City Council & City Manager, Adjustment; and WHEREAS, since the opening of City Hall it has hosted the meetings of the Board of WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial sovereign board that has an impact on the development and growth of the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, sovereign boards are held to a higher standard than advisory boards and commissions; and business hours; and WHEREAS, land use board and commission public hearings take place outside normal WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is not a city department or service; and WHEREAS, City management has decided to move the meetings of the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning and Platting Commission to the City of Austin Permitting and Development Center (PDC) at Highland Mall without informing the Board or the public; and WHEREAS, moving the Board of Adjustment public hearings to the PDC places an undue burden on the public, the staff and the board members; and WHEREAS, public hearings for variances, special exceptions, and administrative appeals by the Board of Adjustment should be in the same location as city council and other land use commissions to avoid confusing the public; and WHEREAS, PDC signage is lacking, with only small signs on the glass doors facing Wilhelmina Delco Drive, the PDC’s official address, making it easy for participants to miss, yet the public entrance is on Thomas Hatfield Way; and WHEREAS, seven high-frequency bus routes serve City Hall including two MetroRapids, yet only two high-frequency bus routes – the 7 and the 337 – and the Red Line serve the PDC, and the bus stops are closer to City Hall than they are to the PDC; and WHEREAS, the safety and security of participants is paramount and City Hall has metal detectors, security immediately outside the chamber and secure parking; and WHEREAS, Highland Mall is a construction zone so pedestrians and transit riders will have to walk past empty lots at night including a vacated lot used for surface parking across the street from the PDC, while City Hall is in the middle of an active, walkable downtown; and WHEREAS, City Hall has a dais, computers on the dais, work tables for staff and comfortable, permanent chairs for the public while the PDC facility at Highland Mall is a multi- purpose room; and WHEREAS, there is no reason operationally to move the Board of Adjustment meetings to …
CITY OF AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A R P A F O O D A C C E S S C O M M U N I T Y - O W N E D F O O D R E T A I L I N I T I A T I V E DONALD JACKSON, BUSINESS PROCESS CONSULTANT NOVEMBER 2021 Community-Owned Food Retail Purpose: Support the development of a cooperative and/or non-profit grocery store in an underserved area of Austin. Supporting City Council Resolutions: • Resolution 20160303-20 (Food Access Resolution) • Healthy Food Access Initiative (Response to 20160303-20) • Resolution 20210112-043 Northeast Austin Planning - Includes supporting the development of grocery stores • Resolution 201020802-072 – Food Sector Economic Analysis C I T Y O F A U S T I N R E D E V E L O P M E N T 00/00/00 2 Community-Owned Food Retail Purpose: Support the development of a cooperative and/or non-profit grocery store in an underserved area of Austin. Supporting City Council Resolutions: • Resolution 20210325-111 and 20210325-66 - Prioritizes addressing food insecurity using American Rescue Plan Funding • 2021-2022 Budget Rider 1B-20210811105337 – Reaffirms “planning and designing of at least one community-owned and/or community-controlled grocery store in an area lacking healthy food retail” C I T Y O F A U S T I N R E D E V E L O P M E N T 00/00/00 3 Community-Owned Food Retail: The Plan Phase I Phase 2 Store Pilot Community Engagement Critical Leadership Development Milestones Funds for Memberships Feasibility Business Planning Review to Proceed Ongoing Support Planning for the Future City Council Engagement Regular Updates on Review of Regular Updates on Project Progress Project Progress Phase I Results Project Review and Future Options Evaluation of Project Options C I T Y O F A U S T I N R E D E V E L O P M E N T 00/00/00 4 Community-Owned Food Retail: The Plan (Fall 2021) Request for Proposals for a consultant team to lead community organizing, business and feasibility analysis, and pilot launch of a community- owned grocery store. • Phase I: Organizing and Development (Spring 2022-Fall 2023) • Pre-feasibility preparation • Extensive community engagement • Robust feasibility analysis and business planning • Recommendations on store location, format, and structure • Cultivation of a Leadership Team and a Founding Member Cohort …
