ITEM05 C15-2024-0040 LATE BACKUP NOV14_OPPOSITION — original pdf

Backup

ITEM05/1-LATE BACKUPITEM05/2-LATE BACKUPITEM05/3-LATE BACKUPITEM05/4-LATE BACKUPITEM05/5-LATE BACKUPITEM05/6-LATE BACKUPITEM05/7-LATE BACKUPITEM05/8-LATE BACKUPITEM05/9-LATE BACKUPITEM05/10-LATE BACKUPITEM05/11-LATE BACKUPITEM05/12-LATE BACKUPITEM05/13-LATE BACKUPITEM05/14-LATE BACKUP2. Reasonable Use: The applicant then builds on top of their unfounded hardship claim to say that the “unique” property has an “irregular shape” and is “exceptionally narrow,” and thus deprives the owner of “reasonable use”. Please reference the above reasoning on how the property is neither an irregular shape nor is it exceptionally narrow. Again, the owner knowledgably purchased this standard-size Cumberland property alongside the two S 1st properties for his development. This, yet again, is a self-imposed limitation the owner was aware of when purchasing and designing his commercial development. 3. Area Character: In responding to the area character criterion, the applicant does not adequately address how their 118 unit, 87 foot tall multifamily design may actually impact the neighborhood. If the Board grants the variances, the extended height, added volume of units, lack of parking per unit, and proximity to single-family homes will have a very clear negative impact on the single-family neighbors. The applicant makes two main claims regarding this criterion: a) that there are other multifamily developments along S 1st, and b) there are other commercial buildings with less than 25 foot rear setbacks in the area. In addressing a), the applicant is correct that there are multifamily developments along S 1st, but it is important to note that those developments are all 5 levels or fewer. They appear to maintain the 60 foot code-required setback height from the single-family homes in the area. As for b), there are several commercial businesses in the area which impinge on the 25 foot rear setback, however, all of those businesses are one level or less. Their impact on the adjacent single-family homes is minimal due to their low height. The setback proposed is far too close to 2613 S 2nd St and other adjacent houses and without the proper setback, drainage and potential flooding is a concern. The proposed development will be so tall it will tower over the single-family homes on S 2nd and S 3rd Streets and “diminish privacy”. The added units provided by the added height will “increase traffic on adjacent streets,” and the lack of parking per unit will certainly make S 2nd St, S 3rd St, and Stacy Ln the de facto 24h/7days/week permanent parking for the residents. If granted the variances, the development will be the tallest structure along S. 1st between Barton Springs and Ben White. It clearly “exceeds the size and ITEM05/15-LATE BACKUPITEM05/16-LATE BACKUPITEM05/17-LATE BACKUPITEM05/18-LATE BACKUP