ITEM02 C15-2024-0025 DENIED DS RECON — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Interpretation Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: October 14, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0025 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT’S AGENT: Nicholl Wade APPELLANT: Warren Konkel OWNER: Christy May ADDRESS: 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appellant challenges issuance of Building Permit 2023-12958 BP on the grounds that the City incorrectly approved impervious cover (IC) of approximately 12,811 square feet, which exceeds IC limitations applicable within the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: Aug 12, 2024 - POSTPONED TO September 9, 2024, DUE TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH BOARD MEMBERS FOR VOTING PURPOSES; September 9, 2024 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to deny the appeal request and uphold staff’s decision; Board member Brian Poteet second on 8-1 votes (Board member Maggie Shahrestani nay); APPEAL REQUEST DENIED AND UPHELD STAFF’S DECISION. October 14, 2024 - Reconsideration request: Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to deny reconsideration request; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 10-0 votes; reconsideration request DENIED. Building Permit 2023-129658 BP RENOTIFICATION-SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appellant challenges issuance of:  and  on the grounds that the City of Austin incorrectly approved impervious cover (IC) of approximately 12,811 square feet, which exceeds IC limitations applicable within the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district. Building Permit 2023-129659BP FINDING: 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Chair Diana Ramirez for