Austin Community-Owned Food Retail Initiative The Austin Community-Owned Food Retail Initiative is an effort to open a new community-owned grocery store in an Austin neighborhood lacking access to healthy food retail options. This project is funded by $500,000 from Austin’s allocation from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Three Step Plan 1. Engage residents to gauge interest and support 2. Develop a business plan for the community grocery store 3. Open a small-scale model to test the grocery store concept The City of Austin will hire a skilled third-party administrator to assist with the Austin Community-Owned Food Retail Initiative. Phase I: Organizing and Development (Spring 2022 - Fall 2023) • Community engagement and organizing • Business planning and feasibility studying • Store planning (e.g., location, format, structure) • Steering Committee and Member Cohort development Phase I: Critical Milestones • Steering Committee has seven to nine members • Member Cohort has at least 300 households • Business plan and feasibility study proves the store will be sustainable Phase II: Pilot Operations (Fall 2023 - Winter 2024) • Provide seed funding • Launch pilot operations • Ongoing assistance and support www.austintexas.gov/edd Questions? Email edd@austintexas.gov Follow @AustinEconDev on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Advocacy Strategy Planning Template Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board - 2016 II. Target Audiences Who has authority to make decisions? Analysis of their position and what might win their support. Who has influence on the decision-makers? “Experts” “Authentic Voices” “People with Clout” Analysis of their position and what might win their support. Who are your community partners and resources? III. Key Messages Message #1 Why it's right, based on the evidence To who and how Message #2 Why it's good politics or business To who and how IV. Action Plan What, by who 1. Research Existing Landscape and Identify Solutions that Build on Existing Infrastructure 2. Develop Solution What is needed, from where, by when? 3. Outreach - Messages, Communication and Materials What, by when, by who 4. Management Who will oversee and how? 5. Evaluation Who will carry out and how?
Notes from the FY 2022 Strategic Planning Meeting of the Austin Travis County Food Policy Board Discussion after the Purpose and Mission of the ATCFPB presentation: 1. Board members would like to talk about the bylaws at a meeting 2. The word “shall” in the bylaws is a heavy lift because the Board is not provided with resources to do the work that is required. How can the Board leverage the language in the bylaws to obtain funds/resources? Top priority of the Board for 2022 will be the Food Planning Project. Board members will be key to that project and will participate via a work group. Other priorities discussed (from the post-it note exercise) and categorized by the “Purpose and Duties” listed in the bylaws (these priorities could be individual projects that a board member takes on themselves (I) or would require the efforts of the work group (WG)): 1. Monitor the availability, price, and quality of food throughout the Austin and Travis County Area a. Emergency response planning – creating better systems/policies for food access during an extreme weather event (WG) b. Ensure decision makers have the most up-to-date city and county food system data including updating Office of Food Policy reports (WG) 2. Collect data on the food security and the nutritional status of city residents a. Access to healthy culturally appropriate food – affordable produce, easy to access, and locally grown. (WG) this was posted by 2 different board members. 3. Inform city and county policy makers, administrators, and the public at large about the status of the regions food system and food security a. None a. None 4. Monitor and analyze the administration of city and county food nutrition programs 5. Explore new means for the city and county to improve the local food economy, the availability, sustainability, accessibility, and quality of food and our environment, and assist city and county departments in the coordination of their efforts a. “Local” from RGV (WG) b. County invests in food system projects (WG) c. Continue monitoring/informing new CFO process (I or WG) d. Assist with formation of Food Plan CAC (I or WG) e. Find ways to work across gov’t boundaries to make plan regional (I or WG) f. County and City collaborate on food system investments (I or WG) g. Food innovation study – research innovations happening in the food system that could provide opportunities for new …
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Lorraine Atherton Ramirez, Diana; Ramirez, Elaine Agenda item D-1, 1003 Kinney variance, case C15-2021-0100 Monday, November 08, 2021 10:59:05 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, Ms. Ramirez. Please include these comments in the backup and case file for tonight’s Board of Adjustment hearing on Agenda item D-1, 1003 Kinney variance, case C15-2021-0100. Thank you for your help. Lorraine Atherton 2009 Arpdale, Austin, TX 78704 For the Zoning Committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association To the City of Austin Board of Adjustment The Zoning Committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association is opposed to the requested lot size variance for 1003 Kinney because the applicant has not presented a qualifying hardship and because the granting of the variance amounts to a privilege that has been denied to other properties in similar circumstances. We offer these alternatives: 1. Encourage the owner to purchase or otherwise persuade the City to vacate a portion of the alley. 