info-title
info-description

Item A

CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first four (4) speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.

Item B1

DISCUSSION AND REQUESTED ACTION ITEMS Staff requests approval of September 9, 2019 draft minutes

Item B2

Staff and Applicant requests for postponement and withdraw of items posted on this Agenda

Item P4

C15-2019-0047 Janis J. Smith, P.E. for David Middleton/YOLO Partners, LTD 3707 Taylors Drive

The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from Section 25-2-1176 (A) (1) (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and other Lakefront Uses) to increase the Shoreline setback requirement from 30 feet (required) to 40 feet (requested) in order to erect a Boat Dock in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family –Neighborhood Plan zoning District (West Austin Neighborhood Plan, LA zoning Overlay).

Note: The Land Development Code states that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety.

Item D1

C16-2019-0002 Ben Robinson for E. Salvik, Morningside Des Plaines LLC & Morningside 770 LLC 4700 North Capital of Texas Highway

Item I1

C15-2019-0053 Corey Keller 2205 Remuda Trail

The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from Section 25-2-899 (D) (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height permitted from an average of 6 feet, maximum of 7 feet (required, up to 8 feet permitted with adjacent signatures) to 8 feet (requested) in order to maintain a recently constructed fence along a Thru-Lot in an “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Westgate)

Note: The Land Development Code states that a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed an average height of 6 feet or a maximum height of 7 feet. There is a telephone pole that abuts the property along Jones Road.

Item I2

C15-2019-0054 David Cancialosi for Emerald Laguna Corporation (Paris Schindler) 1901 Westlake Drive

The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations)

1. (B) (1) to reduce the Shoreline Setback requirement from 75 feet (required) to 25 feet (requested)

2. (C) (3) (a) increase Impervious Cover from 35 percent, on a slope with a gradient of 15 percent or less (required) to 62% (requested); 75% (existing)

3. (C) (3) (b) increase Impervious Cover from 10 percent, on a slope with a gradient of 15 percent or less (required) to 67% (requested); 65% (existing)

4. (C) (3) (c) increase Impervious Cover from 5 percent, on a slope with a gradient of more than 25 percent and not more than 35 percent (required) to 35% (requested); 39% (existing)

5. (E) (2) to increase Impervious Cover to 8% for a driveway in order to erect a Single-Family Residential use in an “LA” zoning district.

NOTE: (for item (E) (2) The Land Development Code states on a slope with a gradient of more than 35 percent, development is prohibited except for the construction of a fence, driveway, road or utility that cannot be reasonably placed elsewhere, or a non-mechanized pedestrian facility, such as a foot path, sidewalk, or stairs.

Item I3

C15-2019-0055 David Cancialosi for Mark Odom 2803 Edgewater Drive

The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations)

1. (C) (3) (c) increase Impervious Cover from 5 percent, on a slope with a gradient of more than 25 percent and not more than 35 percent (required) to 66% (requested); 0% (existing)

2. (E) (2) to increase Impervious Cover to 29% for a driveway in order to erect a Single-Family Residential use in an “LA” zoning district.

NOTE: (for item (E) (2) The Land Development Code states on a slope with a gradient of more than 35 percent, development is prohibited except for the construction of a fence, driveway, road or utility that cannot be reasonably placed elsewhere, or a non-mechanized pedestrian facility, such as a foot path, sidewalk, or stairs.

Item I4

C15-2019-0056 Eric Scheibe for Jerad Kolarik 1400 West Oltorf Street The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the maximum allowable Compatibility Height requirements of Article 10, Compatibility Standards, Division 2 –Development Standards:

a. to decrease the minimum setback requirement from Section 25-2-1063 (B) (2) (Height Limitations and Setbacks from Large Sites) from 25 feet to 0 feet along the south property line Note: The Land Development Code states that a person may not construct a structure 25 feet or less from property on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located.

b. to increase the maximum compatibility height requirement of Section 25-2-1063 (C) (1) and (2) (Height Limitations and Setbacks for Large Sites) to 45 feet in height in order to erect a 45 foot Office/Retail use in a “CS”, General Commercial Services zoning district.

Note: The Land Development Code height limitations for a structure are: (1) two stories and 30 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from property: (a) in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district; or (b) on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located; or (2) three stories and 40 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from property; (a) in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district; or (b) on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located.

Item S1

Discussion of the September 9, 2019 Board activity report

Item S2

Discussion and possible action regarding Workgroups Update: Transportation Criteria/Code Recommendations Workgroup

Item S3

Discussion and possible action of BOA fees resolution

Item S4

Discussion for adopting BOA meeting schedule for Jan 2020 –Dec 2020.

Item S5

Discussion and possible action of the Staff Report (Legal) on HB 2497

HB 2497 limits who can file administrative appeals of site-specific applications to the Board. In the past, any “aggrieved party” could appeal zoning-related determinations to the Board. As of September 1, the right to file administrative appeals is limited to landowners, a person within 200 feet of the property, applicants, officers, departments, boards, or bureaus that are affected by the decision. For non-site specific applications, the law remains the same: any person aggrieved by the decision, or any officer, department, board, or bureau affected by the decision may appeal.

Item S6

Discussion and possible action of the draft LDC, New LDC Input from BOA With the draft of the new LDC not available until Oct. 4th, BOA members should review the relevant sections (the portions of the draft that pertain to the Board of Adjustment) PRIOR to the upcoming meeting. Members should be ready to discuss and possibly take action (via Resolution) at the October 14th meeting of the BOA. To address Council’s robust timeline and short window for review and feedback, any resolution must be completed and sent to the City Council and Planning Commission PRIOR to PC’s October 29th meeting.

Item S7

Discussion and possible action of the report from City Staff regarding Environmental Board and BOA responsibilities

Item S8

Announcements

Items S9 & T

S-9 Discussion of future agenda new business items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests

T. ADJOURNMENT
Social Sharing



Share Video Link via Email