ITEM07 C15-2024-0042 LATE BACKUP NOV14_OPPOSITION — original pdf

Backup

ITEM07/1-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONITEM07/2-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONNovember 8, 2024 To: Board of Adjustment, City of Austin Re: Case C15-2024-0042 (2003 Arpdale), Nov. 14, 2024, Agenda item 7 Dear Chair and Board Members, On August 9, 2021, the Board of Adjustment granted a lot-size variance at 2003 Arpdale, the same variance being requested today. The hearing in 2021 followed the administrative resolution of years of work-without-permit issues and code violations, including confirmation that the accessory structure does not require variances from the side and rear setbacks. Since the 2021 variance, several permits have been issued at this address, and some of them are still active. Unless the applicant can show that a department director has reversed the previous decisions or somehow overturned the Board of Adjustment variance, there is no reason to rehear the case. In short, the applicant has not been denied reasonable use. to submit a formal appeal of a written administrative decision or to challenge the department’s code interpretation. Simply re-applying for a variance that has already been granted makes no sense. Perhaps the Board can postpone the case and request clarification from the department director. size variance granted in August 2021; the first, on page 3, is from myself on behalf of the Zilker Neighborhood Association, and the other, on page 6, is from Jeff Jack, a former member of the Board of Adjustment. To summarize, regarding the setbacks: City of Austin, clarifying that a side yard setback variance is not required at 2003 Arpdale. In 2019 I received the following e-mail from Susan Barr, the residential plans examiner for the Attached are two letters explaining the intricacies of this case and the justification for the lot- If the department director has reversed the previous decisions, the applicant’s remedy would be From: Barr, Susan [mailto:Susan.Barr@austintexas.gov] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:54 AM To: latherton Cc: Dave Piper; 'Jeff Jack'; Gonzales, Rodney Subject: RE: 2003 Arpdale Appeal of BP #17-074166 Dear Ms. Atherton, Please keep me posted on the results of the Zilker Neighborhood Association discussion. In regards to the side yard setback, structures that were permitted in the distant past that do not meet current yard setbacks are considered legal, non-complying. Since a permit for the garage was found, it’s distance of 4.4’ from the side property line is legal and does not require a special exception. Best Regards, Susan It was also determined that no variance is required for the rear setback as long as the structure is less than 15 feet tall. Regarding the lot size: Ms. Barr’s assessment of the case in 2019 was “the property owner needs to go to the BOA for a variance to the following: 1. minimum lot size since the property does not meet the requirements of LDC section 25-2-943. 2. Building coverage and impervious cover if he is unwilling to reduce the square footages in order to come into compliance” 1 ITEM07/3-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONOn February 13, 2020, I received an email from John Baez, code enforcement officer, stating Regarding health and safety issues: that the various code violations at 2003 Arpdale (CV-2016-030885) were “in legal processing to be heard as an Administrative hearing.” Ultimately, on August 9, 2021, a lot-size variance was granted with conditions, including: “lot size of 5,500 square feet, limiting building cover to 40%, limiting impervious cover to 45%, F.A.R. 0.4 to 1 ratio, no further encroachment of Accessory Structure and limit to 15 feet in height and a single-story, request survey with exact lot size for Residential Plan Review . . . “the purpose of the variance is to maintain the existing structures and bring the property into compliance with current regulations, that will include closing an unpermitted curb cut, . . . and reducing excessive impervious cover and building cover, which should serve to restore the property’s compatibility with adjacent properties.” Permits approved for repairs on the property do not expire until April 2025. Again, the applicant has not been denied reasonable use. If the applicant disagrees with the staff’s interpretation of current regulations, he should request a code interpretation letter specific to that issue. Thank you for your service to the community. Sincerely yours, Lorraine Atherton 2009 Arpdale Austin, TX 78704 Photo: 2003 Arpdale on November 8, 2024 2 ITEM07/4-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONLorraine L. Atherton __________________________________________________________________ 2009 Arpdale  Austin, TX 78704 July 29, 2021 This property has a long history of work without permits, beginning with remodeling of the As a nearby homeowner and resident on Arpdale since 1983, I am an interested