2. Limit the new construction to the dimensions of the demolished house. The request lacks a hardship: Demolition application forms note that the applicant is responsible for checking on whether new construction will be allowed on the lot, before the application is submitted. The applicant must also take responsibility for submitting the correct lot dimensions. The hardship question in this case boils down to whether the applicant checked the box in error, or the City staff approved the demolition in error. Unless the owner at 1003 Kinney can show that staff approved the demolition in error, there is no hardship. If staff approved it in error, then the best the owner can expect is permission to rebuild the house to its previous dimensions. The situation is not unique in this neighborhood: The applicant cites 904 Ethel as a comparable case, but the 904 Ethel variance was sought BEFORE demolition, not after. The BoA decision in the Ethel case on Nov. 14, 2016, was to limit the construction to 1,600 sf. More relevant cases are: 1516 Kinney, where the house was demolished prematurely. That variance was denied early in 2016. The owner eventually bought more land to restore the minimum lot size. The ZNA position in that case was that we would have been happy to discuss a variance to preserve the existing house, but when the owner went ahead and demolished the house, he removed any justification for a hardship. …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Electric Utility Commission Recommendation No. 20211108-022 FPP Resource Plan Working Group Date: November 8, 2021 Subject: FPP Resource Plan Working Group Motioned: Cyrus Reed Seconded: Cary Ferchill Recommendation: Whereas the Austin City Council unanimously approved the 2030 Austin Energy Generation Plan in March of 2020, which commits Austin Energy to a zero-carbon goal by 2035; Whereas a key strategy of the 2030 Plan, as well as previous plans such as the 2014 and 2017 Generation Plans, was to commit Austin Energy to cease the burning of coal at the portion of the Fayette Coal Plant owned by Austin Energy by the end of 2022: Whereas Austin Energy has been working on negotiating a solution with the Lower Colorado River Authority, which co-own the plant for several years; Whereas Austin Energy, after consulting with City Council, officially announced on November 1st, 2021 that it had been unable to reach a reasonable and beneficial agreement with LCRA on how to assure retirement of either one unit at Fayette, or a virtual retirement of the approximately 600 MWs of coal owned by Austin Energy by the end of 2022; Whereas emissions of carbon dioxide from the Fayette Power Plant account for approximately 80% of the emissions controlled by Austin Energy and there is no way to meet the goals of the Austin Energy 2030 Resource Plan without ending our use of coal; Therefore, Resolved, the Electric Utility Commission forms a Fayette Power Plant Resource Plan Working Group that will collaborate with Austin Energy to explore options for reducing and ending our use of coal as soon as possible, including but not limited to: Continued negotiations with the LCRA to either shut down a unit at Fayette, or virtually shut down the equivalent amount of coal-fired power plants through running the unit less by the end of 2022, or another date in the near future, such as 2023 or 2024; Expanded use of REACH to bid into the market at a higher price, and therefore reduce the use of coal; Expansion of zero-carbon resources such as solar and storage at or near the Fayette plant to help in the transition away from coal sooner. Be it further resolved that the working group provide the EUC with bill impact analysis of each recommendation if available; Resolved, to the extent the Resource Management Commission also takes a similar action, the EUC …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION 20211108-F-2 Date: 11/08/2021 Subject: Board of Adjustment bylaw change Motioned By: Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne Seconded By: Chair Jessica Cohen Recommendation Article 7(D) - remove monthly and add “at 5:30PM on the second Monday of each month at Austin City Hall” Description of Recommendation to Council An administrative change in the BOA bylaws to specify the time, day, and location for BOA meetings to occur matching the time, day, and location the BOA has traditionally observed since 2004 Rationale: In the interest of transparency, equity, and accessibility for all Austinites to the Board of Adjustment, the Board is in unanimous agreement that future hearings and meetings should continue to be held at Austin City Hall and that as a quasi-judicial sovereign land use board, the time and day should be defined in the bylaws similar to other sovereign land use boards. Vote For: 11 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Attest: Chair Jessica Cohen 1 of 1 Recommendation to Council Audit and Finance Committee for adoption to Board of Adjustment Bylaws Bylaws Article 7 (D) remove monthly and add “at 5:30PM on the second Monday of each month at Austin City Hall”
