CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0041 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Christy May OWNER: Warren Konkel ADDRESS: 6706 BRIDGE HILL CV VARIANCE REQUESTED: Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022-0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) on the grounds that the approved work violates the applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district established under City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), including limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under City Code Sec. 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) and other applicable site development standards. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone appeal to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Permit Holder Presentation November 10, 2025 Board of Adjustment Appeal of Administrative Decision 2 ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/6-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/7-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Construction Remains Permissible Even If Nothing Had Existed For argument’s sake, set aside every claim about expired permits or the loss of noncomplying status, and assume something far more drastic: that there had never been improvements in this disputed area. Even under that assumption, all of the construction in this area remains permissible under Section 25- 2-963(F), which authorizes extension of a noncomplying structure along its original setback for up to 25 feet. ITEM02/8-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER 25-2-963(F) Allows Limited Extensions Matching the Original Setback Section 25-2-963 applies to structures legally built under earlier codes but not compliant with today’s restrictions. 25-2-963(F) A person may modify a building that is a noncomplying structure based on a yard setback requirement of this title if: 1. the modified portion of the building: Subsection (F) explicitly allows those structures to be extended 50% (up to 25 feet) along the original setback line. The City interprets “modified portion of the building” on a floor-by-floor basis and evaluates each level individually. a. does not extend further into the required yard setback than the existing noncomplying portion of the building, except for a vertical change in finished floor elevation allowed under Subsection (B)(2) of this section b. unless located in a street side yard, is not greater in height than the existing noncomplying portion of the building, except for a vertical change in finished floor elevation allowed under Subsection (B)(2) of this section; and c. complies with the height requirements of this title; and 2. the additional length of a modified portion of the building does not exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the length of the noncomplying portion of the building or 25 feet measured from the existing building and parallel to the lot line. ITEM02/9-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/10-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Top Floor is Eligible for 21.5’ Extension The existing noncomplying top floor is 43 feet long and therefore allowed a 50% extension under the code, equal to 21.5’ of additional length. This extension was applied primarily to the front of the building and partly to a rear patio. All construction within the 10’ setback is expressly permitted under Section 25-2-963(F). ITEM02/11-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/12-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/13-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Conclusion: Every Claim in the Appeal Fails Claim Response …
1 ITEM02/1-APPELLANT 2 ITEM02/2-APPELLANT Fourth, the pool deck has expanded since the 1997 survey, including the portion of it within the side yard setback. A permit to, "repair, replace and enlarge existing pool deck" was secured in 2001(2001-013119 BP). However, no inspections were logged, and that permit is Expired. There is a note in our system associated with the permit which reads, "IC-15237=34%. The portion of the wood deck that is encroaching into the side yard must not be removed to maintain the non- complying status... 25-2-963(D}'� The plans approved as part of PR-2022-066047 for the current project show 15,697 square feet of impervious cover pre-development and 15,546 square feet post-development. – Steve Leitch letter to Warren Konkel, September 9, 2024 *LAST LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STATUS 3 ITEM02/3-APPELLANT EXPIRED PERMITS = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit expired with no inspections and was never lawfully completed. Austin’s Land Development Code makes it clear that when a permit expires, the authorization ends and vesting tied to that permit/project does not continue. The 2022 Permit improperly assumed continued grandfathered status based upon expired 2001 permit and non-permitted improvements after 2001 4 ITEM02/4-APPELLANT 5 ITEM02/5-APPELLANT 6 ITEM02/6-APPELLANT ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SETBACK = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit proposed “repair, replace, and enlarge pool deck.” But it did not approve extending the length of the patio in the setback to the zero (0) foot setback line (see Slide #4). What was built after the 2001 permit expired was never permitted by the City and was never legal non-complying. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (E)(1)(a) provides that modifications of a non-complying structure may not extend further into the required side yard setback than the existing non-complying portion of the building. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (c) “except as provided for in subsections E and F, a person my not modify or maintain and non-complying structure in a manner that increases the degree to which the structure violated a requirement that caused the structure to be non-complying.” The exceptions of subsection (F) do not apply to this permit because: a) The elevation of the patio deck changed more than one (1) foot vertically (LDC 25-2-963 B(2)) b) The encroachment of the pool deck extends further into the required setback than the last legal non- complying improvements in 1997. c) The additional length of the modified portion …
To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd, Development Officer, ADS Lyndi Garwood, Principal Planner, ADS Date: October 30, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Development Approval Issued for 6706 Bridge Hill Cove The appellant challenges an administrative revision approved on September 24, 2025, which modifies construction plans initially approved in 2022 (Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR) as well as revisions to the following associated permits: • Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (home remodel/additions); and • Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) The appeal alleges that the approved work violates applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district and limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under Land Development Code (“LDC”) Section 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures). Summary of Issues & ADS’s Position As with many structures that were initially built along Lake Austin prior to annexation, portions of the residence at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove are legally “noncomplying” with site development standards applicable in the Lake Austin zoning district. This means, in essence, that the structure complied with the regulations in effect at the time it was initially built, but does not meet all currently applicable site development standards. Property owners are allowed to maintain noncomplying structures without bringing them into compliance with current site development standards. However, LDC Section 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) limits the degree to which noncomplying structures may be altered and generally prohibits expansions that “increase the degree of noncompliance” outside of the modifications specifically authorized in code. In this case, the pool deck and portions of the residence along the southern property line are noncomplying with the 10-foot side-yard setback that applies in the LA zoning district per LDC Sec. