ITEM9 C15-2022-0067 ADV PACKET 11-14 — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 6 DATE: Monday October 10, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0067 ___-____Thomas Ates OUT ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___N____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___Y____Darryl Pruett ___-____Agustina Rodriguez OUT ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___N____Michael Von Ohlen ___-____Nicholl Wade OUT ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___N____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___N____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) OWNER/APPLICANT: Jose Minguell ADDRESS: 2614 CANTERBURY ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum Interior Side Yard Setback from 5 feet (required) to 6 inches (requested), in order to maintain two (2) small sheds - a utility shed and bike shed in a “SF-3- NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (Holly Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to Approve; Substitute motion by Board member Darryl Pruett to Deny; Board member Brooke Bailey second on 5-4 vote (Board members Jessica Cohen, Michael Von Ohlen, Carrie Waller and Marcel Gutierrez-Garza nay); DENIED. 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: ITEM9/1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 forITEM9/2BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET RE-CONSIDERATION CASE: C15-2022-0067 BOA DATE: November 14th, 2022 ADDRESS: 2614 Canterbury St OWNER: Jose Minguell COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 AGENT: N/A ZONING: SF-3NP (Holly) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 9 BLK 5 OLT 41-42 OLT 53 DIV O RIVERVIEW ADDN VARIANCE REQUEST: decrease the minimum Interior Side Yard Setback from 5 feet to 6 inches SUMMARY: maintain two (2) small sheds - a utility shed and bike shed ISSUES: corner lot, heritage pecan tree ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-3-NP SF-3-NP SF-3-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 Del Valle Community Coalition East Austin Conservancy East Town Lake Citizens Neighborhood Association 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 ITEM9/310/28/22 To the City of Austin Board of Adjustments: I would like to request that the Board of Adjustment revisit their ruling with regards to my variance request C15-2022-0067 for 2614 Canterbury Street, so that I can clarify the History of my property, its’ Reasonable Use, the intent of the Code with respect to setbacks and the Hardships particular to my property. These were all issues that were brought up in response to my request, but I did not get the opportunity to address them in the presentation. In addition, I would like to submit a 3-D model of the property and more notes on the site plan so that the Board can see this project in its context and true scale. Brief History of the Property Since moving into our home in 2007, we have tried to maintain its historic character, as a small bungalow with wood siding and friendly front porch that faces the neighborhood. When we moved into the house, there was a metal shed against the side yard property line. When looking through the city GIS archives, before that shed sometime in the 80’s there was a small garage also along the side yard property line. Historically, for our property, the side yard has been the most suitable location for a storage area since the driveway runs directly along the property. In 2013, when we added on to the original 700 square feet to accommodate our expanding 5-person household, and in order to maintain the homes’ original character, we expanded as far away as possible from the existing house. Although we would not want to demolish our house to build a driveway-accessible garage, because of the large heritage tree we would only have 18’ of buildable front façade to do so. This is narrower than the standard garage. We would basically have to sacrifice the character of the house, front porch and façade (which are not protected by Code) in order to have a layout more useful for a modern lifestyle. It is no wonder that the new homes going up in our neighborhood have large garages that face the street rather than the friendly front porches that were built in the 40’s. Again, we are making every effort to both keep the historic quality of the neighborhood but are requesting that an accommodation be made with respect to the Code so that our front façade maintains the historic scale and continue to be useful and used. It is through use and daily interactions, that neighborhoods maintain their vibrance. We enjoy the fact that we go to work through our front door, can say Hi to our neighbors from our front porch, and our kids can get their bikes from the front of the side yard to bike over to their friend’s house. The Request As stated on my application, under the current code and due to a very large pecan heritage tree, a 1940s house sited not per modern zoning standards and a driveway that runs along the property line, I cannot build a garage, carport nor storage area that are accessible from the driveway and house. I believe the need for such a structure (a garage, carport or accessible storage area) is a reasonable need and use in today's lifestyle. ITEM9/4I am not asking for a variance to build something new, but rather to maintain two small sheds that satisfy the needs of our family. After reviewing the site constraints and the portion of the code in question, I would think that two sheds (even if they were rebuilt with a different appearance than previously), that encroach within the 5’ sideyard setback is a reasonable use of this portion of our property. I have also shown the support from all our immediate neighbors as well as some close by neighbors with the provided letters of support. Reasonable Use With respect to further proving that the current code does not allow for "reasonable use", it is important to clarify the portion of the code for which the variance is requested; 25-2-492 Site Development Regulations for a Side Yard setback of 5 ft. During our hearing there was a brief conversation between the board members on the purpose and origin of the 5’ yard setback. One of the board members commented that the 5’-yard setback is in a place for fire reasons. This is incorrect and the proof of this is within the code, as it allows for zero lot line structures (townhouses, duplexes, etc.). Since this topic was part