ITEM04 C15-2026-0027 PRESENTATION — original pdf

Backup

DENALI POOLS Board of Adjustment Variance Request 6302 Shadow Valley Drive July 13, 2026 Jacob Rogers, Agent for Denali Pools On behalf of Paul & Heather Fink ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION The Property Lot 28, Highland Hills Section 9, Phase 2 | Zoning: SF-3 Address 6302 Shadow Valley Drive, Austin, TX 78731 Lot Size 13,353 SF Original Pool Built 1976 — predates current Land Development Code Impervious Cover Limit 45% (6,008 SF) under SF-3 zoning Site survey — Hodgkiss Surveying, 11/24/2020 ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION The Pool Is Failing Original 1976 structure — cracked shell, can no longer hold water Structural cracking throughout the pool shell Heaving and separation at the deck joints Chronic water loss — cannot be repaired further Deteriorating stone retaining wall and surrounding hardscape A 50-year-old structure at the end of its serviceable life. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION Deterioration in Detail Current condition of the pool and deck Algae accumulation, organic debris, and visible wear on the coping and decking are consistent with a shell that has been slowly failing for years and can no longer maintain proper water chemistry. ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION Mature Protected Trees Constrain the Lot Three large Live Oaks limit where a pool can be built Tree #1 — 42.5" Live Oak Tree #2 — 35" Live Oak Tree #6 — 32" Live Oak These are large, established trees — decades old and protected under the City's tree ordinance. Their critical root zones (shown in green) surround the existing pool on three sides, leaving no reasonable alternate location on the lot. ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION Why the Existing Footprint Is the Only Option Two site-specific factors leave no alternative to rebuilding where the pool already sits: 1. Mature protected trees Three large Live Oaks and their root zones occupy most of the remaining usable yard, ruling out relocating the pool elsewhere on the lot. 2. Steep topography The survey shows significant grade change across the lot; the existing pool sits on the one graded, buildable area. Together, these constraints mean the only realistic path forward is to demolish and rebuild in the exact same footprint. ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION What We're Proposing Demolish the failing 1976 pool and rebuild in the exact same footprint. No expansion of the pool or decking No new impervious surface — zero net change in coverage Same location as the pool that has existed since 1976 Modern, code-compliant pool with required safety barriers Pool equipment relocated into the existing garage ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION Impervious Coverage Analysis LDC § 25-2-492 — No Net Increase PERMITTED 6,008 SF 45% of lot EXISTING / PROPOSED 7,280 SF 54.5% of lot NET CHANGE 0 SF ZERO INCREASE The lot is already in non-conformance (7,280 SF vs. 6,008 SF permitted) — a condition that pre-dates the Finks' ownership. Rebuilding the pool in the same footprint creates zero additional impervious surface. This is not a request to add coverage — it is a request to restore what already exists. ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION No Impact on Area Character This variance will not alter neighborhood character because: Same footprint as the pool that has existed since 1976 Zero increase in impervious cover No changes to drainage or stormwater runoff No increase in traffic or activity Replaces a visibly failing structure with a safe, modern pool No special privilege — simply restores what already existed ITEM04/9-PRESENTATION Our Request A variance from LDC § 25-2-492 to permit 7,280 SF (54.5%) impervious cover in place of the 6,008 SF (45%) currently permitted This will allow demolition and reconstruction of the failing 1976 pool and decking in its current footprint, with NO NET INCREASE IN COVERAGE Thank you for your time and consideration. ITEM04/10-PRESENTATION