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations). The main issues in the appeal ITEM02/1-STAFF REPORT Case No. C15-2025-0041 BOA Appeal re: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Staff Report hinge on whether recently approved revisions to a prior 2022 permit for a remodel/addition authorized development in excess of what is allowed under LDC Sec. 25-2-963. The parties to this appeal are Warren Konkel, the permit applicant and owner of the subject property, and the appellant, Christy May, who owns the adjacent property at 6708 Bridge Hill Cover. Both are represented by counsel, who have contrary views on the validity of the appeal and whether permit revisions approved by staff comply with LDC Sec. 25-2-963 and other applicable regulations. They will …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0005 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jonathan Perlstein OWNER: Elizabeth McFarland ADDRESS: 4700 WEIDEMAR LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO-NP”, Multi- Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) lesser of: (1) 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or ITEM03/1 35 square feet. (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28- 17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Tommy Ates second on 9-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstained); POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; Madam Chair Cohen motions to approve postponement request, Board member Jeffery Bowen second, no objection; POSTPONED TO November 10, 2025. FINDING: 1. The variance is necessary because strict enforcement of the Article prohibits and reasonable opportunity to provide adequate signs on the site, considering the unique features of a site such as its dimensions, landscape, or topography, because: OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: AND, 4. Granting a variance …
ITEM03/38 ITEM03/39 PropertyProfileReportPermittingandDevelopmentCenter|6310WilhelminaDelcoDrive,Austin,TX78752|(512)978-4000GeneralInformationZoningMapImageryMapVicinityMapLocation:4700WEIDEMARLNParcelID:0414030127Grid:MH17Planning&Zoning*Rightclickhyperlinkstoopeninanewwindow.FutureLandUse(FLUM):SingleFamily,Multi-familyRegulatingPlan:NoRegulatingPlanZoning:MF-6-CO-NPZoningCases:C14-05-0107C14-2021-0015NP-05-0020NPA-2021-0020.01ZoningOrdinances:19990225-070b20050818-Z00420220324-08920220324-090CompatibilityStandardsResidentialDesignStandards:LDC/25-2-SubchapterFZoningOverlays:NeighborhoodPlan:EASTCONGRESSInfillOptions:SmallLotAmnestyInfillOption,ParkingPlacement/ImpCoverDesignOptionNeighborhoodRestrictedParkingAreas:EastCongressNPAMobileFoodVendors:--HistoricLandmark:--UrbanRoadways:NoZoningGuideTheGuidetoZoningprovidesaquickexplanationoftheaboveZoningcodes,however,theLandDevelopmentInformationServicesprovidesgeneralzoningassistanceandcanadviseyouonthetypeofdevelopmentallowedonaproperty.VisitZoningforthedescriptionofeachBaseZoningDistrict.Forofficialverificationofthezoningofaproperty,pleaseorderaZoningVerificationLetter.GeneralinformationontheNeighborhoodPlanningAreasisavailablefromNeighborhoodPlanning.EnvironmentalNoFullyDevelopedFloodplain:NoFEMAFloodplain:SUBURBANAustinWatershedRegulationAreas:WilliamsonCreekWatershedBoundaries:NoCreekBuffers:EdwardsAquiferRechargeZone:NoNoEdwardsAquiferRechargeVerificationZone:ErosionHazardZoneReviewBuffer:NoPoliticalBoundariesJurisdiction:AUSTINFULLPURPOSECouncilDistrict:3County:TRAVISSchoolDistrict:AustinISDCommunityRegistry:AustinIndependentSchoolDistrict,AustinNeighborhoodsCouncil,FriendsofAustinNeighborhoods,GoAustinVamosAustin78745,HomelessNeighborhoodAssociation,OnionCreekHomeownersAssoc.,OvertonFamilyCommittee,PreservationAustin,SouthAustinNeighborhoodAlliance(SANA),SouthCongressCombinedNeighborhoodPlanContactTeamTheInformationonthisreporthasbeenproducedbytheCityofAustinasaworkingdocumentandisnotwarrantedforanyotheruse.NowarrantyismadebytheCityregardingitsaccuracyorcompleteness.Datecreated:5/28/2025ITEM03/40 ITEM03/41 □ ITEM03/42 Architectural Signage Design Group, LLC. 4101 W GREEN OAKS SUITE 405. ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76016 1 A halo-lit channel letter sign uses a lighting technique that creates a glow or halo effect around the letters. Instead of the letters being lit from the front, as in traditional channel letters, the light is emitted from behind the letters, illuminating the surrounding area. This results in a soft, radiant appearance. ITEM03/43 ITEM03/44 ITEM03/45 ITEM03/46 ITEM03/47
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0005 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __-_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) -- Abstained __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) __-_____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) __-_____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) __-_____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jonathan Perlstein OWNER: Elizabeth McFarland ADDRESS: 4700 WEIDEMAR LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO-NP”, Multi- Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) lesser of: (1) 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or 35 square feet. (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28- 17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Tommy Ates second on 9-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstained); POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; Madam Chair Cohen motions to approve postponement request, Board member Jeffery Bowen second, no objection; POSTPONED TO November 10, 2025. November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Approve with the large sign south elevation limited to 100 sf shown on Advance packet Item 3/14 with the bottom edge starting at level three 677.31 feet and the sign for the east elevation shown in Advance packet Item 3/15 limited to 96 sf; Board member Maggie Shahrestani second on 10-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstain); GRANTED WITH THE LARGE …
ITEM03/1-PRESENTATION ITEM03/2-PRESENTATION ITEM03/3-PRESENTATION ITEM03/4-PRESENTATION ITEM03/5-PRESENTATION Architectural Signage Design Group, LLC. 4101 W GREEN OAKS SUITE 405. ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76016 1 A halo-lit channel letter sign uses a lighting technique that creates a glow or halo effect around the letters. Instead of the letters being lit from the front, as in traditional channel letters, the light is emitted from behind the letters, illuminating the surrounding area. This results in a soft, radiant appearance. ITEM03/6-PRESENTATION SIGN LOCATIONS - SITE PLAN Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASWEIDEMAR LNSHELBY LNITEM03/7-PRESENTATION Illuminated Vertical Wall Sign - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 WHITE VINYL WINDOWS DARK BRICK WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 S1 STOREFRONT A 0 0 1 A S2 " 3 - ' 7 . P Y T T.O. PARAPET 5 714.28 ft LEVEL 5 699.63 ft LEVEL 4 688.47 ft LEVEL 3 677.31 ft LEVEL 2 666.16 ft LEVEL 1 655.00 ft AVG. GRADE 654.20 ft 3 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH 3/32" = 1'-0" ELECTRICAL BOX: Dead center 110, 5 AMPS Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASITEM03/8-PRESENTATION Illuminated Wall Sign - EAST ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 96" 8 ft - 0 in 144" 12 ft - 0 in 9 7/8" 35 3/8" 4 1/4" ELECTRICAL BOX: Dead center 110, 5 AMPS 50' from bottom of sign to grade Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASITEM03/9-PRESENTATION SIGN LOCATIONS - SITE PLAN Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASWEIDEMAR LNSHELBY LNITEM03/10-PRESENTATION Illuminated Vertical Wall Sign - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 WHITE VINYL WINDOWS DARK BRICK WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 S1 STOREFRONT A 0 0 1 A S2 " 3 - ' 7 . P Y T T.O. PARAPET 5 714.28 ft LEVEL 5 699.63 ft LEVEL 4 688.47 ft LEVEL 3 677.31 ft LEVEL 2 666.16 ft LEVEL 1 655.00 ft AVG. GRADE 654.20 ft 3 …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS ITEM04/1 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 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 of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM04/2 1752 Channel Road Dredge Exhibit: To …
ITEM04/46 ITEM04/47 ITEM04/48 ITEM04/49 ITEM04/50 ITEM04/51 ITEM04/52 ITEM04/53 Exhibit A: Image from 09/24/2025 showing the lake depth is 2’9.5” 30 ft from shore 33.5 inches 2 feet 9.5 inches ITEM04/54 Exhibit B: Image from 10/09/2025 showing the lake depth measure 2’1.5” where the hull of a boat would sit with a 30ft long boat dock 25.5 inches 2 feet 1.5 inches ITEM04/55 Exhibit C: Images showing existing structures extend less into the lake than the downstream neighboring dock which is 30ft in length. 1748 dock (downstream) 1748 dock extends much further into the lake Existing 1750 dock Current structure which is 6 inches longer than the proposed is further from the middle of the lake than the adjacent downstream neighbors 30 foot dock. ITEM04/56 Exhibit D: Downstream shoreline curves into the in front of the dock creating several feet of length into the lake. Closeup of neighboring shoreline shows that it protrudes into the lake several feet where the boat dock is. ITEM04/57 Opposition to Variance 2 CASES C15-2025-0026 and C15-2025-0027 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D 1750 Channel Rd. & 1752 Channel Rd. By: Bruce & Nellie Slayden, Conforming dock at 1744 Channel Rd. 1 ITEM04/58 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips 2 ITEM04/59 1752 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 47’ or 46’ 1” Existing nonconforming structure: Never permitted 1-story 1-watercraft slip 47’ Length Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories across entire structure • 2 watercraft slips • 46’1’ shoreline L is 16’1” (154% of) over statutory 30’ • 22’ W vs. 14’W Existing • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 3 ITEM04/60 Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing 4 ITEM04/61 NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship Applicant FALSE assumption “‘a modern watercraft’ requires water depth of 4 feet” True: Numerous modern watercraft require much less than 4. “Modern watercraft” operate in 2.5’depths: • Inboard/Outboard Watercraft • Pontoon Watercraft • Tritoon Watercraft • Outboard Watercraft • Jet Watercraft 5 ITEM04/62 Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, …
November 10, 2025 Nellie Slayden, University of Texas, Austin, B.S. Petroleum Engineering, EIT Adversely Impacted Neighbor 1744 Channel Road, Austin, Texas 78746 5 The Honorable Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Austin, Texas P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Re: Opposition to Variance Requests for 1750 & 1752 Channel Road; Case Nos. C15-2025-0026 & 0027 Dear Madam Chair and Honorable Board Members: I am a Petroleum Engineer (B.S. Petroleum Engineering, University of Texas at Austin) and professionally trained in the analytical methods used to determine dredge volumes. (See Section VII for details.) These are standard engineering techniques used across petroleum, civil, and architectural engineering disciplines. Because these calculations are fundamental to engineering design, my education and experience directly qualify me to evaluate dredge-volume analyses and identify when they deviate from accepted engineering standards or employ misleading assumptions. I. VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS AND ARBITRARY RE-EXPANSION Unlike upstream neighbors —also represented by Applicants' Agent— Applicants are voluntarily demolishing and relinquishing two grandfathered dock footprints. They now seek to recapture and enlarge those relinquished footprints by presenting manipulated dredge data to inflate calculated dredge volumes beyond the statutory 25 cubic-yard limit. This is an attempt to make an end-run around LDC § 25-2-1176. We urge the Board to follow Board precedent that requires credible engineering evidence to determine the minimum lengths of the docks that respect the public’s navigation safety. See, e.g., the Board’s precedent relying upon the Professional Engineering Analysis of Professional Engineer Janice Smith in Variance C15-2019-0047 and in Variance C15-2019-0010. ITEM04/1 LATE BACKUP OPP II. ADMISSIONS UNDERMINE CLAIMED HARDSHIP Applicants concede that a dredge volume of 24 to 25 cubic yards provides navigation safety and eliminates any alleged hardship under § 30-5-652: “In most cases where the lake is shallow and a new boat dock is proposed, the allowable 25 cubic yards of dredge per LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1) is sufficient to allow navigational safety.” — Applicants’ Letter to the Board, Aug. 18, 2025 (Exhibit B). This admission directly contradicts Applicants’ asserted hardship. III. APPLICANTS FAIL TO CALCULATE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTHS CONSISTENT WITH 25 CUBIC-YARD DREDGE LIMIT AS REQUIRED FOR LDC 25-2-1176 VARIANCES This Board has properly balanced competing interests before, and granted variances when licensed professional engineers offered credible, trustworthy documentation that the dock length (greater than 30’) is minimized to yield a dredge volume just less than 25 cubic yards. This Board has endorsed 24 cubic …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming …
BOA Variance Presentation: Property Address: 1750 Channel Road, Austin, TX 78746 Case Number: C15-2025-0026 Site Plan #: SP-2025-0119D Presenter: Jon Fichter, Aqua Permits ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road: ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION Seeking Variance From: LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1): "A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline [into the lake], except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety" To Allow For: -The permitting and construction of a NEW boat dock 37' 3" from the shoreline into the lake. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● ● ● ● Shown here is the site as seen today in an image taken from City of Austin GIS. The existing boat dock was constructed in the early 1980’s and is a grandfathered structure. The existing boat dock extends 37’ 9” from the shoreline. The existing boat dock is being removed and replaced with a new boat dock in the same general location. This new boat dock design conforms to all current code requirements, including height allowances, in regards to boat docks on Lake Austin. ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● This image shows the neighboring dock to the east of the existing dock at 1750 Channel Road. ● Most of the neighboring boat docks have all existed in a non-compliant, but grandfathered form, for at least 40 years or more. ● These docks historically have been constructed to extend greater than 30’ from the shoreline due to shallow conditions ● Modern watercraft requires at least 4 ft. of water depth to operate - in this area the water depth is too shallow inside of the 30’ setback. ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock in Land Development Code 25-2-1176(A)(6) is insufficient in its application for this property. Due to the existing shallow lake conditions along this stretch of Lake Austin, the dock will need to be constructed at a greater length than the allowable 30’ from shoreline. Dredging of the lake bed is restricted to 25 cubic yards per address by code - in this location the amount of dredge needed to create basic navigability would exceed that amount (see below exhibit). Therefore, building deeper into the lake is required. ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● Our proposed site plan (SP-2025-0119D, currently in review) proposes a new boat …
