A-1 C15-2022-0051 DS INTERP — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Interpretation A-1 DATE: July 13, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0051 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___N____Brooke Bailey ___N____Jessica Cohen ___R____Melissa Hawthorne RECUSED ___-____Barbara Mcarthur OUT ___N____Ryan Nill ___-____Darryl Pruett OUT ___Y____Agustina Rodriguez ___N____Richard Smith ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Nicholl Wade ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPELLANT: Stuart Hersh OWNER: TDC Griffin Windsor Owner, LLC ADDRESS: 5900 WESTMINSTER DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The appellant has filed an appeal challenging staff’s interpretation of Chapter 25-2, Subchapter E (Design Standards and Mixed Use) of the Land Development Code in connection with approval of a Site Plan application for construction of a Vertical Mixed-Use (VMU) development at the above-referenced address. The appellant contends that the Site Plan does not meet the Land Development Code, Subchapter E Sections 1.1, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 3.1, 4.1, and 4.3 in a “GR-V-CO-NP”, Community Commercial-Vertical Mixed Use-Conditional Overlay-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (Windsor Park Neighborhood Plan). Note: Subchapter E: Design Standards and Mixed Use, Article 1 – General Provisions, Article 2 – Site Development Standards, Article 3 – Building Design Standards, and Article 4 – Mixed Use: Article 1 – General Provisions • 1.1 General Intent • 1.5 Alternative Equivalent Compliance Article 2 – Site Development Standards 3.1 Intent 2.1 Intent 2.2 Relationship of Buildings to Streets and Walkways 2.8 Shade and Shelter • • • Article 3 – Building Design Standards • Article 4 – Mixed Use • 4.1 Intent and • 4.3 Vertical Mixed Use Buildings BOARD’S DECISION: 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 Marcel Gutierrez-Garza seconds on a 7-4 vote (Board members Brooke Bailey, Jessica Cohen, Ryan Nill, Richard Smith nay, Melissa Hawthorne recused); APPEAL DENIED-UPHELD 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 objectives of the zone in question because: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: ______________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison ____________________________ Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for