party in the Board of Adjustment City of Austin Re: Variance request C15-2021-0067, 2003 Arpdale Dear Chair and Board Members, case at 2003 Arpdale, E-5 on your August 9 agenda. house and expansion of the detached garage in the mid-1980s, and of code complaints. Because the work took place after the current code took effect, it does not qualify for administrative variances. The situation has been complicated by a lack of reliable surveys and confusion over the actual dimensions of the lot, and by the tendency of owners to resolve their code violations by applying for permits that are then allowed to expire without inspections. to rent out the property as three separate units, including short-term rentals. When the plumbing failed, requiring replacement of the sewer line, City inspectors stepped in. I was aware of an administrative hearing on some of the code violations (case number CL-2020-024957, scheduled for March 18, 2020) but have been unable to find the result of the hearing. of Adjustment variances to resolve code and work-without-permit issues like this, especially if it results in additional entitlements on the property. It is, however, in the best interests of the neighborhood to maintain the single-family residence and to have the property brought up to code for the health and safety of future residents. To that end, I worked with Susan Barr of Residential Plan Review to find the resolution described in the following email from May 2019: It came to a head several years ago when the current owner began advertising online and tried The zoning committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association does not support the use of Board From: latherton Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 2:05 PM To: 'Barr, Susan' Subject: RE: 2003 Arpdale Appeal of BP #17-074166 Hello, Ms. Barr. In response to your assessment that “the property owner needs to go to the BOA for a variance to the following: 1. minimum lot size since the property does not meet the requirements of LDC section 25-2-943. 2. Building coverage and impervious cover if he is unwilling to reduce the square footages in order to come into compliance,” I and the Zoning Committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association have agreed that we would not oppose a variance to decrease the minimum lot size at 2003 Arpdale, for the purpose of maintaining the existing house and accessory structure, if the owner meets the attached conditions (which include complying with the building and impervious cover limits). You have our permission to communicate this decision to the owner. I have copied ZNA President David Piper 3 ITEM07/5-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONon this message. Thank you, again, for your patience and for helping us work through the various elements of this case. L. Atherton The conditions forwarded to Mr. Jacobs in 2019, 2020, and 2021 are: The ZNA zoning committee will not oppose a variance at 2003 Arpdale to decrease the minimum lot size to 5,514 sf if the following conditions are met: The owner (Scott Jacobs) must incorporate the corrected dimensions listed below into the variance application or submit a new sealed survey, include a diagram showing where decking and impervious cover will be removed to comply with current building and impervious cover limits, and resolve the specific discrepancies listed below. Dimensions of 2003 Arpdale 1. The area of the property is currently 5,514.14 square feet, which does not meet the minimum lot size of 5,750 square feet required in LDC Article 7, 25-2-943 (2), for lots recorded after March 14, 1946. (a) Maximum building coverage allowed is 2,205.7 sf (40% of total area). (b) Maximum impervious cover allowed is 2,481.4 sf (45% of total area). 2. On March 1, 1984, the accessory structure was a garage with an area of 180 sf and the area of the primary structure was 1,049 sf. Today, the area of the accessory structure, including the covered decks, is at least 648 sf and the area of the primary structure, excluding porches, is 1,420 sf. Building permits were not issued for the additional 839 sf constructed on this property after 1984, and the additions did not comply with applicable regulations at the time of construction. 3. The property does not comply with current building and impervious cover limits. (a) Existing building coverage is 2,307 sf, which exceeds the maximum allowed by 101.3 sf. (b) Existing impervious cover is 3,357 sf, which exceeds the maximum allowed by 875.6 sf. Discrepancies to be resolved and conditions to be included in variance application  Reduce the size of the covered deck. The structure should be limited to the dimensions seen in the 2006 photos provided by Mr. Jacobs. The photos confirm that the covered deck was smaller in 2006 than the current deck. As a condition of the variance, the deck should be reduced at least to the width in the 2006 photo, and the deck should not be allowed to encroach on the rear setback or in the 10-foot space required between the two structures.  