Opposition to Variance Cases 2 Variances, 2 Applicants 2 Addresses C15-2025-0026 Red Bud LP 1750 Channel Rd. C15-2025-0027 Tom Davis III 1752 Channel Rd. 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D By: Bruce* & Nellie*+ Slayden, Conforming neighboring dock Date: October 30, 2025 * Licensed Intellectual Property Attorney in good standing with State Bar of Texas and US Patent & Trademark Office + B.S. Petroleum Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin + Engineering experience involving geology, navigable waterways, depositional systems. Core UT Courses and On-Site Studies involving Edwards Plateau 1 ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Reasonable Use Summary Board Inquiry Reasonable Use: The zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: Applicants’ Response The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock is a navigational hazard, due to the naturally existing shallow conditions of Lake Austin in this area. Similar neighboring properties have addressed this unique environmental feature for decades by building their boat docks further into the lake Objections The proposed maximum length from shoreline for a new LDC 25-2-1172 new construction, unreasonably interferes with a preferred travel path in the highest congested area of a public navigable waterway and thus unreasonably impedes Texas’ laws that protect navigation safety. Local zoning regulations do allow for a reasonable use. Numerous watercraft and lift options are readily available and would enable Applicant to comply with 30 foot zoning regulation limits. ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (a) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: Applicants’ Response The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is uniquely shallow, due to annual sedimentary deposits caused by neighboring property’s runoff. Objections The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is NOT uniquely shallow. Numerous conforming docks in this and many other areas of Lake Austin are similarly situated vis-a-vis same or similar depth contours, as shown on Austin’s ArcGis. The LDC anticipates and alleviates this hardship. LDC allows applicants to repair and modify grandfathered structures in deeper water. The Board should not grant a variance that would provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (b) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: Applicants’ Response The homeowners are seeking no special privilege to shoreline use not already given …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS ITEM05/1 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 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 of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM05/2 1752 Channel Road Dredge Exhibit: To ensure safe …
ITEM05/32 ITEM05/33 ITEM05/34 ITEM05/35 ITEM05/36 ITEM05/37 From: To: Subject: Date: Ramirez, Diana FW: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Monday, August 11, 2025 12:34:59 PM External Email - Exercise Caution Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Please add these pictures to my email ITEM05/38 ITEM05/39 ITEM05/40 ITEM05/41 Re: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments, We, Bruce and Niloofar Slayden, representing the SLAYDEN BRUCE & NELLIE REVOCABLE TRUST at 1744 Channel Road, respectfully submit this letter to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the variance request submitted by Red Bud Partners LP for the property located at 1750 Channel Road. The request seeks approval to construct a new dock extending 37 feet and 3 inches from the shoreline—substantially exceeding the 30-foot maximum length permitted under the Land Development Code (LDC 25-2-1176). We urge the Board to deny this request. This request is not only excessive and unjustified, but also poses a threat to navigation safety, neighborhood consistency, and surrounding property values. Critically, this variance request is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of the applicable regulations. 1. Undermining Code’s Intent The variance request proposes a dock length that is 124% of the maximum allowable by code—exceeding the 30-foot limit by a more than 7 feet. The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that this increased length is necessary for navigation safety, as required under LDC 25-2-1176. In the absence of such justification, approval would set a troubling precedent and undermine the intent and the integrity of the Code. 2. Navigation Hazard and Community Consistency The proposed 37+ feet, multi-level dock would constitute a significant navigational hazard. It would be the only residential multi-level dock in the area extending nearly 125% of the standard shoreline distance. This outlier configuration deviates dramatically from the existing character of surrounding docks along Lake Austin, which are predominantly conform to code. A new multi-level dock of up to a 30’ height and 37+’ length would obstruct sight lines around the shoreline curve, increasing the risk of boating accidents. The Board must not approve any new structure that compromises boater safety on Lake Austin. ITEM05/42 3. Adverse Impact on Neighboring Properties and the Lake Community Approval of this variance would result in immediate and measurable harm to neighboring properties, including ours. A …
Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, min depth 2.5’ • Articulating Lifts • Extending Lifts 6 ITEM05/63 7 ITEM05/64 Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 8.17 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’ ) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 17.5’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 17.5’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = (Ave Height 0.9’ x 14’W x 17.5’ L ) = 220.5 Cu Ft = 8.17 Cu Yds 2.5 requires only 8.17 Cu. Yds of dredge across 17.5’ from shoreline 8 ITEM05/65 Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 9.72 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 15’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 15’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = (Ave Height, Bulkhead & 15’) 1.25’ x 14’W x 15’ L = 9.72 Cu Yds 2.5’ Depth requires only 9.72 Cu. Yds of dredge across 15.0’ from shoreline 9 ITEM05/66 NO HARDSHIP (1750) Applicants Apply False/Misleading Data FALSE TRUE ‘Modern Watercraft’ require water depth of 4 ft” Forces excessive dredging greater than 25 Cu Yds Dredge Volume: 31.01 Cu Yds Modern lifts specifically designed to store, launch and dock 6500 lbs modern watercraft in shallow waters; 2.5’ depths ; Cradle travels 4.5’ Cantilever Lift Significantly Reduce Dredging Dredge Volume: 8.17 Cu Yds Average End Area Calculation using Applicants’ Data at 2.5’ Depth 10 ITEM05/67 NO HARDSHIP (1752) Applicants Apply False/Misleading Data FALSE TRUE ‘Modern Watercraft’ require water depth of 4 ft” Forces excessive dredging greater than 25 Cu Yds Dredge Volume: 42.18 Cu Yds Modern lifts specifically designed to store, launch and dock 6500 lbs …