of the deliberations and probably played a part in the final outcome of my variance request, it necessitates a response within my arguments regarding reasonable use. Trying to find an explanation and reason for setbacks is similar to the explanation of why, as a young male, in a strict religious school, I was required to have short hair under the argument of hygiene. Ironically this was not an issue or rule for young females, since they could have long hair. The only real reason for this requirement was that, that's the way “we” like boys to look, hygiene was the cover up story. The reason why we have setbacks is the same, it is the way “we” like cities and neighborhoods to look under the premises or cover up story that it ensures “adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling”. The issue with this reality is that we have to accept that, as with the short haircut requirement, it is an imposition of cultural views and values over other individuals. The current setbacks impose an Anglo-American view of what a city should look, it ensures that any other urban housing form or cultural urban expression and tradition is suppressed, in the same way the haircut rules crush any self-expression or LBTG concerns within a school’s young male population. As a Latino myself, I come from a rich cultural variety of zero lot line urban building types. One of my favorites is the courtyard house, a beautiful form that allows for a true exploration of the indoor-outdoor lifestyle with vast amounts of natural light and ventilation without compromising privacy. A building type where the yard and garden become the unifying aspect of the house and family life. This is a true optimization of land, unlike the sad landscape and reality of the side yard setback. Sadly, this beautiful form of living is not heritage that I, as an architect and builder, could pass on to my kids. Such a form is not possible within Austin’s urban fabric under its current code and zoning. Instead, side yards, with their tall fences, lack of landscaping and utility are enforced so that neighborhoods that are even just a couple miles from downtown, have a single-family, white picket fenced look. ITEM9/5An interesting read on the history and origins of setbacks in America can be found in Kenneth Jackson's “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States”: "In actuality zoning was a device to keep poor people and obnoxious industries out of affluent areas. And in time, it also became a cudgel used by suburban areas to whack the central city. Advocates of land-use restrictions in overwhelming proportion were residents of the fringe. They sought through minimum lot and set-back requirements to ensure that only members of acceptable social classes could settle in their privileged sanctuaries. Southern cities even used zoning to enforce racial segregation. And in suburbs everywhere, North and South, zoning was used by the people who already lived within the arbitrary boundaries of a community as a method of keeping everyone else out. Apartments, factories and “blight,” euphemisms for black and people of limited means, were rigidly excluded." Austin is going through a period of all-time high, record property values, resulting in many of its citizens not being able to afford to live in the urban area, either due to property taxes or property values. One of the reasons for this is Austin is an extremely low-density city. Even as the city’s population grows, the urban neighborhoods are not allowed to increase their FAR or density. Low-density is a luxury that only wealthy citizens can afford. The current Code and its setbacks facilitate this inequality. The current code dates more than 50 years, when land use and property values weren’t such a detrimental issue for entire Austin community. The City recognizes this as they have been trying to change the Code for many years now. Perhaps we should not use this same antiquated mindset to defend, judge or rule on properties’ reasonable use. Without a variance, under the current Code and with my property’s site constraints, my house and property can neither be kept as it is nor developed to meet reasonable, economic and modern residential standards. Code Allowed Exemption Also, during the hearing, a board member pointed out that we could use our back yard for the location of the sheds needed. I was not given the chance to explain why this option was not reasonable and if implemented it would provide a hardship to our family. The back yard is not connected to the driveway nor to the main entry to the house. It’s location there would make the everyday use of a shed unreasonable. We are the proud parents of two small kids, one who attends Becker Elementary and the other Kealing Middle school. We live somewhat close to Kealing, but not far enough to qualify for the school bus route. Our house is 2.1 miles away, which makes a 40-minute walk difficult to do in the morning for our son. So, we are encouraging him to ride his bike, not just to free us from driving, but as a healthy, environmental and community building experience. We believe that it is reasonable to have a place that is accessible and safe for us to keep bikes, in most modern homes this would be a garage easily accessible from the main house and driveway. Interestingly, the code actually allows the installation of green energy equipment and their structures within the setbacks. ITEM9/6Using that same setback variance to store bikes, seems like an appropriate allowance as it also encourages a more environmentally friendly lifestyle (ref: § 25-2-513 - OPENNESS OF REQUIRED YARDS. (B)). Site Hardship I have already reviewed the physical site constraints regarding the front yard: the heritage tree and the driveway location. There is an additional site constraint that may not be so visible at first glance but reiterates the changing needs for modern society. Both my wife and I are architects and construction supervisors. We frequently have to load and unload tools that are required for us to perform our jobs, having to go to a backyard shed every day and under any weather, would be impractical and a hardship. Furthermore, because of the large pecans trees that we have on our property, the back side yard is the only piece of land that receives enough direct sunshine for our vegetable garden. Also because we are on a corner lot, a shed would have to be 15’ away from the Llano street sideyard property line. This would put