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION 20211108-F-4 Date: 11/08/2021 Subject: Resolution for Board of Adjustment hearings/meetings to continue at Austin City Hall Motioned By: Board Member Thomas Ates Seconded By: Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne Recommendation On 11/8/2021 the Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a resolution for board meetings to continue to be held at City Hall. Description of Recommendation to Council Please see accompanying Resolution Rationale: In the interest of transparency, equity, and accessibility for all Austinites to the Board of Adjustment, the Board is in unanimous agreement that future hearings and meetings should continue to be held at Austin City Hall. Vote For: 11 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Attest: Chair Jessica Cohen 1 of 1 City Council & City Manager, Adjustment; and WHEREAS, since the opening of City Hall it has hosted the meetings of the Board of WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial sovereign board only appealable to state district court rather than city council that has an impact on the development and growth of the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, sovereign boards are held to a higher standard than advisory boards and WHEREAS, land use board and commission public hearings take place outside normal commissions; and business hours; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is not a city department or service; and WHEREAS, City management has decided to move the meetings of the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning and Platting Commission to the City of Austin Permitting and Development Center (PDC) at Highland Mall without informing the Board or the public; and WHEREAS, moving the Board of Adjustment public hearings to the PDC places an undue burden on the public, the staff and the board members; and WHEREAS, public hearings for variances, special exceptions, and administrative appeals by the Board of Adjustment should be in the same location as city council and other land use commissions to avoid confusing the public; and WHEREAS, PDC signage is lacking, with only small signs on the glass doors facing Wilhelmina Delco Drive, the PDC’s official address, making it easy for participants to miss, yet the public entrance is on Thomas Hatfield Way; and WHEREAS, seven high-frequency bus routes serve City Hall including two MetroRapids, yet only two high-frequency bus routes – the 7 and the 337 – and the Red Line serve the PDC, and the bus stops are closer to City Hall than they …
City Council & City Manager, Adjustment; and WHEREAS, since the opening of City Hall it has hosted the meetings of the Board of WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial sovereign board only appealable to state district court rather than city council that has an impact on the development and growth of the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, sovereign boards are held to a higher standard than advisory boards and WHEREAS, land use board and commission public hearings take place outside normal commissions; and business hours; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is not a city department or service; and WHEREAS, City management has decided to move the meetings of the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning and Platting Commission to the City of Austin Permitting and Development Center (PDC) at Highland Mall without informing the Board or the public; and WHEREAS, moving the Board of Adjustment public hearings to the PDC places an undue burden on the public, the staff and the board members; and WHEREAS, public hearings for variances, special exceptions, and administrative appeals by the Board of Adjustment should be in the same location as city council and other land use commissions to avoid confusing the public; and WHEREAS, PDC signage is lacking, with only small signs on the glass doors facing Wilhelmina Delco Drive, the PDC’s official address, making it easy for participants to miss, yet the public entrance is on Thomas Hatfield Way; and WHEREAS, seven high-frequency bus routes serve City Hall including two MetroRapids, yet only two high-frequency bus routes – the 7 and the 337 – and the Red Line serve the PDC, and the bus stops are closer to City Hall than they are to the PDC; and WHEREAS, the safety and security of participants is paramount and City Hall has metal detectors, security immediately outside the chamber and secure parking; and WHEREAS, Highland Mall is a construction zone so pedestrians and transit riders will have to walk past empty lots at night including a vacated lot used for surface parking across the street from the PDC, while City Hall is in the middle of an active, walkable downtown; and WHEREAS, City Hall has a dais, computers on the dais, work tables for staff and comfortable, permanent chairs for the public while the PDC facility at Highland Mall is a multi- purpose room; and WHEREAS, there is no …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet C-1 DATE: November 8, 2021 CASE NUMBER: C16-2021-0011 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne (abstained) _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Rahm McDaniel _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez _______Richard Smith _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) _______Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Vacant (Alternate) APPLICANT: Renee Bornn OWNER: Villas Rio, LP ADDRESS: 2111 RIO GRANDE 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), requesting a total of 1 sign(s) on the property: a) (F) to allow one (1) wall signs above the second floor (maximum allowed) to the eight floor (requested) b) (H) to allow for the one (1) sign(s) to all be illuminated in order to provide signage for the Villas on Rio Grande in a “GO-MU, LO-NP, MF-4-NP”, General Office- Mixed Use, Limited Office, Multi-Family– Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (West University Neighborhood Plan) Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-133 University Neighborhood Overlay Zoning Districts Signs (F) No signs may be placed above the second floor of a building, except for a non-electric sign that is engraved, cut into the building surface, or otherwise inlaid to become part of the building. (H) A sign may not be illuminated or contain electronic images or moving parts. BOARD’S DECISION: Oct 11, 2021 BOA MEETING POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2021 BY BOARD MEMBERS (AS REQUESTED BY APPLICANT); Nov 8, 2021 POSTPONED TO DEC 13, 2021 (per 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 ____________________________
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet D-1 DATE: Monday November 8, 2021 CASE NUMBER: C15-2021-0100 ___Y___Thomas Ates ___Y___Brooke Bailey ___Y___Jessica Cohen ___Y___Melissa Hawthorne ___Y___Barbara Mcarthur ___Y___Rahm McDaniel ___Y___Darryl Pruett ___-____Agustina Rodriguez (abstained) ___Y___Richard Smith ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (out) ___-____Nicholl Wade (out) ___Y___Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___-____Carrie Waller (Alternate) (abstained) _______Vacant (Alternate) OWNER/APPLICANT: Ian Ellis ADDRESS: 1003 KINNEY AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Section 25-2-943 (B) (2) (a) (Substandard Lot) to decrease the minimum Lot Size requirements from 5,750 square feet (required) to 5,464 square feet (requested), (TCAD records show 5,740 sq. ft.) in order to erect a Single-Family residence with a Pool in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. Note: 25-2-943 SUBSTANDARD LOT (B) A substandard lot may be used for a single-family residential use if the use is permitted in the zoning district in which the lot is located and the lot complies with the requirements of this subsection. (2) A substandard lot recorded in the county real property records after March 14, 1946 must: (a) have an area of not less than 5,750 square feet. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING NOV 8, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to Postpone to December 13, 2021; Board Member Darryl Pruett seconds on a 9-0-2 vote (Board members Agustina Rodriguez and Carrie Waller Abstained); POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 13, 2021. 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
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-1 CASE NUMBER: C15-2021-0056 DATE: Monday November 8, 2021 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___Y____Richard Smith ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (out) ___-____Nicholl Wade (out) ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Vacant (Alternate) APPLICANT: Andrea Hamilton OWNER: Chase & Andrea Hamilton ADDRESS: 3006 GLENVIEW AVE VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-515 (Rear Yard of a Through Lot) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to erect a detached garage/office in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Windsor Road Neighborhood Plan) Note: Per LDC for a Through Lot, a rear yard must comply with the minimum requirements applicable to a front yard. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA JULY 12, 2021 POSTPONED TO AUG 9, 2021 AE DENIAL; Aug 9, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to Postpone to October 11, 2021; Board Member Rahm McDaniel seconds on a 9-1 vote (Board Member Brooke Bailey nay); POSTPONED TO October 11, 2021; Oct 11, 2021-POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2021 BY BOARD MEMBERS (Due to not enough Board Members present at the meeting)-re-notification needed VARIANCE REQUEST: RENOTICE-The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section(s): a) 25-2-515 (Rear Yard of a Through Lot) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) b) Subchapter F Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, Article 3, 3.3.2 (A) (1) (Gross Floor Area) for a detached parking area to decrease the minimum distance requirement from the principal structure from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to erect a detached garage/office in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence- Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Windsor