APH IMMUNIZATIONS UNIT: MPOX EPIDEMIOLOGY Our case patients are overwhelmingly male (98.1%), mostly white (63%), and the median age is 33 years old. Exposure is almost always via sexual contact. Hispanic : 39.9%, non-Hispanic : 49.4% unknown ethnicity :10.7% Most identify as Gay (MSM) 2 LOW RATES ARE GOOD BUT MAKE EDUCATION MORE CHALLENGING - many people had the sense that it was over and nothing to worry about - We try to utilize what we know from Epi data to focus education/outreach BARRIERS TO VACCINATION We rolled out our mpox survey to gauge hesitation and views on mpox vaccination. Anecdotally, we have heard the following : - many people are not educated on what mpox is even though they may be at risk. - Some are unsure whether they are at risk; PCP’s not suggesting it - hard to get through to appointment lines. - low rates are making people worry less - unsure about vaccine effectiveness, despite education 4 EDUCATION/OUTREACH - updated our APH website about mpox -I quality check the vaccine locator on CDC -Collaborated more closely with our HIV targeted testing team - outreach at Package, Sir Rat, Austin Eagle - table at Ashwell clinic peer support group - host pop up vaccination clinics at Vivent Health who no longer offer the vaccine. -mpox education is offered at all of our tabling events around Austin 5 MEDICAL PROVIDER EDUCATION - Hosted 2 TCMS provider Townhalls -Nurse-centered townhall is upcoming -Educating urgent care practices around Austin LGBTQIA+ FOCUSED ONLINE SPACES Ongoing public campaign in the following dating sites: 7 FILLING GAPS - Built rapport with Vivent Health to host pop-up vaccination clinics for mpox -Collaborate with our targeted testing team to focus vaccination and education on unhoused population at Walgreens/Little Walnut Creek Library - Hosted a pop-up vaccination clinic at RBJ Sexual Health Clinic - Upcoming: Collaborating with Medical Reserve Corps to host a larger scale vaccination event at Montopolis Rec Center. - Continue Gift Card Incentives 8 An Example of an Instagram story post FINAL TAKEAWAYS We want to maximize our limited resources • We have been meeting CDC deliverables and creating strong rapport and connection both within APH and externally. • We would love feedback on any spaces that we should work to be in. • Would love to be connected by you if possible! 9 THANK YOU Isabel Cantu, Mpox/Flu Program Coordinator 512-972-5426 isabel.cantu@austintexas.gov …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-02: Supporting the Environmental Investment Plan WHEREAS, the purpose of the Joint Sustainability Committee is “to advise the council on matters related to conservation and sustainability; and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”; and WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Joint Sustainability Committee to “promote close cooperation between the council, City management, City boards, commissions, committees, and taskforces, and individuals, institutions, and agencies concerned with the politics, procedures, and implementation of the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan with the goal of coordinating all similar activities within the City and the community in order to secure the greatest public benefit”; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee has had working groups for the past two and a half years that have gathered information from city staff, the Austin community and experts and advocates in other cities to identify funding needs to implement the Austin Climate Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee solicited and received public input on what needs funding through the Environmental Investment Plan to meet existing environmental goals through a written form, at a public hearing on March 27, 2024, and at the April 30, 2024 Joint Sustainability Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the public comments received by the Joint Sustainability Committee on the Environmental Investment Plan emphasized the need for action, including more funding to meet a variety of environmental and climate goals established by the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2019, the Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 20190808- 078 declaring a climate emergency in the City and calling to accelerate the timeline for achieving the City's climate goals; and WHEREAS, the climate crisis continues to worse each year and the window of opportunity to preserve a livable climate is rapidly closing due climate tipping points are likely already being reached; and WHEREAS, it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions reductions made sooner will yield climate benefits sooner and are therefore more valuable in avoiding tipping points that could make preserving a livable climate impossible; and WHEREAS, land acquisition, increasing the use of solar energy and battery storage, and tree planting are strategies that are adopted within multiple City of Austin plans (including the Climate Equity Plan, Water Forward, Austin/Travis County …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-03: Resolution on Climate Fee WHEREAS, it is the Joint Sustainability Committee’s responsibility to advise “on matters related to conservation and sustainability and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”, and WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions” that translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; and WHEREAS the Joint Sustainability Committee identified over $2.24 billion in one time costs and $96.14 million in ongoing expenses for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans; and WHEREAS increasing pressures on the city budget and utility rates will make funding the identified sustainability needs very difficult without a new source of revenue; and WHEREAS other cities have implemented dedicated fees to fund sustainability needs; and WHEREAS the City of Austin already utilizes dedicated fees to fund certain sustainability needs, including at Austin Energy, Austin Water and Austin Resource Recovery; and WHEREAS funding from existing fees is insufficient in magnitude to fund all existing needs and existing fees can only be used to fund certain programs; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Sustainability Committee recommends that the Austin City Council and the City Manager actively pursue establishing a new Green Fee to help fill the funding gap for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans, including: ● Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan ● Austin Strategic Mobility Plan ● Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan ● Water Forward ● Watershed Protection Strategic Plan ● Austin/Travis County Food Plan ● One Austin: Climate Resilience Action Plan ● Central Texas Regional Air Quality Plan ● Urban Forest Plan This new fee should be structured to be progressive, not regressive, should provide predictable revenue and should be paid by residents, businesses, corporations and/or visitors.
