ITEM05 C15-2024-0025 STAFF REPORT — original pdf

Backup

TO: FROM: Jessica Cohen, Chair Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department DATE: August 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Case No. C15-2024-0025 | 6708 Bridge Hill Cove The matter before the Board is an appeal of an administrative decision by the Development Services Department (“DSD”) to approve a building permit for residential development 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. The issues in the appeal concern the amount of impervious cover (“IC”) approved for the project in relation to applicable zoning regulations. To assist the Board in understanding the issues, this report is laid out as follows: (1) General background, including DSD’s decision approving the permit under appeal and the development history of the subject property, at pp. 1-2; (2) Procedural requirements for the appeal, at pp. 2-3; and (3) DSD’s recommended action on the appeal, at p. 3. 1. Background — Decision on Appeal On March 24, 2024, DSD approved a building permit (BP No. 2023-129658) for construction of a two-story addition and related improvements to the existing residential structure at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. After the permit was approved, the Appellant (Mr. Warren Konkel) identified errors in the review process related to the calculation of impervious cover. In particular, Mr. Konkel correctly pointed out that some of the impervious cover shown as “existing” on the approved building plans was associated with development that had never received permits from the City. After reviewing Mr. Konkel’s concerns, DSD determined that the proposed plans submitted on behalf of the landowner, Ms. Christy May, incorrectly denoted unpermitted development as “existing” and that review staff had failed to catch the error. Consistent with LDC Sec. 25-11-66 (Errors in Permit Support Documents), DSD placed an administrative hold on the permit halting further inspections pending resolution of the impervious cover issues. ITEM05/1-STAFF REPORTWhile the hold remained in place, DSD reviewed the site’s development history using available plans, aerial photography, and an IC analysis provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) to determine the amount of impervious cover associated with the original construction permitted in 1987 and 1989. Based on that review, DSD determined that approximately 12,811 square feet of impervious cover was associated with the original development and that an additional 1,000 square feet is permissible based on an established policy allowing limited modifications to projects initiated before currently applicable regulations took effect.1 (See Attachment B.) On June 21, 2024, DSD lifted the administrative hold on the condition that the landowner must submit revised plans reducing impervious cover to no greater than the 13,811 square-foot cap and obtain approvals for all unpermitted development prior to final inspection. This will result in a reduction in total impervious cover on the property relative to what exists today and will clearly demarcate completion of the original project, which was begun prior to the property’s annexation into the City of Austin when no impervious cover limits applied. Appellant Konkel challenges this June 21, 2024 determination by DSD to reactivate the building permit and related determinations regarding allowable impervious cover. — Development History The property at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove has been subject to the Lake Austin (LA) base zoning district regulations since it was annexed into the City of Austin on May 6, 1982, with the passage of Ordinance No. 05-0682D. However, the plat application for the Bridge Hill Cove Subdivision was submitted prior to annexation, when the property was located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction and subject to no zoning regulations. As such, like many properties in the area, the originally permitted structure and associated development exceeded impervious cover that would otherwise be allowed under LDC Sec. 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations). Existing development on the property includes a mix of permitted and unpermitted construction built between 1987 and 2023. The original residential structure was approved in 1987 (Building Permit No. 1987-010020BP), followed by approval of a pool permit (BP No. 1989-006985BP) in 1989. (See Attachment C for history of permitting activity.) After construction of the permitted work was complete, the evidence shows that unpermitted development occurred throughout the property, including construction of an addition to the structure, expansion of the deck, widening of the driveway, addition of turnaround, and installation of landscape walls, pavers, and a firepit. 2. Procedural Requirements DSD encourages the Board to seek advice of legal counsel, as needed, regarding the sufficiency of the appeal and the issues appropriately before the Board for decision. 