ITEM09 C15-2025-0035 PRESENTATION APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

C15-2025-0035 / 205 E 34th St Presentation on Behalf of Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Please DENY Request for Reconsideration ● Unanimous decision. ● Significant deliberation. ● Significant public testimony. ● Correctly decided. 1 ITEM09/1-PRESENTATION APPELLANTBoard Decision: 1) The number of units shown in the design should be interpreted as greater than three (3). - Correctly decided. - Duplex duplicated on site (Buildings 1 and 2, identical footprint) - Nearly identical floorplans (each bldg has 10 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 3rd floor with additional room). - Four main entrances. - 1-foot drop off between units. - Wall Plan shows enclosed, separate units. - Post-hearing modifications not a valid reason for reconsideration. 2 ITEM09/2-PRESENTATION APPELLANTApproved Wall Plan Showing Enclosed, Separate Units in Building 2 3 ITEM09/3-PRESENTATION APPELLANT~1 ft. elevation drop between floors First Floors 4 ITEM09/4-PRESENTATION APPELLANTIdentical. Second Floors 5 ITEM09/5-PRESENTATION APPELLANTBoard Decision: 2) The average front yard setback should have been calculated from the four (4) adjacent properties on the same side of the street. The average side yard separation should be calculated per the nccd. - Correctly decided. - City staff in agreement that setbacks not compliant with NCCD zoning ordinance: - - “The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block.” Part 6, Section 3.a. of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD). “A new principal structure must be at least 10’ from a principal structure on an adjacent lot.” Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD). - Post-hearing modifications not a valid reason for reconsideration. 6 ITEM09/6-PRESENTATION APPELLANTApproved plans showing incorrect setbacks 7 ITEM09/7-PRESENTATION APPELLANTBoard Decision: 3) The approved plans should meet the criteria for FAR requirements under the gross floor area definition of attic in 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b). The definition of floor in 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b) is not limited to whether the floor is load-bearing or not . - Correctly decided. - BOA decision consistent with staff explanation (next slide). - “GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of more than six feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls, except as provided in this subsection.” LDC 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b). 8 ITEM09/8-PRESENTATION APPELLANT9 ITEM09/9-PRESENTATION APPELLANT18” structural depth for 3rd Floor 10 ITEM09/10-PRESENTATION APPELLANTEgress window for 3rd Floor 11 ITEM09/11-PRESENTATION APPELLANTPermit Holder Claims: “The first ground for reconsideration is procedural. The official transcript shows that several Board members explicitly sought to issue a narrow decision confined to the case at hand. Nonetheless, at the end of deliberation, new language was introduced redefining attic space with more than six feet of height as ‘floor area.’ This addition was not noticed, analyzed, or discussed during public deliberation, and it extended the decision far beyond the subject property.” This claim is baseless. - Notice Was Proper: Agenda Notice: “The appellant has filed an appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25-1-82 (NonSubdivision Application Requirements and Expiration).” - - - - Attic Issues Raised By Several Speakers During Public Hearing. Board of Adjustment Discussed Language Significantly (for Hours). Board of Adjustment voted unanimously after settling on the findings and reading them multiple times. It was a code interpretation consistent with history of 25-2-773 and prior city staff guidance; not a “redefinition.” 12 ITEM09/12-PRESENTATION APPELLANTPermit Holder’s Application Issues. - In the request for reconsideration, permit holder includes several distortions of fact about documented concerns resulting from statements made by her own consultants, her use of architectural designs that are the intellectual property of Urban Building Services of Texas LLC, and her use of a “nickname” to sign-off on the application as a “Design Professional.” - These are extraneous issues that go beyond the scope of the Board of Adjustment and have no bearing on the merit of her request for a reconsideration. - These are extraneous issues that go beyond the scope of the Board of Adjustment.” 13 ITEM09/13-PRESENTATION APPELLANTImproper Use of “Reconsideration” - Permit Holder should submit new plans for City staff review and consideration, consistent with the BOA’s decision. - A motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate process for submitting new plans. Deny Request - We ask that you DENY the Request for Reconsideration and let the prior BOA decision stand. - Other Issues Not Reached In the event that the BOA moves to reconsider, we request a decision on the remaining issued that were deferred, including: ● Applicability of the FAR limit from the NCCD on Three-Family Uses. 14 ITEM09/14-PRESENTATION APPELLANTNeighborhood has many multi-unit buildings (including triplexes) under 0.4 FAR and 0.5 FAR (0.5 FAR max for all residential uses). 15 ITEM09/15-PRESENTATION APPELLANT