Road Neighborhood Plan) Note: a) Per LDC 25-2-515 Rear Yard of A Through Lot - For a through lot, a rear yard must comply with the minimum requirements applicable to a front yard. a) rear parking area that is separated from the principal structure by not less than 10 feet. Per LDC Subchapter F, RDCC, Article 3, 3.3.2 (A) (1) (Gross Floor Area) - A detached BOARD’S DECISION: BOA November 8, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-2 DATE: Monday November 8, 2021 CASE NUMBER: C15-2021-0062 ___Y___Thomas Ates ___Y___Brooke Bailey ___Y___Jessica Cohen ___Y___Melissa Hawthorne ___Y___Barbara Mcarthur ___Y___Rahm McDaniel ___Y___Darryl Pruett ___Y___Agustina Rodriguez ___Y___Richard Smith ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (out) ___-____Nicholl Wade (out) ___Y___Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y___Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___-____Vacant (Alternate) APPLICANT: David Cancialosi OWNER: Christen Steen ADDRESS: 3401 RIVERCREST DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin District Regulations) (C) (3) (a) increase the maximum impervious cover on a slope with a gradient of 15 percent or less from 35 percent (allowed) to 48 percent (requested), (53% existing) (b) increase the maximum impervious cover on a slope with a gradient of 15 percent and not more than 25 percent from 10 percent (allowed) to 49 percent (requested), (54.25% existing) (c) increase the maximum impervious cover on a slope with a gradient of more than 25 percent and not more than 35 percent from 5 percent (allowed) to 18 percent (requested), (4.41% existing) (d) increase maximum impervious cover on a slope gradient greater than 35 percent to 3 percent (requested), (0.83% existing) in order to erect a Single-Family + associated improvements in a “LA”, Lake Austin zoning district. Note: This section of the Land Development Code applies to lots that are included in a subdivision plat recorded before April 22, 1982 or a tract that is not required to be platted. For the above address the Subdivision Plat was recorded on January 4, 1965 The overall change in IC is from 21.51% to a proposed 20.89% IC, or 8,084 SF IC to 7,883 SF IC, when calculated on a gross lot area basis. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA JULY 12, 2021 POSTPONED TO AUGUST 9, 2021; Aug 9, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to Postpone to October 11, 2021; Board Member Brooke Bailey seconds on a 10-0 vote; POSTPONED TO October 11, 2021; Oct 11, 2021-POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2021 BY BOARD MEMBERS (Due to not enough Board Members present at the meeting). Nov 8, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne motions to approve with conditions to remove existing wood deck and stairs on the north side as per exhibit E-2/28 and presentation slide E-2/35, and will not exceed calculations on presentation slide E-2/26; Board …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet E-3 DATE: Monday November 8, 2021 CASE NUMBER: C15-2021-0085 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___Y____Richard Smith ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (out) ___-____Nicholl Wade (out) ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___-____Vacant (Alternate) APPLICANT: David Cancialosi OWNER: Estates at Lake Austin, LP ADDRESS: 1717 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin District Regulations) (B) (1) (a) from shoreline setback requirements to reduce the shoreline setback from 75 feet (required) to 25 feet (requested) along a man-made inlet in order to erect a Single-Family + associated improvements in a “LA”, Lake Austin zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING SEPT 13, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board Member Michael Von Ohlen motions to Postpone to October 11, 2021; Board Member Rahm McDaniel seconds on a 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 11, 2021; Oct 11, 2021-POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2021 BY BOARD MEMBERS (Due to not enough Board Members present at the meeting); Nov 8, 2021 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen motions to approve with conditions to install a rainwater system and to limit the impervious cover to 32%; Board Member Darryl Pruett seconds on a 11-0 vote; GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS TO INSTALL A RAINWATER SYSTEM AND TO LIMIT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 32%. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: the zoning regulations combined with unique hardships prevent a reasonable use of this site as prescribed by the applicable zoning district. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the number of hardships and the extent to which they encumber the site severely limit the normal development typically found on a lot of this size in LA zoning (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: man made sloughs create significant development constraints because of the 75’ shoreline setback 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: …