it squarely in the middle of the small patch of grass in our backyard where our kids kick the soccer ball around. In summary, the current location of the sheds is truly the only reasonable location for our property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jose Minguell Proud father of three & husband of Laura McQuary ITEM9/7BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2022-0067 BOA DATE: October 10th, 2022 ADDRESS: 2614 Canterbury St OWNER: Jose Minguell COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 AGENT: N/A ZONING: SF-3NP (Holly) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 9 BLK 5 OLT 41-42 OLT 53 DIV O RIVERVIEW ADDN VARIANCE REQUEST: decrease the minimum Interior Side Yard Setback from 5 feet to 6 inches SUMMARY: maintain two (2) small sheds - a utility shed and bike shed ISSUES: corner lot, heritage pecan tree ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-3-NP SF-3-NP SF-3-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 Del Valle Community Coalition East Austin Conservancy East Town Lake Citizens Neighborhood Association 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 ITEM9/8September 28, 2022 Jose Minguell 2614 Canterbury St Austin TX, 78702 Re: C15-2022-0067 Dear Jose, Property Description: LOT 9 BLK 5 OLT 41-42 OLT 53 DIV O RIVERVIEW ADDN Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance(s) from the City of Austin Land Development Code at 2614 Canterbury St pertaining to the 5’ interior side yard setback requirement for SF-3 zoning. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, provided that any proposed or existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s Clearance & Safety Criteria, the National Electric Safety Code, and OSHA requirements. Any removal or relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner’s/applicant’s expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1 .10.0CLSARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Cody Shook, Planner II Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6881 Cody.Shook@austinenergy.com ITEM9/9Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application - - - For Office Use Only Case # __________________ ROW # ___________________ Tax # ____________________ Section 1: Applicant Statement Street Address: __________________________________________________________________ 2614 Canterbury Street ____________________________________________________________________________ LOT 9 BLK 5 OLT 41-42 OLT 53 DIV O RIVERVIEW ADDN ____________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ 9 _____________________________ 5 _________________________________ 53 _____________________________ O Riverview Addn ___________________________________________________________________ SF 3 ________________________________________________ Jose Minguell & Laura McQuary ________________________________________________ July 15 2022 ______________________________________________________________ Two small (35 & 75 square foot) utility and bike sheds ____________ | Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application | Page 4 of ITEM9/10____________________________________________________________________________ 25-2-492 Site Development Regulations for a Side Yard setback of 5 ft. (required) to 6" ____________________________________________________________________________ setback along a 22'-6" portion of the side property line (requested). ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Section 2: Variance Findings ____________________________________________________________________________ The 1940 house sits on a corner lot, its driveway (curb cut) runs along the interior side property ____________________________________________________________________________ line and is over the interior side yard setback. The existing house sits 9' from the side yard ____________________________________________________________________________ property line and has a giant heritage Pecan tree on the opposite side (the side street yard). As ____________________________________________________________________________ a result of these existing conditions, the property has no options of accessing a garage from the front driveway. The property has an undeveloped alley to the rear that is not on daily driving ____________________________________________________________________________ conditions, due to overgrown vegetation and poor driving surface conditions. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Continued on page 8) ____________________________________________________________________________ a) b) ____________________________________________________________________________ The original 1940 house, located on a corner lot, doesn't sit within the City's current zoning ____________________________________________________________________________ parameters, it is located 11' from the side street and 9' from the interior side. Because of a 44" ____________________________________________________________________________ pecan tree on the street side (heritage tree) and the narrow area to the side, there is no space ____________________________________________________________________________ for access or a garage (back yard or side of the house) or storage area serving the driveway ____________________________________________________________________________ areas (bikes, tools). (Continued on page 8) ____________________________________________________________________________ Few houses from the 1930s or 40s, that were sited awkardly (before the modern code restrictions) remain in the neighborhood. The ones that are left and grandfathered in, will have a ____________________________________________________________________________ garage sitting outside the interior side yard setback (close to the property line) with a driveway ____________________________________________________________________________ extending to the back yard (ie: 2612 Canterbury). We do not have the clearance to do this. ____________________________________________________________________________ Likewise fewer and fewer trees that were typical of the neighborhood remain. ____________________________________________________________________________ | Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application | Page 5 of ITEM9/11____________________________________________________________________________ East Austin has a history of yard sheds. We would like to maintain the character of the original ____________________________________________________________________________ house. However the only solution based on the current code would be to attach storage directly ____________________________________________________________________________ to the side of the house. This would destroy the character of original 1940 house and the ____________________________________________________________________________ character of the area. The sheds have purposly been made as two to minimize their size and ____________________________________________________________________________ stay witin the character of the sheds that are found throughout east austin. Similar small ____________________________________________________________________________ structures are even documented in the City's 2016 East Austin Historic Resources Survey. - - 1. 