Strategic Planning Update to Animal Advisory Commission Stephanie Hayden-Howard | Assistant City Manager| July 8, 2024 The Assignment • City Auditor’s Report • Develop a Strategic Plan • Work with City Manager’s Office, Animal Services Office, Animal Advisory Commission, and key stakeholders to develop a strategic plan • Align with the City’s animal welfare priorities Strategic Planning Update 2 Planning Discussions • First planning meeting was held on June 25th • Attendees included city staff, two commissioner and Dr. Larry Schooler County capacity. • Whitney Holt will join the planning team in her Travis • The planning group will consist of city, county, two commissioners and Dr. Schooler. Strategic Planning Update 3 Assessment Phase • Dr. Schooler has begun key informant interviews • Currently he will interview several partners and stakeholders: • The planning team • City and County staff, Commissioners Clinton, Linder and Smagula • Leaders from Austin Pets Alive, Human Society and Emancipet • Community Members Pat Valls- Trelles • Former Officers Strategic Planning Update 4 Assessment Phase • Dr. Schooler will conduct external sessions • Audrey Muntz will conduct internal sessions • Online survey via SpeakUpAustin.org • Information from the Auditor’s Office • Including information shared in community engagement sessions • Recent community engagement by Animal Welfare partners Commission • Information from Sessions with the Animal Advisory Strategic Planning Update 5 Proposed Strategic Plan Working Group Participants • All Planning Members • Austin Lost and Found • Austin Pets Alive • Emancipet • Humane Society • Trappers • Individuals • Pat Valles-Trelles Strategic Planning Update 6 Strategic Plan Working Group Task • Review information from the assessment report • Produce the core components of the strategic plan • Earlier sessions will be used to build trust • Develop a shared vision for Animal Welfare • Discussion of the mission and vision including establishing goals Strategic Planning Updates 7 Strategic Plan • The plan will include all aspects from the assessment phase • Documenting the work of the working group • Input from the survey • Mission, Vision and Goals • Communicate the plan • Roles and Responsibilities for carrying out the goals • Metrics to measure progress after implementation Strategic Plan Updates 8 Next Steps • Continue with internal and external meetings key stakeholder meetings • Schedule the Working Group meetings • Community Engagement Discussions • Plan to attend commission meetings monthly for an update Strategic Planning …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION Recommendation Number:20240708-005: Allowing of companion animals into designated City of Austin Cooling Centers WHEREAS, current city policy only allows service animals into City facilities, including the places used for Cooling Centers; and WHEREAS, any person with a companion animal would have to be aware to notify staff at a cooling center to contact Animal Services for a cooling truck; and WHEREAS, this would delay the person from being able to enter a cooling center while awaiting a response from Animal Services; and WHEREAS, Animal Services, only if available, will bring a cooling truck to the cooling center, where the companion animal can stay while their person is inside the cooling center; and WHEREAS, this would render that vehicle and the Animal Protection Officer unavailable to answer any calls for assistance while performing this function; and WHEREAS, if Animal Services does not have an available vehicle to send, the person and their companion animal would not be able to enter a cooling center for relief. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Animal Advisory Commission encourages the Austin City Council to designate a number of cooling centers located throughout the City of Austin that persons with companion animals may go to for relief during times of intense heat when cooling centers are activated. Date of Approval: Record of the Vote: Attest:
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION Recommendation Number 20240708-005: Allowing of companion animals into designated City of Austin Cooling Centers WHEREAS, current city policy only allows service animals into City facilities, including the places used for Cooling Centers; and WHEREAS, any person with a companion animal would have to be aware to notify staff at a cooling center to contact Animal Services for a cooling truck; and WHEREAS, this would delay the person from being able to enter a cooling center while awaiting a response from Animal Services; and WHEREAS, Animal Services, only if available, will bring a cooling truck to the cooling center, where the companion animal can stay while their person is inside the cooling center; and WHEREAS, this would render that vehicle and the Animal Protection Officer unavailable to answer any calls for assistance while performing this function; and WHEREAS, if Animal Services does not have an available vehicle to send, the person and their companion animal would not be able to enter a cooling center for relief. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Animal Advisory Commission encourages the Austin City Council to designate a number of cooling centers located throughout the City of Austin that persons with companion animals may go to for relief during times of intense heat when cooling centers are activated. Date of Approval: July 8, 2024 Record of the vote: The recommendation was approved on Commissioner Smagula’s motion, Commissioner Herrera’s second on an 8-0 vote. Chair Clinton, Commissioners Bruce, Holt, and Tucker were absent. Attest: _____________________________________________ Eric Anderson, Staff Liaison, Office of the City Clerk