Specify impervious cover to be removed. Much of the impervious cover was not shown on the previous surveys (the concrete skirt, the AC pad, the back porch, the trash bin pad between the house and the driveway, the walkways behind the house, the side stoop, the steps to the back deck, the 24sf extension on the deck). All impervious cover must be accounted for and reduced to 2,481 sf or less. The circular driveway must be replaced with pervious landscaping (not gravel) and the curb cut closed. [Board: Please see photo of circular drive at the end of this letter.] The portable shed hidden behind the accessory structure must be removed.  Provide two off street parking spaces.  Specify use conditions. The variance should include conditions that will prevent two-family uses, such as: the second mailbox must be removed, and the property may be occupied or leased only as a single dwelling (not with A and B units). 4 ITEM07/6-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITIONMy understanding of that agreement is that Residential Plan Review will require a new site plan and survey to verify that the building cover does not exceed 40% and impervious cover does not exceed 45%, rather than relying on measurements supplied by the property owner. Indeed, the diagram that Mr. Jacobs submitted in his advance packet appears to contain some discrepancies. For example, the impervious cover adds up to more than 2,500 sf, but it should be limited to 2,475 sf on a 5,500 sf lot. Because of that, I ask that you include conditions in your decision specifically limiting the building cover to 40% and the impervious cover to 45%, without referencing the diagram or otherwise appearing to approve individual deviations from code requirements. It should also be noted that Residential Plan Review has decided that the encroachments of the accessory structure into the west and south setbacks date to the original construction of the garage and so do not require variances. To preserve the rights of the adjacent property owners, I request that the variance conditions include a statement that the encroachments will not be extended beyond the original garage footprint or height. Thank you for your service to the community. Sincerely yours, Lorraine Atherton 2009 Arpdale Austin, TX 78704 5 ITEM07/7-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITION Architect Jeff Jack 2008 B Rabb Glen St. Austin, Texas, 78704 512 Board of Adjustment August 9, 2021 Case No. C15-2021-0067 Agenda item E-5 Address: 2003 Arpdale Street, Austin Texas 78704 Applicant: Scott Jacobs, Owner Board Members I am writing to register my Non-opposition to this variance requests in support of the Zilker Neighborhood Association position that is dependent on the granting of this variance to the minimum lot size ONLY and without any additional increase in entitlements for this property. But I feel that a bit of history of this situation is in order. As I recall the owner of this property submitted a variance request about 5 years ago to allow for encroachments of an accessory building into the side and rear setbacks. These variances were objected to by ZNA as it was apparent that if granted, they would be the initial steps to allowing an ADU on this sub-standard lot. However, this request was denied by the B of A. Fast forward to 2021 where the owner now has sought to do “repair” work on the property and has run into “work without a permit” issues and now seeks a variance to the minimum lot size and initially other variances that would have opened the door to being able to accomplish the construction of an ADU which was denied to him years ago under the cover of needing this variance due to the issue of the “work without a permit” problem! So it is understandable why the ZNA position of Non- opposition to a lot variance is reasonable if the variance is ONLY for the purpose of dealing with the “work without a permit” issue. But as a member of the Board of Adjustment for 6 years, I do not recall such variances coming before us to allow for repair work that was stopped due to an issue with a “work without a permit” problem that then led to staff requesting the owner to get a variance for other code issues? So, in all those years I believe that there was never a stop work issued for “repair” work that then the construction permit was tied to variances that could have granted increase entitlements unrelated to the repairs being done. Therefore, I have an additional question about this situation that I think the Board needs to consider. Is this due to a change in staff procedures or is this situation unique and has never happened before (no stop work orders for repair work on sub-standard lots before this case) or were the initial variances requested in this case an opportunity to obtain what was denied years ago? Thanks Jeff Page 1 of 1 ZNA BOA 2021 2003 Arpdale 6 ITEM07/8-LATE BACKUP_OPPOSITION