ITEM11 C15-2022-0061 ADV PACKET PART2 — original pdf

Backup

ITEM11/44 CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet DATE: Monday May 11, 2020 CASE NUMBER: C15-2020-0020 ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Ada Corral ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___*____William Hodge (abstained) ___Y____Don Leighton-Burwell ___Y____Rahm McDaniel ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___-____Veronica Rivera (out) ___Y____Yasmine Smith ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Martha Gonzalez (Alternate) APPLICANT: Jennifer Hanlen OWNER: Durham Trading Partners XII, LLC ADDRESS: 1401 3RD ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side setback from 5 feet (required) to 2.77 feet (requested) in order to complete a Single-Family residence in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Plan) Note: currently under construction, layout error BOARD’S DECISION: BOA meeting April 13, 2020 CANCELLED MEETING; MAY 11 2020 The public hearing was closed by Chair Don Leighton-Burwell, Board Member Michael Von Ohlen motions to postpone to June 8, 2020, Board Member Rahm McDaniel seconds on a 10-1 vote (Board member Darryl Pruett nay, William Hodge abstained); POSTPONED TO JUNE 8, 2020. FINDING: because: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: ITEM11/45 (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: ______________________________ Elanie Ramirez Executive Liaison Diana Ramirez for ____________________________ Don Leighton-Burwell Chairman ITEM11/46 May 5, 2020 Jennifer Hanlen 1401 E 3rd St Austin TX, 78702 Re: C15-2020-0020 Dear Jennifer, Property Description: W 35.6FT OF N138FT OF W193.4 OLT 20 DIVISION O Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance(s) from the following section of the Land Development Code; Section 25-2-492 interior side setback from 5 feet (required) to 2.77 feet (requested) setback requirements; to decrease the minimum In order to complete a Single-Family residence in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Plan) Austin Energy does not oppose the above variance request provided any proposed and existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s clearance criteria requirements, the National Electric Safety Code and OSHA. Any removal or relocation of existing electric facilities will be at owners /applicants’ expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://austinenergy.com/wcm/connect/8bb4699c-7691-4a74- 98e7-56059e9be364/Design+Criteria+Manual+Oct+2015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Eben Kellogg, Property Agent Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050 BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET ITEM11/47 CASE: C15-2020-0020 BOA DATE: April 13, 2020 ADDRESS: 1401 E. 3rd St OWNER: Durham Trading Partners COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 AGENT: Jennifer Hanlen ZONING: SF-3-NP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W 35.6FT OF N138FT OF W193.4 OLT 20 DIVISION O VARIANCE REQUEST: reduce interior side setback from 5 ft. to 2.77 ft. SUMMARY: complete construction of a Single-Family residence ISSUES: layout error during construction ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-3-NP SF-3-NP SF-3-H-NP SF-3-NP SF-3-NP Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Austin Lost and Found Pets Austin Neighborhoods Council Barrio Unido Neighborhood Assn. Bike Austin Capital Metro Del Valle Community Coalition East Austin Conservancy East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Association East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Plan Contact Team El Concilio Mexican-American Neighborhoods Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Greater East Austin Neighborhood Association Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation Homeless Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation Neighbors United for Progress Preservation Austin SELTexas Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group Tejano Town ITEM11/48 ITEM11/49 ITEM11/50 ITEM11/51 ITEM11/52 ITEM11/53 March 19, 2020 City of Austin c/o Elaine Ramirez City of Austin Board of Adjustments One Texas Center 505 Barton Springs Austin, Texas 78704 BOA request for 1401 E 3rd St. to allow a 2.77 setback setback Legal tract located at 1401 E. 3rd St. is 4,852 SF; has had on-site utility service since 1926. Original residence was demolished in 2017 and a new residential permit application was submitted to city of Austin. Application was approved by city of Austin; new single-family residence constructed in accordance with plans. The plot plan was accurate and was based on the accurate survey; however, an incorrect version of the survey was used to set the construction forms. A survey error based on confusing ROW widt construction of the SFR & accessory apartment. This was not known until contractor called for final inspection and certificate of occupancy and preparation of the owner occupying the residence. Surveyor then surveyed entire block alley in order to understand where error was created. The intersection of the rear public alley and intersecting Navasota Street have varying widths. These intersecting ROWs allowed multiple opportunities for error. The new single- There are no known examples like this in the immediate area, but is probable in the larger east Austin geography. This small setback encroachment does not impair the intent of the zoning regulations, nor does it have any adverse impact on adjacent or surrounding properties. inspection. The Certificate of Occupancy can be granted if the variance is approved. Sincerely, David C. Cancialosi, Agent for Owner ITEM11/54 ITEM11/55 ITEM11/56 ITEM11/57 ITEM11/58 RE: 1401 E 3rd Street Setback Variance Request CASE # C15-2020-0020 Board of Adjustment, As a neighbor, I received notification regarding the side-setback variance request for 1401 E 3rd Street. I am writing to respectfully request that the board of adjustment deny this request on a life safety basis. As sited, the building presents a hazard to persons and property. In addition to increasing the opportunity for fire propagation between structures, the limited side lot setback: Does not meet the accessibility and visitability requirements defined in section R320.7; Fails to ensure emergency fire egress via the Restricts fi ability to engage a structure-involved fire at 1401 or 1403 E 2nd Street. accessible ground-floor exits; As you consider this variance request, please keep these measurements in mind: 82 inches. At the northeast corner of the structure, the as-built clearance between 1401 E 3rd Street and the abutting historic structure at 1403 E 3rd Street official side-lot setbacks call - -built clearance is 68% of what is required. 