ITEM06 C15-2024-0042 ADV PACKET PART2 DEC9 — original pdf

Backup

ITEM06/58ITEM06/59ITEM06/60ITEM06/61ITEM06/62ITEM06/63ITEM06/64ITEM06/65ITEM06/66ITEM06/67ITEM06/68ITEM06/69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 ITEM06/70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 ITEM06/71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 ITEM06/72