ITEM05 C15-2024-0025 ADV PACKET APPEAL1 PART6 — original pdf

Backup

Exhibit 4 ITEM05/150-APPEAL1ITEM05/151-APPEAL1ITEM05/152-APPEAL1ITEM05/153-APPEAL1ITEM05/154-APPEAL1ITEM05/155-APPEAL1ITEM05/156-APPEAL1ITEM05/157-APPEAL1ITEM05/158-APPEAL1ITEM05/159-APPEAL1ITEM05/160-APPEAL1ITEM05/161-APPEAL1ITEM05/162-APPEAL1ITEM05/163-APPEAL1City of Austin Development Services Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767 VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION Findings This determination is made under City Code 25-1-541 in response to a claim that the project identified below is vested to earlier regulations and entitled to be reviewed under those regulations. The determination may be reconsidered once at the request of the applicant. Project Name: Pool/Cabana Reconstruction Address: 6708 Bridge Hill Cove Case No. VR-2024-0037000 Date of Application: 6/4/2024 Date of Determination: 6/12/2024 nation: 6/12/2024 Signature: ____________________________________________________________ Date: _______________ _______________________________ 6/12/2024 See “Grounds for Determination” (reverse) for a summary of the most common grounds for approval or denial. Additional grounds may also apply. Determination” (reverse) for a summ (X) DENIED Primary Grounds: PROJECT COMPLETE Findings: The project initiated with the submittal of the Bridge Hill Subdivision plat for this lot, was completed with the construction of the residence authorized by building permit 1987- 010020-BP and accessory swimming pool authorized by building permit 1989-006985-BP. The proposed application is redevelopment of existing permitting and unpermitted improvements and is considered a new project. ITEM05/164-APPEAL1ITEM05/165-APPEAL1City of Austin Development Services Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767 FINDINGS ON RECONSIDERATION OF VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION N/A Project Name: 6708 Bridge Hill Cove Address: BP (Building Permit) No. 2023-129658 Case No.: June 4, 2024 Application Date: Determination Date: July 19, 2024 Determination by: Brent Lloyd DSD Development Officer (X) APPROVED Vesting Date: N/A Findings & Conclusions: 1. On June 4, 2024, applicant submitted a petition for vested rights claiming that proposed development under the above-referenced building permit was entitled to review under regulations in effect on the date the 1981 plat application was filed, as modified by the Planning Commission’s subsequent conditions of approval. 2. On June 12, 2024, DSD denied the vested rights claim on the grounds that: “The project initiated with the submittal of the Bridge Hill Subdivision plat for this lot, was completed with the construction of the residence authorized by building permit 1987-010020-BP and accessory swimming pool authorized by building permit 1989- 006985-BP. The proposed application is redevelopment of existing permitting and unpermitted improvements and is considered a new project.” 3. Upon receiving DSD’s determination, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration challenging the determination and requesting approval of a “limited redevelopment” exception pursuant to a 1995 administrative policy intended to provide flexibility for ITEM05/166-APPEAL1homeowners seeking to modify development originally approved under older city regulations. See Exhibit A. 4. While portions of the policy are no longer applicable, the City has continued to allow permit applicants to utilize the “limited redevelopment” exception to facilitate modifications to impervious cover associated with non-multifamily residential development on a one-time basis. The policy is useful in solidifying the completion of “ongoing projects” that have continued to redevelop following issuance of permits under original regulations applicable to the project. 5. As stated at page 3 of the policy, if requirements for the redevelopment exception are met, existing development may be modified provided that “approved or built impervious cover does not increase more than 10% or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater, and modifications do not affect more than 50% of the improved area.” 6. In reviewing the applicant’s revised building plans and development history of the project, DSD finds that: a. The amount of impervious cover associated with originally permitted construction on the lot was approximately 12,811 square feet, which included development of the home, driveway, pool, and decking. b. Construction associated with the project has remained ongoing over time and is not inconsistent with contemporaneously permitted development in the surrounding area. c. The criteria for a one-time limited redevelopment exception are satisfied. Accordingly, the project may not exceed 13,811 square feet of impervious cover, which the Building Official has determined will necessitate removal of existing unpermitted impervious cover prior to final inspection. 