43 inches. As currently built, the width of the first-floor entrance sidewalk is 43 properties is not on the lot line, this clearance is not guaranteed going forward. 18 inches. The approximate distance that the exiting fence built by Durham Trading Partners encroaches on the abutting property at 1403 E 3rd Street . Note that the existing sidewalk straddles over the lot line by approximately 10 33 inches. If the abutting property owner ever moves the fence to the lot line, the width of the first-floor entrance sidewalk will be reduced to a non-ADA compliant width of . Consider also the explanation in th letter: [Durham Partners used] an incorrect version of development guidelines do not allow for this type of error. Per t The Inspections flowchart, all pre-foundation development activities are predicated upon the completion a third-party form survey. more than reasonable to expect a professional developer to do so. development process successfully. It is While I am sympathetic to the fact that Durham Trading Partners has invested a lot of time and money in this Approving this variance request retroactively will effectively permit an inexcusable life safety hazard to persist for decades. This not only sets a poor precedent but also exposes the City to increased risk and liability. Sincerely, David Brearley EXHIBITS ITEM11/59 In practice, the as-built clearance is already quite tight and restricted. If the abutting property owner ever moves the fence to the property line as is common during redevelopment activities decrease from the existing the sidewalk clearance will . a non-ADA compliant width of EXHIBITS ITEM11/60 The City prerequisite to any pre-foundation construction activities. This process ensures that a licensed surveyor has confirmed and verified the foundation form locations before the developer sets anything is set in stone. Residential Inspection flowchart clearly indicates that a 3rd Party Form Survey is a th statement indicates that: If so, the only explanation for a side lot setback error is that Durham Trading Partners failed to retain its 3rd party professional, Waterloo Surveyors, to visit the site to conduct a form survey. While that oversight is unfortunate, it does not merit a variance. The BOA should not reward bad actors. ITEM11/61 EXHIBITS A member of the East Cesar Chavez Planning Team brought the questionable side-lot setback at 1401 E 3rd Street to Durham Trading Partner City staff were also informed, per this email record: From: Thompson, Jeffrey - BC Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 9:59 AM To: Johns, Renee <Renee.Johns@austintexas.gov>; Olsen, Dillon <Dillon.Olsen@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: 1401 E 3rd Street But the foundation is easily less than 5 ft from the property line. Here is a picture of the actual building. Jeff Thompson District 3 Planning Commissioner Office: 512-314-1830 ITEM11/62 This is an approved plan and there is a projection into the 5 foot setback. This is a common concern, but the code does allow for eaves and other incidentals to project 2 ft. into any setback, LDC 25-2-513 B. If you look at sheet A201, you can see the elevation view of the proposed residence. On this elevation, you can see the footprint of the building stops at the 5 ft. setback and the eaves project into the setback. Again this is an allowed and common design. From: Johns, Renee Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:41:33 PM To: Thompson, Jeffrey - BC; Olsen, Dillon Subject: RE: 1401 E 3rd Street Jeffrey, I hope this answers your question. Renee Johns Planner Senior Expedited Review City of Austin Development Services Department One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, 7th Floor Office: 512.974.2260 From: Thompson, Jeffrey - BC Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 3:08 PM To: Johns, Renee <Renee.Johns@austintexas.gov>; Olsen, Dillon <Dillon.Olsen@austintexas.gov> Subject: 1401 E 3rd Street Hi Dillon, I'm looking into a case on behalf of a district 3 constituent. She is concerned that the house being built at 1401 E 3rd does not have a 5 foot side setback. Looking at the plan (2017-043148 PR), it clearly shows that the house encroaches on the 5 foot set back line. Can you tell me if this is in fact an approved plan and if so can you please explain why? Thank you so much for your time. Jeff Thompson District 3 Planning Commissioner Office: 512-314-1830 ITEM11/63 From: To: Subject: Date: Bryce Allison Ramirez, Elaine C15-2020-0020 Friday, May 08, 2020 6:32:26 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Elaine, I just received notice in the mail about case C15-2020-0020. 