November 10, 2025 Nellie Slayden, University of Texas, Austin, B.S. Petroleum Engineering, EIT Adversely Impacted Neighbor 1744 Channel Road, Austin, Texas 78746 The Honorable Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Austin, Texas P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Re: Opposition to Variance Requests for 1750 & 1752 Channel Road; Case Nos. C15-2025-0026 & 0027 Dear Madam Chair and Honorable Board Members: I am a Petroleum Engineer (B.S. Petroleum Engineering, University of Texas at Austin) and professionally trained in the analytical methods used to determine dredge volumes. (See Section VII for details.) These are standard engineering techniques used across petroleum, civil, and architectural engineering disciplines. Because these calculations are fundamental to engineering design, my education and experience directly qualify me to evaluate dredge-volume analyses and identify when they deviate from accepted engineering standards or employ misleading assumptions. I. VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS AND ARBITRARY RE-EXPANSION Unlike upstream neighbors —also represented by Applicants' Agent— Applicants are voluntarily demolishing and relinquishing two grandfathered dock footprints. They now seek to recapture and enlarge those relinquished footprints by presenting manipulated dredge data to inflate calculated dredge volumes beyond the statutory 25 cubic-yard limit. This is an attempt to make an end-run around LDC § 25-2-1176. We urge the Board to follow Board precedent that requires credible engineering evidence to determine the minimum lengths of the docks that respect the public’s navigation safety. See, e.g., the Board’s precedent relying upon the Professional Engineering Analysis of Professional Engineer Janice Smith in Variance C15-2019-0047 and in Variance C15-2019-0010. ITEM05/1-LATE BACKUP OPP II. ADMISSIONS UNDERMINE CLAIMED HARDSHIP Applicants concede that a dredge volume of 24 to 25 cubic yards provides navigation safety and eliminates any alleged hardship under § 30-5-652: “In most cases where the lake is shallow and a new boat dock is proposed, the allowable 25 cubic yards of dredge per LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1) is sufficient to allow navigational safety.” — Applicants’ Letter to the Board, Aug. 18, 2025 (Exhibit B). This admission directly contradicts Applicants’ asserted hardship. III. APPLICANTS FAIL TO CALCULATE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTHS CONSISTENT WITH 25 CUBIC-YARD DREDGE LIMIT AS REQUIRED FOR LDC 25-2-1176 VARIANCES This Board has properly balanced competing interests before, and granted variances when licensed professional engineers offered credible, trustworthy documentation that the dock length (greater than 30’) is minimized to yield a dredge volume just less than 25 cubic yards. This Board has endorsed 24 cubic yards of …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS, November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 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 …
BOA Variance Presentation Property Address: 1752 Channel Road, Austin, TX 78746 Case Number: C15-2025-0027 Site Plan #: SP-2025-0119D Presenter: Jon Fichter, Aqua Permits ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road: ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION Seeking Variance From: LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1): "A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline [into the lake], except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety" To Allow For: -The permitting and construction of a NEW dock that extends 46' 1" from the shoreline into the lake. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● ● ● ● Shown here is the site as seen today in an image taken from City of Austin GIS. The existing boat dock was constructed between 1960-1970 and is a grandfathered structure. The existing boat dock extends 49’ 9” from the shoreline. The existing boat dock is being removed and replaced with a new boat dock in the same general location. This new boat dock design conforms to all current code requirements, including height allowances, in regards to boat docks on Lake Austin. ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● This image taken from the existing dock at 1752 shows the neighbor dock to the west along this stretch of lake channel ● Most of the neighboring boat docks have all existed in a non-compliant, but grandfathered form, for at least 40 years or more. ● These docks historically have been constructed to extend greater than 30’ from the shoreline due to shallow lake conditions. ● Modern watercraft requires at least 4 ft. of water depth to operate - in this area the water depth is too shallow inside of the 30’ setback. 49’9” ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock in Land Development Code 25-2-1176(A)(6) is insufficient in its application for this property. Due to the existing shallow lake conditions along this stretch of Lake Austin, the dock will need to be constructed at a greater length than the allowable 30’ from shoreline. Dredging of the lake bed is restricted to 25 cubic yards per address by code - in this location the amount of dredge needed to create basic navigability would exceed that amount (see below exhibit). Therefore, building deeper into the lake is required. ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● Our proposed site plan (SP-2025-0119D, currently in review) proposes a …
Opposition to Variance Cases 2 Variances, 2 Applicants 2 Addresses C15-2025-0026 Red Bud LP 1750 Channel Rd. C15-2025-0027 Tom Davis III 1752 Channel Rd. 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D By: Bruce* & Nellie*+ Slayden, Conforming neighboring dock Date: October 30, 2025 * Licensed Intellectual Property Attorney in good standing with State Bar of Texas and US Patent & Trademark Office + B.S. Petroleum Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin + Engineering experience involving geology, navigable waterways, depositional systems. Core UT Courses and On-Site Studies involving Edwards Plateau 1 ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Reasonable Use Summary Board Inquiry Reasonable Use: The zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: Applicants’ Response The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock is a navigational hazard, due to the naturally existing shallow conditions of Lake Austin in this area. Similar neighboring properties have addressed this unique environmental feature for decades by building their boat docks further into the lake Objections The proposed maximum length from shoreline for a new LDC 25-2-1172 new construction, unreasonably interferes with a preferred travel path in the highest congested area of a public navigable waterway and thus unreasonably impedes Texas’ laws that protect navigation safety. Local zoning regulations do allow for a reasonable use. Numerous watercraft and lift options are readily available and would enable Applicant to comply with 30 foot zoning regulation limits. ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (a) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: Applicants’ Response The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is uniquely shallow, due to annual sedimentary deposits caused by neighboring property’s runoff. Objections The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is NOT uniquely shallow. Numerous conforming docks in this and many other areas of Lake Austin are similarly situated vis-a-vis same or similar depth contours, as shown on Austin’s ArcGis. The LDC anticipates and alleviates this hardship. LDC allows applicants to repair and modify grandfathered structures in deeper water. The Board should not grant a variance that would provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (b) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: Applicants’ Response The homeowners are seeking no special privilege to shoreline use not already given …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0036 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Josh Myers OWNER: Josh Myers ADDRESS: 12302 SPLIT RAIL PKWY 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 front yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to maintain a Carport in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025 BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 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 of the zoning district in which the property is located because: ITEM06/1 Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM06/2 BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0036 BOA DATE: Monday, October 13th, 2025 ADDRESS: 12302 Split Rail Pkwy OWNER: Joshua Myers COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 AGENT: N/A ZONING: SF-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VILLAGE 2 AT ANDERSON MILL, BLOCK M, LOT 1 VARIANCE REQUEST: LDC, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the front yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. SUMMARY: maintain a Carport ISSUES: corner lot & layout of home ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Anderson Mill Neighborhood Association Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Long Canyon Homeowners Assn. Mountain Neighborhood Association (MNA) ITEM06/3 September 25, 2025 Josh Myers 12302 Split Rail Pkwy Austin TX, 78750 Property Description: VILLAGE 2 AT ANDERSON MILL, BLOCK M, LOT 1 Re: C15-2025-0036 Dear Josh Myers, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the …
