ITEM06 C15-2024-0042 ADV PACKET PART3 DEC9 — original pdf

Backup

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 ITEM06/73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 ITEM06/74 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 ITEM06/75