D-2 C15-2021-0085 PRESENTATION — original pdf

Backup

1717 CHANNEL ROAD AUSTIN, TX 78746 Case # 2021-000072 BA D-2/1-PRESENTATIONVARIANCE REQUEST eeking BOA Variance to reduce shoreline setback: C 25-2-551(B)(1)(a) to reduce shoreline setback from 75’ to 25’ along a man-made gh that abuts the property via cut in boat slip. e Austin shoreline setback is 75’ per staff’s current interpretation of where a shoreli ack is measured from as it relates to man made sloughs or inlets. client is seeking a 25’ Lake Austin shoreline setback from the slough. man-made slough has a cut-in slip created sometime between1955 and 1968 per C tin zoning profile aerials. re does not appear to be any natural causation of the inlet. It appears wholly man m g various historical aerials and physical inspections. D-2/2-PRESENTATIONAERIAL D-2/3-PRESENTATIONMAP AERIAL D-2/4-PRESENTATIONCHANNEL RD + ENTRANCE TO SITE Easement to 1717 D-2/5-PRESENTATIONVARIOUS INLET ANGLES D-2/6-PRESENTATIONVARIOUS INLET AND CHANNEL ANGLES D-2/7-PRESENTATIONVARIOUS PROPERTY ANGLES FROM INLET D-2/8-PRESENTATIONVARIOUS PROPERTY ANGLES AROUND INLET D-2/9-PRESENTATIONEASEMENT THAT SPLITS PROPERTY D-2/10-PRESENTATIONCHANNEL TO / FROM LAGOON – LAKE AUSTIN D-2/11-PRESENTATIONREASONABLE USE zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow onable use because: zoning regulations combined with unique hardships prevent a reasonable use of th rescribed by the applicable zoning district. existing 1.72-acre tract is vacant and zoned Lake Austin, LA, as part of the City rt to apply LA zoning to lake properties in 1984. The site was annexed June 15, 196 ed “A” zoning which is the equivalent of today’s SF-2 zoning. The site does not fro n body of Lake Austin. It is only accessible to the water via a small inlet that connec on. From that lagoon a straight line was dredged to the site. On the other side on, it connects to the main body of Lake Austin via separate canal (from the la canal travels under a bridge (Channel Road), then it connects to the main body. ( aerial maps for quick reference). We believe the cut-in slip was created during the period as the actual inlet because the 1955 – 1968 aerials reflect the inlet being dr m the lagoon during this time and not in any aerials before 1955. It shows the inlet e location between 1955 - present. Currently there is no boat dock structure crete retaining walls exist in the cut-in area. D-2/12-PRESENTATIONREASONABLE USE (CONT’D) e applicant is requesting a reduced shoreline setback from the water in orde accommodate development of a single-family project and associated cessory structures. The variance request is more about the flexibility to loca provements in appropriate locations rather than getting close to the water pe The tract has several hardships prohibiting a reasonable development of ch a large tract, namely the interpretation that a 75’ shoreline setback applie sites such as this, which have no main body frontage. The shoreline setbac rtion of the LA code was never intended to apply to this type of site. The Boa s acknowledged this on at least three (3) LA sites that I am personally awar hough there may be more cases which I cannot account for. Each site had ual main body frontage as well as man made sloughs entering each of thos operties. They are addressed to Westlake Dr. all of their inlets had shoreline back reductions approved ranging between 5’ and 25’. Another site in Bee eek was recently approved for shoreline setback reduction from 75’ to 25’ fo rt of the shoreline, too. All of these cases were approved 2018-2021. D-2/13-PRESENTATIONREASONABLE USE (CONT’D) e proposed house and related accessory structures are attempting to fit tween multiple on-site obstacles. This is more specifically noted in the rdship section of this application. The attached exhibits will facilitate the ard’s understanding of the site as well as the layout of the surrounding area ich is highly unusual in terms of it’s access to and from the main body, a eable lagoon which exists nowhere else in the lake area, a highly unusual sement access cutting through the middle of the lot – essentially bifurcating e lot into almost two separate build areas, and the irregular shape of this site ong other hardships. e believe this is a fair and reasonable use in the Lake Austin zoning categor that category specifically prescribes development of a residential nature. wever, a literal application of the LA zoning performance standards inhibits asonable use of this site. For example, factors specific to this lot to include ning setbacks, access easements, lot shape, protected trees, the cut in slip d man made slough, septic field location due to proximity to water, and duced net site building area. All of which contribute to an