T o : F r o m : D a t e : S u b j e c t : R a m i r e z , l E a n e i C a s e C 1 5 - 2 0 2 5 - 0 0 3 6 T h u r s d a y , O c t o b e r 2 , 2 0 2 5 4 : 3 6 : 5 0 P M S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e E x t e r n a l E m a i l - E x e r c i s e C a u t i o n h t t p s : / / a k a . m s / L e a r n A b o u t S e n d e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ] [ Y o u d o n ' t o f t e n g e t e m a i l f r o m a c a n d e l s @ g m a i l . c o m . L e a r n w h y t h i s i s i m p o r t a n t a t M e s s a g e " b u t t o n i n O u t l o o k . F o r a n y a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s o r c o n c e r n s , c o n t a c t C S I R T a t " c y b e r s e c u r i t y @ a u s t i n t e x a s . g o v " . C A U T I O N : T h i s i s a n E X T E R N A L e m a i l . P l e a s e u s e c a u t i o n w h e n …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0036 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) __-_____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) __-_____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) __-_____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Josh Myers OWNER: Josh Myers ADDRESS: 12302 SPLIT RAIL PKWY 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 front yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to maintain a Carport in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025 BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Approve with conditions that the carport remain open all 3 sides and add gutters to the side of the adjacent property owner; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE CARPORT REMAIN OPEN ALL 3 SIDES AND ADD GUTTERS TO THE SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: the lot is a corner lot, due to the layout of the lot it was not possible for the original builder to comply with the required 25’ setback at the actual front of the home so the side of the home was called the front and the front of the home was called the side which allowed the builder to reduce the setback at the actual front of the home. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the side of the home being treated as the front of the home makes any modifications or additions to the side of the home a hardship as the longer setback requirement is being applied to the wrong side of the home. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the majority of homes in this area are only subject to one 25’ front setback requirement and the front of the hones are considered …
BOA SIGN REVIEW COVERSHEET CASE: C16-2025-0007 BOA DATE: November 10th, 2025 ADDRESS: 7501 N Capital of Tx Hwy NB COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 OWNER: Reserve at Bull Creek LLC, Federico Wilensky ZONING: GO-CO, LR-CO AGENT: Alexa Rosselot LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 BLK A, REPLAT OF CONTINUUM OFFICE PARK VARIANCE REQUEST: LDC, Section 25-10-124 (Scenic Roadway Sign District Regulations), (B) to allow more freestanding signs from one (1) (maximum allowed) to one (1) additional (requesting); a total of two free-standing signs in order to provide signage for AVES/Ethos Veterinary Clinic SUMMARY: erect a Freestanding sign for AVES/Ethos Veterinary Clinic. ISSUES: topography and landscaping ZONING Site North MF-2-CO, LR, LO GO-CO, LR-CO South LO-CO East West SF-3 PUD LAND USES General Office, Neighborhood Commercial Multi-Family, Neighborhood Commercial, Limited Office Limited Office Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Austin Neighborhoods Council Bull Creek Foundation Bull Creek Homeowners Assn. Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Long Canyon Phase II & III Homeowners Assn Inc NW Austin Neighbors Northwest Austin Civic Association River Place HOA TNR – BCP Travis County Natural Resources 2222 Coalition of Neighborhoods Association, Inc ITEM07/1 Board of Adjustment Sign Variance Application WARNING: Filing of this appeal stops all affected construction activity. This application is a fillable PDF that can be completed electronically. To ensure your information is saved, click here to Save the form to your computer, then open your copy and continue. The Tab key may be used to navigate to each field ; Shift+ Tab moves to the previous field. The Enter key activates links, emails, and buttons. Use the Up & Down Arrow keys to scroll through drop-down lists and check boxes, and hit Enter to make a selection. The application must be complete and accurate prior to submittal. All information is required (if applicable). For Office Use Only I Case# (16-2025-0007 ROW# __ 1 .. 3 ... 5 .... 9..,.7 ... 5 ... 0_2.__ Tax# 0145090601 I Section 1: Applicant Statement Street Address: 7501 N Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, TX 78731 Subdivision Legal Description: Lot(s): ___________ _ Block(s): __________ _ Outlot: -------------- Division: Zoning District: GO-CO LR-CO Sign District: Scen ic Roadway (4) Loop 360 (Capital of Texas Highway}, south of US 183 ------------- Council Distsic:t: 2.0 I/We Alexa Rosselot on behalf of myself /ourselves as authorized agent for AVES / Ethos Veterinary Health affirm that on Month October , Day 10 , Year 2025 , hereby …
October 23, 2025 Alexa Rosselot 815 Strawberry st Michigan, 48131, USA Property Description: PropertyLoc Re: C16-2025-0007 Dear Alexa, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance request from LDC Section 25-10-124 at 7501 N CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, provided that any proposed or existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s Clearance & Safety Criteria, the National Electric Safety Code, and OSHA requirements. All signage will need to stay out of Austin Energy easements and 5’ from existing underground electric lines. Any removal or relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner’s/applicant’s expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1 .10.0CLSARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Ashley Robinson, Planner III Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 07 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0007 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) --Abstained ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Alexa Rosselot OWNER: Bull Creek LLC, Federico Wilensky ADDRESS: 7501 N CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY NB VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-124 (Scenic Roadway Sign District Regulations), (B) to allow more freestanding signs from one (1) (maximum allowed) to one (1) additional (requesting); a total of two free-standing signs in order to provide signage for AVES/Ethos Veterinary Clinic in a “GO-CO, LR-CO”, General Office – Conditional Overlay – Neighborhood Commercial – Conditional Overlay zoning district. (Scenic Roadway Sign District). Note: 25-10-124 - SCENIC ROADWAY SIGN DISTRICT REGULATIONS. (A) This section applies to a scenic roadway sign district. (B) One freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. (1) The sign area may not exceed the lesser of: (a) 0.4 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or (b) 64 square feet. (2) The sign height may not exceed 12 feet. (C) Wall signs are permitted. (D) For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed 10 percent of the facade area of the first 15 feet of the building. (E) In a Hill Country Roadway corridor, a spotlight on a sign or exterior lighting of a sign must be concealed from view and oriented away from adjacent properties and roadways. (F) Internal lighting of signs is prohibited, except for the internal lighting of individual letters. (G) In addition to the sign setback requirements established by Section 25-10-191 (Sign Setback Requirements), a sign or sign support must be installed at least 12 feet from the street right-of-way, or at least 25 feet from street pavement or curb in the right-of- way, whichever setback is the lesser distance from the street. This subsection does not apply to a sign permitted by Section 25-10- 102(F) (Signs Associated with Political Elections). Source: Sections 13-2-867 and 13-2-868; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031030-11; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 10, 8-28-17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica …
AVES Austin, TX BOA Variance Presentation ITEM07/1-PRESENTATION Existing Conditions Landscaping: Site Photos with Existing Landscaping: At present, the AVES facility is not visible from the roadway due to the dense tree canopy surrounding the property. As the site currently exists, the illuminated “AVES” logo located above the main entrance is completely obscured from view, both during the day and at night. While the illuminated “Pet Emergency” lettering provides minimal visibility during nighttime hours, it remains entirely hidden in daylight conditions. Because the surrounding vegetation consists primarily of evergreen live oaks and cedar trees, visibility does not improve seasonally in the fall or winter months. Furthermore, as this section of the highway is designated a scenic corridor, the removal or trimming of trees is strictly regulated and cannot be undertaken without prior authorization. iPhone camera without zoom. iPhone camera 20x zoom. Phone camera 40x zoom. 11/10/2025 Existing view of the site from N. Capital of Texas Highway. ITEM07/2-PRESENTATION Existing Conditions Current Monument: Site Photos of Magellan School Observation: The existing monument sign faces N. Capital of Texas Highway but does not include any reference to “Emergency,” making it difficult for motorists traveling in either direction to identify the hospital entrance. As confirmed by Medical Director Dr. Lindsay Vaughn, drivers who miss the driveway must travel approximately eight additional minutes to complete two turnarounds before re-approaching the entrance. This challenge is expected to worsen in the future, as TxDOT has planned to remove the turnaround currently located directly across from the site’s entrance. In emergency situations, this additional travel time could have critical, even life-threatening, implications for patients in need of urgent care. 11/10/2025 ITEM07/3-PRESENTATION Existing Conditions Magellan School: Site Photos of Magellan School Observation: The Magellan International School, located at 7501B/C N. Capital of Texas Highway, presents a significant challenge for clients attempting to access the AVES hospital. Without clear identification of the hospital’s driveway, visitors may inadvertently enter the school’s entrance, which does not provide access to the hospital, or become delayed in school- related traffic during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up hours. On October 20, 2025, Stefan Vann with Building Image Group (BIG) conducted an on-site observation during school dismissal. A Constable was stationed at the school’s entrance from approximately 2:00 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. In a brief interview, she noted that traffic typically begins to back up around 3:45 p.m. and worsens until about 5:00 p.m. During Mr. …
BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0038 BOA DATE: November 10th, 2025 ADDRESS: 9730 Anchusa Tr OWNER: William T. Fox COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 AGENT: N/A ZONING: RR-NP (West Oak Hill NP) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 20 HILL COUNTRY PHS II-B VARIANCE REQUEST: Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from: setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) and setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet (required) to 10 feet (requested) SUMMARY: erect a detached one-story garage/home workshop to a Single-Family residence ISSUES: several mature trees, slope of property ZONING LAND USES RR-NP Site North RR-NP South RR-NP GR-NP East RR-NP West Rural Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential Community Commercial Rural Residential NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Covered Bridge Property Owners Association, Inc Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods (OHAN) Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan COA Liaison Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan Contact Team Oak Hill Trails Association Ridgeview Save Our Springs Alliance TNR BCP – Travis County Natural Resources ITEM08/1 ITEM08/2 ITEM08/3 ITEM08/4 ITEM08/5 Also, the commercial properties use the area near them as drainage areas for their septic systems, decreasing the likelihood the areas will be developed. ITEM08/6 ITEM08/7 ITEM08/8 This demonstrates the proposed area w/reduced setbacks and unused area behind our property. Not to scale ITEM08/9 l . e a c s o t t o N i . a e r a r e t a w d a e h / n a p d o o l f e h t d n a a e r a l l l a r e v o e h t s e t a r t s n o m e d s i h T ITEM08/10 Currently used area for storage ITEM08/11 This shows the areas with the current and proposed setbacks. Current on the left and proposed on the right. The box demonstrates the amount of the tree that would have to be removed under current setback. ITEM08/12 Closer look at the area to be pruned with the proposed setback. ITEM08/13 To the right of the yellow line is the building area with the proposed setback. Another 10ft would be required with the current setback. That would require the removal of the fig tree. ITEM08/14 Same and additional views w/tape layout to show proposed building …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM08 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0038 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) OWNER/APPLICANT: William T. Fox ADDRESS: 9730 ANCHUSA TRL 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 interior side yard setback from 10 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) and setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet (required) to 10 feet (requested) in order to erect a detached one-story garage/home workshop to a Single-Family residence in a “RR-NP”, Rural Residential-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (West Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan). BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by 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 zoning regulations along with the HOA limit the areas on which the building could be built. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: there are several mature trees, live oak included. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the property is the headwater collection point for a wet-weather creek that forms only during significant rainfall, the slope of the property is such that the location of the proposed building will not interfere with said water collection point. 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 of the zoning district in which the property is located because: the proposed building area is at the very rear of the property and the unused green area there offers no significant visibility to the adjoining commercial properties that front Hwy 71. Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