1 The 1995 policy memo referenced in the determination is authorized under LDC Sec. 25-1-545 (Administrative Guidelines) as a tool for determining when projects begun under earlier regulations are complete. For the last 10- 15 years, the “redevelopment exception” described in the memo has been used only in rare cases; the factors supporting its use in this case are not common. Staff decided to approve the exception for this project concurrent with lifting the administrative hold, with formal findings issued by the Development Officer on July 19, 2024. ITEM05/2-STAFF REPORT— Standing & Timeliness For these reasons, DSD does not contest the Appellant’s standing to appeal or the timeliness of the appeal: • Mr. Konkel owns property at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove, which is within 200 feet of the property subject to the administrative decision under appeal. This sufficient to confer standing to appeal administrative decisions specific to a particular property. • In processing the appeal, DSD treated it as timely-filed because: o The June 21, 2024 decision to reactivate the building permit (BP No. 2023-129658) was an administrative action separate from initial approval of the building permit on March 24. It is shown as such in the permitting records and reflects DSD’s revised determination on allowable impervious cover, which was necessitated by errors in supporting documents submitted by the permit applicant. o The appellant submitted a notice of appeal to the City on July 11, 2024, which is within 20- days of June 21 and thus meets deadline required for this type of appeal. Per standard practice, the Appellant subsequently worked the BOA liaison to submit a formal application and pay the required fee prior to the deadline for providing notification. — Nature of Appeal & Issues Before the Board This appeal is unlike most appeals heard by the Board in two ways: First, the appeal challenges how DSD applied and enforced the Land Development Code, rather than how the code was interpreted. Appellant primarily contests the accuracy of calculations regarding how much impervious cover should be treated as “exiting development,” not the textual interpretation of applicable IC regulations. Second, the issues in the appeal overlap with vested rights determinations that are solely within DSD’s administrative authority under City Code Chapter 25-1, Article 12 (Vested Rights), and are not subject to appeal. If the Board does act on the appeal, DSD recommends limiting review to factual issues of how much “original impervious cover” exists on the property based on evidence to be presented by the parties at the hearing scheduled for August 12, 2024. — Standards for Appeal Per LDC Sec. 25-1-190 (Appellate Burden), the burden in on Appellant to show that the decision being appealed is contrary to applicable requirements. In acting on the appeal, the BOA may uphold, modify, or reverse DSD’s decision, as provided in LDC Sec. 25-1-192 (Power to Act on Appeal). 3. DSD’s Response to Appeal DSD recommends that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the decision to reactivate the building permit, subject to the impervious cover reduction noted above. This will result in an overall reduction in the amount of impervious cover on the site and finalize development of this property. The exact amount of impervious cover originally approved for the development in 1987 and 1989 cannot be determined with precision because approved plans from this time period are not available. DSD’s determination is reasonable and supported by the record, as staff will explain at the August 12, 2024 hearing. ITEM05/3-STAFF REPORTATTACHMENT A | 6708 Bridge Hill Cove IC Analysis Back Right Landscape Wall Lower Paved Area By Firepit Back Right Patio Pool Deck + Coping Wood Deck With Conc. Patio Propane/AC Slabs House Footprint Flatwork/AC Slabs Front Addition Driveway Circle Driveway Original Turnaround Driveway Circle Front Walkway Walkway Steps O r i g i n a l D r i v e w a y D ri v e w a y C ir c l e Landscape Wall LA Zoning SF-2 8,804 SF 1,044 SF Driveway 1 First Floor Architectural Plan 1" = 20'-0" Certification # 44-752 TBPE Firm Registration # 22184 Office: 512-76-UBSTX (8-2789) Email: jon@ubstx.com WWW.UBSTX.COM The drawings, specifications, ideas , designs, and arrangements presented herein are and shall remain the property of Urban Building Services of Texas LLC. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work or project other than the specific project for which they were prepared and developed without the written consent of Urban Building Services of Texas LLC. Visual contact with these drawings shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. X T n i t s u A , e v o C l l i H e g d i r B 8 0 7 6 y a M y t s i r h C a n a b a C + l o o P y a M I N O T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P DRAWING TITLE: Site IC Calcs 22" X 34" SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: Author 6/18/2024 1:21:46 PM SHEET NUMBER: B-001 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ITEM05/4-STAFF REPORTATTACHMENT B | VR DETERMINATION & FINDINGS 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 ITEM05/5-STAFF REPORT 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. ITEM05/6-STAFF REPORTITEM05/7-STAFF REPORTITEM05/8-STAFF REPORTITEM05/9-STAFF REPORTITEM05/10-STAFF REPORTITEM05/11-STAFF REPORTITEM05/12-STAFF REPORTITEM05/13-STAFF REPORTITEM05/14-STAFF REPORT