Brigh Alim Corporation December 19, 2023 Page 1 of 6 December 19, 2023 VIA EMAIL ONLY Brigh Alim Corporation 17 Garden st, apt 3R Brooklyn, NY, 11206 Attn: Anuar Yelemessov Dear Mr. Yelemessov, Re: CEASE AND DESIST FROM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES We are counsel to Miki Agrawal (“Ms. Agrawal”) and we are writing to demand your immediate cooperation to resolve the matter described below before we take further steps and prosecute a legal action against you. We have become aware of your deceptive trade practices and blatant misconduct in relation to the renovations (“Renovation”) of Ms. Agrawal’s property located at [*] (the “Property”). Ms. Agrawal hired you to complete the Renovation on the false promise that you would (i) supervise the project and your workers, (ii) communicate effectively and respond promptly, (iii) complete all of the items listed on Exhibit A in the Renovation, which still remain incomplete, and (iv) use the Two Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($239,500), advanced by Ms. Agrawal in good faith (“Funds”), to purchase materials and supplies for the Renovation. Instead, you disappeared for months and evaded Ms. Agrawal, allowed unsupervised workers to facilitate and lead the Renovation, and misappropriated the Funds to commence a larger construction project, while failing to purchase the materials and supplies as promised to Ms. Agrawal. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY DEMAND YOU IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMPLETING ANY FURTHER WORK TOWARD THE RENOVATION AND REFUND THE FUNDS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED AS PART OF THE RENOVATION. Further, Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) outlines several elements that are necessary to prove when asserting a DTPA claim. The elements of a DTPA claim are (1) the plaintiff was a consumer1; (2) the defendant either engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts (i.e., violated a specific laundry-list provision of the DTPA) or engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action; and (3) the DTPA laundry-list violation or unconscionable action was a producing cause of the plaintiff's injury. Hunt v. City of Diboll, 574 S.W.3d 406, 431 (Tex. App. 2017); Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex. 1996); see Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995). A “false, misleading, or deceptive acts”2 means an act or series of acts which has the capacity or tendency to deceive 1 “Consumer” means an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-02: Supporting the Environmental Investment Plan WHEREAS, the purpose of the Joint Sustainability Committee is “to advise the council on matters related to conservation and sustainability; and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”; and WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Joint Sustainability Committee to “promote close cooperation between the council, City management, City boards, commissions, committees, and taskforces, and individuals, institutions, and agencies concerned with the politics, procedures, and implementation of the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan with the goal of coordinating all similar activities within the City and the community in order to secure the greatest public benefit”; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee has had working groups for the past two and a half years that have gathered information from city staff, the Austin community and experts and advocates in other cities to identify funding needs to implement the Austin Climate Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sustainability Committee solicited and received public input on what needs funding through the Environmental Investment Plan to meet existing environmental goals through a written form, at a public hearing on March 27, 2024, and at the April 30, 2024 Joint Sustainability Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the public comments received by the Joint Sustainability Committee on the Environmental Investment Plan emphasized the need for action, including more funding to meet a variety of environmental and climate goals established by the City of Austin; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2019, the Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 20190808- 078 declaring a climate emergency in the City and calling to accelerate the timeline for achieving the City's climate goals; and WHEREAS, the climate crisis continues to worsen each year and the window of opportunity to preserve a livable climate is rapidly closing due to climate tipping points are likely already being reached; and WHEREAS, it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions reductions made sooner will yield climate benefits sooner and are therefore more valuable in avoiding tipping points that could make preserving a livable climate impossible; and WHEREAS, land acquisition, increasing the use of solar energy and battery storage, and tree planting are strategies that are adopted within multiple City of Austin plans (including the Climate Equity Plan, Water Forward, Austin/Travis …
