ITEM06 C15-2026-0010 PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION — original pdf

Backup

Reconsideration: 4219 S 1st Street Board of Adjustment Case # C15-2026-0010 May 11, 2026 1 ITEM06/1-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONBoard of Adjustment – Rules and Procedures: Reconsideration • Article V (Hearings and Decisions), Section F (Deliberation, Voting and Post-Hearing Procedures), Paragraph 4 specifies the rules applicable a reconsideration request: (a) Limited to one (1) reconsideration (b) Person must have original standing in the matter (c) Shall be filed in writing with the staff liaison within 10 days after the Board’s decision and (i) state how the Board erred in its determination (ii) state why the action should be reconsidered; and (iii) be supported by new or clarified evidence. • The only evidence provided by GeauxNu Holdings, LLC to request the reconsideration is an undated letter that: ▪ Repeats the claims read into the record on April 13, 2026 at the Board of Adjustment hearing; and ▪ References discussions held on the dais at the same meeting; and ▪ Does not present new or clarified evidence. • As such, this request for reconsideration does not meet the requirements of the Board’s Rules and Procedures Manual, Article V, Section F, Paragraph (4)(c)(iii), because no new or clarified evidence has been provided, and cannot be granted. 2 ITEM06/2-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONProject Location 3 ITEM06/3-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONRequest for Variance • Applicant is requesting a variance from §25-2-814 • §25-2-814 states that a service station use: (1) must be screened from the street by a building or a landscape buffer that includes shade trees; (2) may not have more than 16 fuel dispensers; and (3) may not have more than eight vehicle queue lanes. • Applicant is proposing 12 vehicle queue lanes 4 ITEM06/4-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONReasonable Use On a site with almost one-quarter of its area uniquely constrained: • The Applicant cannot develop on more than 24% of the site, yet the request for a variance is reasonable in that it only includes 75% of the maximum number of fuel dispensers allowed on the site. • It is reasonable for the Applicant to propose a use that: • Is compliant with emergency vehicle access requirements; • Improves site circulation; • Reduces site congestion; • Improves sight lines; and • Reduces vehicle and pedestrian conflict points by up to 50%. • It is unreasonable to require a fuel dispenser configuration on a site that will not meet fire lane requirements due to the width of the lot. • It is unreasonable to require a fuel dispenser configuration that would create an unsafe situation for vehicles and pedestrians, increasing vehicle pedestrian conflicts by up to 50%. 5 ITEM06/5-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONHardship: Unique Constraints of Property 8% of Site 7% of Site 2% 7% of Site 6 ITEM06/6-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONHardship: Unique Constraints of Property • The site has unique characteristics that create a hardship to develop the site to permitted use standards, including lot configuration, lot width, lot depth, utility easements, compatibility setbacks, and the presence of a Heritage Tree. • Almost one-quarter (24%) of its area is uniquely constrained. • Without the requested variance, a double- stacked fuel dispenser configuration cannot not meet Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM) standards for emergency vehicle access road width. • The distinctive combination of site constraints uniquely limit the design flexibility on the property. 15’-7” 31’-0” 12’-8½” 22’-9¾” 7 ITEM06/7-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATIONDevelopment Characteristics • Development under the requested variance does not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property. • Adjoining neighbors are commercial • South 1st Street is an Imagine Austin corridor • Development under the requested variance does not impair the use of adjacent property that is developed in compliance with the City requirements • The proposed configuration improves the use of adjacent property by way of implementing current TCM requirements (i.e., adding sidewalks where none exist today). • The proposed configuration will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by reducing curb cuts. • Development under the requested variance does not impair the purposes of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located. • The proposed design reflects current industry standards for fueling and queuing operations. 8 ITEM06/8-PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION