ITEM11 C15-2025-0016 GRANTED DS — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 11 DATE: Monday May 12, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0016 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) OUT ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Niccolo A Sacco (D6) OUT ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) OUT ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) OUT ___Y____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Linda Sullivan OWNER: Elizabeth & Jay Walker ADDRESS: 3405 MOUNTAIN TOP CIR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from impervious coverage requirements to increase I.C. from 45% (maximum allowed) to 47.9% (requested) (50.1% existing), in order to remodel and add an addition to an existing 1 story Single-Family residence in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to Approve; Board member Suzanne Valentine second on 9-0 votes; GRANTED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: the site was originally developed under prior ordinance before the current impervious cover requirements to meet code, a significant amount of impervious coverage would need to be removed, and the owners have been reducing the overall impervious coverage, over the past few years. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the property was plotted back in 1959 is smaller than the surrounding properties, and as such impervious coverage, non-conforming situation with impervious coverage, unlike the larger properties surroundings. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: it’s a smaller property that was platted earlier than the surrounding properties. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: the proposed plan actually does reduce the impervious request a reduction of the impervious coverage for the lot and although the proposed changes are on the front of the structure it wont change the overlook of the building as it exists. Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for