unreasonable d f th i t d d hibiti th d ll t t i D-2/14-PRESENTATIONHARDSHIP hardship is not general to the area in which the property is locat ause: he site has several hardships which limit the reasonable placement of infrastructure ertical improvements. Most notably, the application of the 75’ shoreline setback red he buildable area by over 20,000 square feet. The regular front, side and rear setb emove an additional 21, 892 square feet from the buildable area. There’s a notic ccess easement which bifurcates the lot and removes another 2,600 square feet. R way, almost 45,000 square feet of a 75,000 square foot lot is 100% unbuildable – which is land that is taxed by Travis County. Further, a mixture of protected and her ees are found throughout the front, side and rear of the property restricting constru ocations even more so. The site also loses almost 2,000 square feet to inundation he man made cut-in slip. In sum, that nears 50,000 square foot of land which i seable due to various, overlapping regulations. D-2/15-PRESENTATIONHARDSHIP (CONT’D) Under current conditions the site bears about 18,000 square feet of allowab impervious coverage. That equates to about 25% IC. Since the lot is 100% flat it allowed 35% IC. However, this case is about the location of the IC, not the amount itself. The project will be compliant with IC and all other requirements. T combined hardships can be overcome despite their cumulative effect, but ev standalone analysis of a singular hardship such as the access easement presen substantive hardship to the development of this site - the access easement serves tw separate properties located behind this site and is essentially irrevocable. None of t parties with legal standing to the easement will agree to relocate the easement at th time. Add the protected trees and 3,400 square foot septic field and it gets more restrictiv And again, the shoreline setback was never intended to apply to man made cana sloughs, cut ins and such. At some point in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s the st started making the determination that they do apply. This current determination what brings the case to you today. D-2/16-PRESENTATIONHARDSHIP (CONT’D) • A 25’ shoreline setback would certainly increase the allowable imperviou coverage, but this case is not about impervious coverage – it’s about the flexibility to site the single-family improvements in a reasonable manner. A shorelin reduction from 75’ to 25’ will do just that. We estimate a 25’ setback would allow about 24,000 square feet, or roughly 32% IC. My client is open to an IC cap if th Board favors that as a condition of approval. • Suffice to say, the site has several encumbrances that affect the ability to site th proposed improvements to the property by way of the hardships. Thi combination of hardships is not known on any surrounding properties that tak access from the already unusual lagoon much less the larger surrounding are containing homes along the main body of Lake Austin. D-2/17-PRESENTATIONNOT GENERAL TO THE AREA Man made sloughs, inlets and cut-ins are fairly rare along Lake Austin. They do exist; and when they do, they create significant development constraints because the iteral application of the 75’ shoreline setback stretches into viable build sites within he lot nearly 100% of the time. The Board has recognized this on simila properties. This condition is not general to the area, but rather the exception. D-2/18-PRESENTATIONAREA CHARACTER variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will air the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of lations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: y new construction will be in keeping the varied construction styles found along L stin. There will be no adverse impact to adjacent properties. All development mply with all other applicable codes. Active measures will be taken to ensure tection of Lake Austin via best management practices. summary, a proposed 25’ setback measured from the 492.8’ contour shoreline w ow a reasonable use of the property, would not be dissimilar to other shoreline setb Board has approved for sites with man made inlets, and will have no adverse im adjacent properties. Best management practices would be employed as part of ject to ensure protection of on-site environmental features where applicable, L stin itself, and neighboring properties. D-2/19-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/20-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/21-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/22-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/23-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/24-PRESENTATIONEXHIBITS D-2/25-PRESENTATIONTHANK YOU D-2/26-PRESENTATION