2. 3. 4. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ | Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application | Page 6 of ITEM9/12Section 3: Applicant Certificate ____________________________________________ _____________ 09/08/2022 ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 2614 Canterbury Street ________________________________________ Austin ________________ TX _______ 78702 ____________________________________________________ (512) 470-0484 _ __________________________ Section 4: Owner Certificate ______________________________________________ _____________ 09/08/2022 ______________________________________________________ Jose Minguell ____________________________________________________________ 2614 Canterbury Street ________________________________________ Austin ________________ TX _______ 78702 ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Section 5: Agent Information ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________ _______ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Section 6: Additional Space (if applicable) _______________________________________________________________________________ The request for this variance arises from a COA Code enforcement citation. The two sheds in _______________________________________________________________________________ question were rebuilt during the fall of 2021. The previous sheds (one enclosed and the other one _______________________________________________________________________________ open) where in poor condition due to weather and age and were not built with structurally sound _______________________________________________________________________________ construction. | Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application | Page 7 of ITEM9/13_______________________________________________________________________________ Neighbors had complained to COA of their precarious condition, fearing that they could house _______________________________________________________________________________ rodents. Prior to starting the reconstruction of the sheds, we contacted COA 311 and consulted if _______________________________________________________________________________ we needed a permit to rebuild these sheds. We were told that it was not neccessary so we _______________________________________________________________________________ proceeded with the work. One sheds stores yard tools and the other houses the family bikes. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Continued from Reasonable Use (page 5): _______________________________________________________________________________ As a result the only place for storage accessible to the driveway (garage storage elements such as _______________________________________________________________________________ bikes, auto repair, etc.) should be on the interior side yard part of the house. If the storage is to be _______________________________________________________________________________ located right next to the house within the allowable setback area, it would block natural light and _______________________________________________________________________________ not allow for natural ventilation from this side of the house. For this reason the only reasonable _______________________________________________________________________________ space for storage is along the property line (original location previously been renovated) within _______________________________________________________________________________ interior side yard setbacks. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Continued from page Hardship A (page 5): _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ We cannot simply cut down the tree to make it easier to comply with current _______________________________________________________________________________ setback restrictions. Also the state of the undeveloped alley does not offer the possibility of a _______________________________________________________________________________ secondary driveway. As owners of the property we are adamant on leaving the existing _______________________________________________________________________________ bungalow (character of the neighborhood). Demoing it and rebuilding a modern floor plan is not _______________________________________________________________________________ an option for us. This is not the current trend within the neighborhood, arguably this makes this _______________________________________________________________________________ an element unique to this property. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ | Board of Adjustment General/Parking Variance Application | Page 8 of ITEM9/14ITEM9/15ITEM9/16ITEM9/17ITEM9/18ITEM9/19ITEM9/20ITEM9/21ITEM9/22ITEM9/23ITEM9/24ITEM9/25This is concerning a variance: C15-2022-0067 / 2614 Canterbury St to maintain two sheds. I am aware that Jose Minguell and Laura McQuary have applied for a variance to keep their (35 square foot) utility and (75 square foot) bike sheds that are adjacent to my property line. The two sheds replaced an old pre-fabricated metal shed and open storage area that were both in very poor condition and housed rodents. The new sheds are constructed much better. Since Jose and Laura do not have a garage, the sheds function as general storage that is easily accessed from the driveway. I’m fine with Jose and Laura keeping them there as sheds. ______________________________ Signed by: _Shanna Igo____________________ Neighbors at:____81 Llano St. _______________ ITEM9/26