community members and food procurement professionals, is managed by the Center for Good Food Purchasing, and has been successfully adopted by over 60 institutions in 24 major cities across the nation, with over $1 Billion in annual aggregate purchases. Such Values-Based Procurement is a powerful tool for large scale food systems change that can nonetheless be managed at a local and municipal level. GFPP is robust and has been tested across the nation in multiple cities, adapting to the needs of different institutions. Since 2016, the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability has led a collaborative effort bringing together a cross-sector coalition of anchor institutions, community-based organizations, academia, philanthropy, nonprofits, and the business community and invested in leveraging the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) as a tool to catalyze transformational food systems change by supporting Austin institutions to participate. This work has been further invested in with the generous support of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Unified around a shared vision and set of values, Austin-based institutions involved with the Program have made important gains, but the pandemic has reinforced how much work …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-1 DATE: May 9, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0003 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___-____Brooke Bailey OUT ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___-____Rahm McDaniel OUT ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___-____Nicholl Wade OUT ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Shana Gardner OWNER: Joshua Needham ADDRESS: 1401 E 6TH ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-133 (University Neighborhood Overlay Zoning District Signs) (H) to allow for illumination of one (1) wall sign, one (1) illuminated blade, and one (1) illuminated parking blade in order to provide signage for mixed use development in a “TOD- NP”, Transit Oriented District–Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Plan) Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-133 University Neighborhood Overlay Zoning Districts Signs (H) states a sign may not be illuminated or contain electronic images or moving parts. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING MAY 9, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to approve; Board member Melissa Hawthorne seconds on a 10-0, vote; GRANTED. 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: N/A OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: This property is not unique in the types of signage requested, the proposed signage is comparable to the existing signage on other mixed use developments in the surrounding area therefore it will not have an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: most businesses in the area have illuminated signage, the type of lighting used for the building signage is understated in nature and matches the existing aesthetic of the sign district. 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: Granting this variance would simply allow this property the same level of privilege enjoyed by the surrounding areas and similar mixed use properties. ______________________________ ____________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-1 DATE: May 9, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0001 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Rahm McDaniel _______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 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 E-1 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0042 DATE: May 9, 2022 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___-____Brooke Bailey OUT ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___-____Rahm McDaniel OUT ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___-____Nicholl Wade OUT ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Felicia Foster OWNER: Valentin Bohorov ADDRESS: 2212 TRAILSIDE DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The appellant has filed an appeal challenging staff’s interpretation of Chapter 25-2, Subchapter F (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards) of the Land Development Code in connection with disapproval of a permit application for construction of a single-family home at the above-referenced address. The primary basis of the appeal is calculation of gross floor area for a “habitable attic” under the Land Development Code, in particular, requirements in Section 3.3 of Subchapter F. The appellant contends that staff incorrectly applies provisions related to the calculation of ceiling height for exempt space as applied to a two-story residence in an “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. Note: Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 3 Definitions and Measurement, 3.3 Gross Floor Area, 3.3.3 Porches, basements, and attics that meet the following requirements shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area: (C) A habitable portion of an attic if: 1. 2. 3. 4. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 12 or greater; It is fully contained within the roof structure; It has only one floor; It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below: Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less. It is the highest habitable portion of the building, or a section of the building, and adds 5. no additional mass to the structure; and 6. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING MAY 9, 2022. The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Michael Von Ohlen motions to deny the appeal request and uphold City staff’s interpretation; Board Member Melissa Hawthorne seconds on a 10-0 vote; APPEAL DENIED AND UPHOLD CITY STAFF’S INTERPRETATION. FINDING: 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the …
