E-3 C15-2021-0080 PRESENTATION — original pdf

Backup

Variance Request 74 San Saba Street C15-2021-0080 The Board of Adjustment September 13, 2021 Item E-3 Micah King (Husch Blackwell LLP) E-3/1-PRESENTATIONOverview To preserve deck that serves the rear, upper-level unit built in 1930 and provides secondary egress and living space for the small unit whose living space is only on the 2nd level. Placement limited to rear due to palm trees and need to provide separation and safe fire access to the rear unit, and to allow access for firefighters w/out walking under porch. Unit constructed close to rear lot line prior to original zoning code (and the 1928 code placed the property in the “E” “Unrestricted” use district). 2 E-3/2-PRESENTATIONRequested Variances  To provide reduced max. impervious cover of 41.38% (40% required outside the primary and secondary setbacks in the Festival Beach subdistrict of the Waterfront Overlay)  To reduce the min. side setback from 5′ to 3.9′  To reduce the min. rear setback from 10′ to 2.1′ 3 E-3/3-PRESENTATIONFence Update  We measured the fences, analyzed the Code, and met with numerous City Staff at the Development Services Department (who reviewed photos and measurements), and they confirmed that the fence does not require a variance. 4 E-3/4-PRESENTATIONProposed Reduction to Impervious Cover  Net reduction to impervious cover in the Waterfront Overlay (via demolishing pre-existing concrete walk and stone pads) as part of the request.  40%: Max. impervious cover  44.14%: Impervious cover prior to deck  47.8%: Existing impervious cover  41.38%: Requested impervious cover 5 E-3/5-PRESENTATION6 E-3/6-PRESENTATIONThe Zoning Regulations Do Not Allow for a Reasonable Use Because:  They preclude being able to preserve an existing deck for the upstairs rear residential unit, which increases fire safety for residents and firefighters by providing a secondary point of egress in case of emergency and which enhances quality of life for residents.  Deck is set back approximately 10′ from originally- platted lot line of property to the rear, and the side of the deck is in line with the side of existing structure. 7 E-3/7-PRESENTATIONReasonable Use: Photo Showing Alignment of Deck with Side of Unit 8 E-3/8-PRESENTATIONHardship is Unique to the Property Because:  Placement options constrained by locations of the structures constructed prior to zoning regulations.  Rear structure was lawfully constructed close to the rear property line.  Trees between units.  Provide gap between units for fire safety and emergency access. 9 E-3/9-PRESENTATIONHardship: View of Trees Between Front and Rear Units 10 E-3/10-PRESENTATIONReasonable Use and Unique Hardship as They Relate to Old Code 11 E-3/11-PRESENTATIONThe Hardship is not General to the Area  For most other properties in the area a rear deck with outdoor living space could be provided without encroaching upon the rear setback.  Rear unit has existed for 91 years, which was prior to the adoption of Austin’s first zoning code, and there is a vacated former alleyway at the rear. 12 E-3/12-PRESENTATIONApproval Would Not Alter Area Character  It is common for structures in the area to violate rear and side setback requirements.  Net reduction to pre-existing concrete impervious cover would advance the Overlay’s goal of enhancing the environmentally-sensitive Colorado River Corridor. 13 E-3/13-PRESENTATIONArea Character: Examples of Area Setback Encroachments 14 E-3/14-PRESENTATIONView of Deck from Street to Rear (Julius St.) 15 E-3/15-PRESENTATION16 E-3/16-PRESENTATION17 E-3/17-PRESENTATION18 E-3/18-PRESENTATION