ITEM08 C15-2022-0061 ADV PACKET DEC 12 PART3 — original pdf

Backup

ITEM8/76ITEM8/77ITEM8/78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 ITEM8/79EXHIBITS 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 ITEM8/80EXHIBITS 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. ITEM8/81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 ITEM8/82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 ITEM8/83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. ITEM8/84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. ITEM8/85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 ITEM8/86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 ITEM8/87ITEM8/88ITEM8/89ITEM8/90ITEM8/91ITEM8/92ITEM8/93ITEM8/94ITEM8/95ITEM8/96ITEM8/97ITEM8/98