Joint Sustainability Committee Resolution 20240708-03: Resolution on Climate Fee WHEREAS, it is the Joint Sustainability Committee’s responsibility to advise “on matters related to conservation and sustainability and review City policies and procedures relevant to the Austin Community Climate Plan and the Austin Climate Equity Plan, including planning, implementation, community engagement, goal setting, and progress monitoring”, and WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions” that translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; and WHEREAS the Joint Sustainability Committee identified over $2.24 billion in one time costs and $96.14 million in ongoing expenses for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans; and WHEREAS increasing pressures on the city budget and utility rates will make funding the identified sustainability needs very difficult without a new source of revenue; and WHEREAS other cities have implemented dedicated fees to fund sustainability needs; and WHEREAS the City of Austin already utilizes dedicated fees to fund certain sustainability needs, including at Austin Energy, Austin Water and Austin Resource Recovery; and WHEREAS funding from existing fees is insufficient in magnitude to fund all existing needs and existing fees can only be used to fund certain programs; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Sustainability Committee recommends that the Austin City Council and the City Manager actively pursue establishing a new Green Fee to help fill the funding gap for implementing the Austin Climate Equity Plan and associated city plans, including: ● Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan ● Austin Strategic Mobility Plan ● Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan ● Water Forward ● Watershed Protection Strategic Plan ● Austin/Travis County Food Plan ● One Austin: Climate Resilience Action Plan ● Central Texas Regional Air Quality Plan ● Urban Forest Plan This new fee should be structured to be equitable and responsive to Austin’s wealth gaps and the fee should provide predictable revenue. A legal analysis of options that could be paid by residents, businesses, corporations and/or visitors should be conducted and presented to the City Council for consideration as soon as possible. Motion: Anna Scott Second: Alberta Phillips Vote: 11-0 Yes: Diana Wheeler, Lane Becker, Kaiba White, Heather Houser, Jon Salinas, Alberta Philipps, Anna Scott, Rodrigo Leal, Melissa Rothrock, Chris Campbell, …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DATE: Monday July 8, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0015 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___-____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ABSTAINED ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___-____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) OUT ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___Y____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: David Chace OWNER: Chris and Shannon Renner ADDRESS: 1306 ROCKCLIFF RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum front yard setback from 40 feet (required) to 20 feet (requested) Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback (east side) from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations) (B) (1) (b) from shoreline setback requirements to decrease from 25 feet (required) to 0 feet (requested) in order to demolish and construct a new 2 story single-family residence attached to existing legal non-complying Boat House in a “LA”, Lake Austin zoning district. Note: This section of the Land Development Code applies to lots that are included in a subdivision plat recorded before April 22, 1982 or is a legal tract exempt from the requirement to plat. For the above address the Subdivision Plat was recorded on December 1, 1976 Land Development Code Section 25-2-551 Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations (A) In this section: (1) SHORELINE means the 492.8 topographic contour line along the shores of Lake Austin. (2) SHORELINE SETBACK means a line parallel to the shoreline and at a distance from the shoreline that is prescribed in this section. (3) SHORELINE SETBACK AREA means an area between the shoreline and the shoreline setback. (B) This subsection specifies shoreline setbacks in a Lake Austin (LA) district. (1) The shoreline setback is: (a) 75 feet; or (b) 25 feet, if: (i) the lot is located in a subdivision plat recorded before April 22, 1982, or is a legal tract exempt from the requirement to plat; and (ii) the distance between the shoreline and the front lot line, or the property line of a legal tract, is 200 feet or less. BOARD’S DECISION: BOA MEETING MAY 13, 2024 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne’s motion to …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: Monday July 8, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0018 ____Y___Thomas Ates (D1) ____Y___Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ____Y___Jessica Cohen (D3) ____Y___Yung-ju Kim (D4) ____Y___Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ____Y___Jeffery Bowen (D6) ____Y___Janel Venzant (D7) ____-___Margaret Shahrestani (D8) OUT ____Y___Brian Poteet (D9) ____Y___Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ____Y___Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ____-___VACANT (Alternate) (M) ____Y___Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ____-___VACANT (Alternate) (M) OWNER/APPLICANT: Walter Olden ADDRESS: 921 52ND ST (requested) (requested), VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to: decrease the minimum street side yard setback from 15 feet (required) to 0 feet decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 10 feet (required) to 0 feet in order to complete a remodel and addition of 2nd FL residence to an existing detached garage in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (North Loop Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: JUNE 10, 2024 Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to postpone to July 8, 2024 (due to not having enough board members for voting purposes), Board member Suzanne Valentine second on 8-0 votes; POSTPONED TO JULY 8, 2024, at PDC, 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive, Event Center, 1st floor. July 8, 2024 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to approve with a friendly amendment that the exterior garage remodel be completed with fire resistant product (a.k.a hardi-board); Board member Jeffery Bowen second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE EXTERIOR GARAGE REMODEL BE COMPLETED WITH FIRE RESISTANT PRODUCT (a.k.a hardi-board). FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: lot has 3 heritage Pecan trees that are each over 100 year old, the tree diameters are 28”, 32” and 32”, therefore the critical root zones make any expansion very limited, would like to retain the existing non-complying garages as part of the building footprint. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the space available to construct the proposed garage apartment is very limited because of the critical root zones of three existing Pecan trees. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: this property is a corner lot with non-complying garage location that was built in the 1950’s and limited area …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday July 8, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0019 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___-____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) OUT ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___Y____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: David Chace OWNER: Michael and Caroline Hinson ADDRESS: 2913 WESTLAKE CV VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the two minimum interior side yards setback from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested). Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations) (B) (1) (a) from shoreline setback requirements to decrease from 75 feet (required) to 50 feet (requested) for the portion within 40 feet of the north side property line. Section 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations) (C) (3) (a) increase the maximum impervious cover on a slope with a gradient of 15 percent or less from 35 percent (maximum allowed) to 47.5 percent (requested), (54% existing) in order to complete a remodel and addition to an existing 2 story single-family residence in a “LA”, Lake Austin zoning district. Note: This subsection of the Land Development Code applies to a lot included in a subdivision plat recorded before April 22, 1982 or a tract that is not required to be platted, and that is located in an LA district. For the above address the LSD tract was acknowledged by COA per attached document as approved legal tract in March 2008 by COA DAC staff via C8I-2008-0096. The separate instrument #2004165487 for lot 14 Lago Valla Addition Subdivision deed was recorded in August 2004 but existed in current configuration March 1982 per Volume 8027, page 352 T.C.P.R then received utility service May 1984. In this section: SHORELINE means the 492.8 topographic contour line along the shores of Lake Austin. SHORELINE SETBACK means a line parallel to the shoreline and at a distance from the Land Development Code Section 25-2-551 Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations (A) (1) (2) shoreline that is prescribed in this section. (3) setback. SHORELINE SETBACK AREA means an area between the shoreline and the shoreline (B) This subsection specifies shoreline setbacks in a Lake Austin (LA) district. (1) The shoreline setback is: (a) 75 feet; …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday July 8, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0022 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___-____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) OUT ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___Y____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) OWNER/APPLICANT: Gerardo Maximiliano Martinez ADDRESS: 1012 VARGAS RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from lot width requirements to decrease the front lot width from 50 feet (required) to 44 feet (requested), in order to subdivide one lot into two separate lots in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (Montopolis Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: JUNE 10, 2024 Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to postpone to July 8, 2024 (due to not having enough board members for voting purposes), Board member Suzanne Valentine second on 8-0 votes; POSTPONED TO JULY 8, 2024, at PDC, 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive, Event Center, 1st floor. July 8, 2024 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to approve; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: the existing SF-3 lot has 12,470 sq ft of land area, there is enough land area to create 2 SF-3 lots above 5.750 sqft to provide more housing in the neighborhood 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the subject property was sized to be a corner lot however COA does not have plans, a flag lot is not feasible on this lot because the flag portion of the subdivision does count towards the total lot area and there is not enough area to complete two standard SF-3 lots. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the subject tract is configured in such a way that it is large enough for two standard SF-3 lots but not wide enough to provide the required 50’ of frontage. 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 …