1401 E 3rd St is requesting a variance on the interior setback from 5 to 2.77 feet. I own the property adjacent at 1403 E 3rd St. I am against granting this variance. I have been extremely concerned about this as it puts the neighboring property way too close to my own and will devalue my property and privacy. I am also concerned that the property appears to be a multi-tenant property when it is described and zoned as a single family residence. Can you shed any light on this? I would like to have the opportunity to speak at the meeting on May 11. Thank you, Bryce Allison 512-522-2792 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 CSIRT@austintexas.gov. ITEM11/64 Amy Thompson Ramirez, Elaine From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: BOA Case # C15-2020-0020 _ Resident Objection Monday, May 11, 2020 12:20:13 AM Case Number C15-2020-0020_Public Comment_Objection_Thompson.pdf 1401 E 3RD ST_ Site Plan.pdf *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Ramirez, Attached please find my public comments and related documentation to support my STRONG OBJECTION to the request for set back incursion in BOA Case # C15-2020-0020 . This case raises public safety as well as social equity concerns. As such, I appreciate the board's attention to neighbor input. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Amy Thompson 512-659-7666 1402 E. 2nd St. Austin, Texas 78702 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 CSIRT@austintexas.gov. ITEM11/65 Public Comment Re: Case Number C15-2020-0020 (1401 East 3rd St.) Submitted by: Amy Thompson, Adjacent Property owner at 1402 East 2nd St.; tel: 512-659-7666 Position: I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed variance (see comments below) As an adjacent neighbor to this property I am opposed to the requested variance for set back requirements at this property for the following reasons: 1) Health and Safety Concerns 2) Social Equity Concerns As the homeowner immediately to the south of this property, I have an immediate interest in the Health and Safety Concerns associated with new structure that is being built in violation of City codes designed to prevent the spread of house fires. As a resident, I first alerted the City to my concerns about this set back violation on January 20th, 2018, in a letter to my planning commission district representative, Jeff Thompson. At that point the foundation for the property had been staked out, but not poured. I sent Jeff a pictured of the clear violation of the minimum 5 foot setback and he in turn pulled the site plan and contacted City staff. The site plan (attached) confirmed that the plan was approved in violation of the code, but no immediate justification was apparent. Once the foundation was poured in violation of the code, I sent another inquiry. The response by City staff to this inquiry was dismissive, despite the clear violation and ITEM11/66 threat to the health and safety of adjacent property owners. I understand Commission Thompson pursued the inquiry further, but I was never informed of the results, and have been frustrated and concerned by the situation ever since. In 2017, an historic structure stood at this property. The property had been recommended for preservation by the City s survey of Historic East Austin and the neighborhood strongly supported its preservation. The developers seeking its demolition argued repeatedly that the building had to be demolished for health and safety reasons, based primarily on its grandfathered location within the 5 side setback. The developers argued strongly, and apparently convincingly, before the City Planning Commission that the health and safety of the neighboring properties was of greater community importance than the structure s value as a contributing structure to the disappearing history of East Austin s minority/ working class communities. For the planning department to turn a blind eye to the set-back violation included in the new site plans within months of the much loved historic structure s destruction, was a slap in the face to neighboring property owners and the community as a whole. It reflects a callous preference for the promotion of development and support of commercial developers in East Austin neighborhoods regardless of the impact on residential property owner s needs and shared community values. Supporting developer s profit margins simply can not be valued above the health and safety of residents, let alone the preservation of communal goods. City staff s support of this set-back violation raises Social Equity Issues, and should not be allowed to continue. Any financial impact that this will have on the property s current owner, however regrettable, cannot take precedence over public safety. Moreover, it cannot be prioritized without calling attention to the historic inequities in the application of City s planning code. that is no reason to allow an exception. The City planning department often changes It is unlikely that the current developers acquired this property without understanding the setback violation in place and its potential financial impact to completing construction on the site. However, even if that is the case, and that it is somehow staff s fault that the site plan erroneously approved the site plan violation its interpretation and support of site plans during the construction process and very often resulting in significant expense to residential property owners. I have personally suffered a significant comparably financial hardship and know of other residents in the neighborhood who have as well. Yet, while I know of no case in which financial hardship was successfully argued to facilitate approval of a requested variance for a residential property in our neighborhood hardship was explicitly discussed and considered in the weighing of the impact of a request made by developers. This bias in the application of city code is an equality issue. The physical safety and financial security of individuals and families should not be weighed less than the profit margin of commercial investors. I can site several incidents in which financial Please feel free to contact me for further information or documentation if needed. Thank you for your attention to this case. Amy Thompson ITEM11/67 ITEM11/68 ITEM11/69