7. Completion of development consistent with this determination completes the project initiated with filing of the Bridge Hill Subdivision plat application for this lot. Any future development or redevelopment of the property will constitute a new project subject to current regulations. ITEM05/167-APPEAL1ITEM05/168-APPEAL1ITEM05/169-APPEAL1ITEM05/170-APPEAL1ITEM05/171-APPEAL1ITEM05/172-APPEAL1ITEM05/173-APPEAL1ITEM05/174-APPEAL1ITEM05/175-APPEAL1July 29, 2024 The City of Austin Board of Adjustment P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-1088 Via Online Submission To The Board of Adjustment: Re: Standing to Appeal Status; Interpretations Application Appeal of an Administrative Decision (“Application”) I am providing the following information in compliance with the Application requirements on behalf of Appellant/Applicant, Warren Konkel (“Appellant”). The permit subject to this Appeal and Application is Building Permit 2023-129658 (“Permit”). Although the Permit was initially approved in 2023, it was placed on hold earlier this year. On June 21, 2024, the City of Austin Permit Center approved or re-activated the Permit, which allows further development of a property located at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove (“Property”). The Property is zoned as I-SF-2, LA and is within the Lake Austin Overlay. Appellant timely perfected his Appeal on July 11, 2024. The Appellant has standing because he is an interested party under Land Development Code (“LDC”) § 25-1-131(A)(2) as he previously communicated his interest1 and he is the record owner of property within 500 feet of the Property. Specifically, Appellant is the record owner of 6706 Bridge Hill Cove in Austin, Texas. Appellant will further communicate his interest in the matter to the Board of Adjust by either delivering a written statement that generally identifies the issues before or during the public hearing for this Appeal/Application. Pursuant to LDC § 25-1-132(C) the neighborhood organizations for notice are as follows: Bridge Hill Homeowner Association c/o Ms. Stacy Dalton, President 6705 Bridge Hill Cove Austin Texas 78746-1338 Aqua Verde Homeowners Association Austin Independent School District Austin Lost and Found Pets BRNA ASSOCIATION INC. City of Rollingwood Friends of Austin Neighborhoods 1 Enclosure – Appellant’s Communication of Interest to the City. ITEM05/176-APPEAL1Glenlake Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation SELTexas Save Our Springs Alliance Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group TNR BCP - Travis County Natural Resources, The Creek at Riverbend Neighborhood Association Thank you, Nicholl Wade Enclosure: Appellant’s Communication of Interest to the City ITEM05/177-APPEAL1ITEM05/178-APPEAL1"redevelopment exception" bonus. This action is unauthorized and undermines community regulations. To my knowledge, only the Board of Adjustments can grant such variances through a public hearing. Instead of requiring a permit revision with accurate existing conditions and a plan for IC compliance, the DSD reactivated the original permit with the stipulation of "IC compliance before final inspection." This creates a dangerous loophole, allowing construction to continue without an accurate plan. Given the property's history of unpermitted work, this loophole means Ms. May can continue construction without being stopped, even if she never plans on IC compliance. Earlier this week, I contacted Michael McMinn of McMinn Land Surveying Company, who performed a survey of this property in 1989. He was listed on a document Ms. May forwarded to me nearly two years ago (Exhibit C). Mr. McMinn provided his original 1989 survey (Exhibit D), and calculated that the property had 10,803 square feet of IC at that time and no pool (Exhibit E). He also conducted an IC study estimating the pool patio added in 1990, concluding the property would then have had 11,270 square feet of IC (Exhibit F). This unauthorized expansion threatens my property value and quality of life. I have incurred significant legal fees fighting this issue. I urgently request the City Council to intervene and ensure the DSD adheres to the law. The integrity of our zoning regulations and the trust of your constituents are at stake. Sincerely, Warren Konkel ITEM05/179-APPEAL1ITEM05/180-APPEAL1ITEM05/181-APPEAL1