Case: C15-2025-0038 William and Medha Fox 9730 Anchusa Proposal To Modify Inner Sideyard and Rear Setbacks ITEM08/1-PRESENTATION This demonstrates the proposed area w/reduced setbacks and unused area behind our property. Not to scale ITEM08/2-PRESENTATION l . e a c s o t t o N i . a e r a r e t a w d a e h / n a p d o o l f e h t d n a a e r a l l l a r e v o e h t s e t a r t s n o m e d s h T i ITEM08/3-PRESENTATION Currently used area for storage ITEM08/4-PRESENTATION This shows the areas with the current and proposed setbacks. Current on the left and proposed on the right. The box demonstrates the amount of the tree that would have to be removed under current setback. ITEM08/5-PRESENTATION Closer look at the area to be pruned with the proposed setback. ITEM08/6-PRESENTATION To the right of the yellow line is the building area with the proposed setback. Another 10ft would be required with the current setback. That would require the removal of the fig tree. ITEM08/7-PRESENTATION Same and additional views w/tape layout to show proposed building dimensions and flat area for construction. ITEM08/8-PRESENTATION ITEM08/9-PRESENTATION Views of the 8ft fence at the rear of the yard and views over the fence toward the adjoining commercial property. ITEM08/10-PRESENTATION This demonstrates the only other viable option but would require more culling of trees and would require building under the canopy of large live oak, revision of the drainage area as well as adding concrete in the live oak drip line. ITEM08/11-PRESENTATION The area here has only 6ft tall fencing. The HOA would not approve the building due to height and lack of screening from the street/other neighbors. ITEM08/12-PRESENTATION These views give a Look from the rear of the house toward the area showing the large live oaks and the extent of the canopies. Also they somewhat demonstrate the greenery already in place that it is preferred be left alone. One redundant photo bottom right. ITEM08/13-PRESENTATION Lastly, the area down hill from the proposed build site showing the gathering area of the wet weather creek. Due to the topography and purpose, no building should be done in this area. ITEM08/14-PRESENTATION
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0035 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay OWNER: Kateryna Luschchenko ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST APPEAL REQUESTED: 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 (Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all property within the NCCD-NP. This section does not apply to Waller Creek/Seminary District 7 or District 7A. a. single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block. The maximum setback may not exceed the average setback by more than five feet. Part 7 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. The Residential District is intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood that were established for residential use. Single family homes and some of the older multi-family structures were built in the context of the traditional development patterns. New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks and parking location. ITEM09/1-APPELLANT 1. regulations apply. Site Development standards table. Except as otherwise modified in this part, the following site development Footnote **a new principal structure must be at least 10 feet from a principal structure on an adjacent lot. Land Development Code, 25-1-82 Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration This section does not apply to an …
209 E 34th St 7 ITEM09/35-APPELLANT 200 E 34t St 8 ITEM09/36-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St 9 ITEM09/37-APPELLANT 204 E 34th St 10 ITEM09/38-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St 11 ITEM09/39-APPELLANT 208 E 34th St 12 ITEM09/40-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 13 ITEM09/41-APPELLANT A204 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 14 ITEM09/42-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 15 ITEM09/43-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Front Elevation Facing South to Alley 16 ITEM09/44-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Side Elevation Facing West 17 ITEM09/45-APPELLANT July 28th 2025 Carol Journeay 207 E 34th St Austin, Texas 78705 This letter is to notify you of receipt of your communication as an interested party as described by the Land Development Code Title 25-1-131. A residential building permit application was filed for the property located at 205 E 34th St for a new three-unit use. This application was filed on June 12th 2025 by Kate Juschenko. An interested party is a person who has an interest in a matter that is the subject of a public hearing or administrative decision. A person has an interest if the person communicates an interest in a matter and occupies or owns property within 500 feet of the proposed development. A person communicates an interest in a matter that is the subject of an administrative decision by delivering a written statement to the responsible director. The communication must identify the general issues of concern and include the person’s name, telephone number, and mailing address. An administrative decision can be appealed under the Land Development Code Title 25-1-181. A person has standing to appeal an administrative decision if the person is an interested party. An appeal must be initiated and submitted to the responsible director within 20 days of an administrative decision. A notice of appeal must include the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; the name of the applicant, if the applicant is not the appellant; the decision being appealed; the date of the decision; a description of the appellant’s status as an interested party; and the reasons the appellant believes the decision does not comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code. As per Title 25-1-186, if the applicant requests, the responsible director shall schedule a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve the issues raised by an appeal of an administrative decision. The responsible director shall notify all …
BOA RE-CONSIDERATION INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0035 BOA DATE: Monday, October 13th, 2025 ADDRESS: 205 E 34th St COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 APPELLANT: Carol Journeay & PERMIT HOLDER/OWNER: Kateryna Lushchenko Bob Kaler ZONING: SF-3-NCCD-NP (NUNA) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 BLK 19 DIV D HARRIS SIDON RESUB OF GROOMS ADDN APPEAL REQUEST: 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. SUMMARY: any proposed development must comply with the provisions of the NCCD ISSUES: application is incomplete, and the plan set does not contain the information necessary to demonstrate full compliance with relevant regulations. ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Austin Neighborhoods Council CANPAC Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Homeless Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Development Review Committee Preservation Austin ITEM09/1-PERMIT HOLDER Introduction and Summary of Grounds for Reconsideration The Applicant respectfully submits this request for reconsideration of the Board of Adjustment’s October 13, 2025 decision in Case No. C15-2025-0035 concerning the property located at 205 East 34th Austin, TX 78705. This request is made pursuant to the Board’s rules governing reconsideration, which allow a decision to be reopened when the request (1) states how the Board erred in its determination, (2) explains why reconsideration is warranted, and (3) presents new or clarified evidence that materially affects the decision. This request is submitted pursuant to Board of Adjustment Reconsideration Rules, which expressly permits reconsideration when procedural error, new evidence, or substantive misunderstanding has occurred. This appeal meets each of those standards. It provides documented evidence that the Board’s ruling was based on incomplete and outdated information, extended beyond its posted scope, and produced consequences far outside the facts of the case. It also presents new, clarified, and corrected evidence— including the accurate, approved permit drawings—that were not reviewed at the hearing and that directly refute key assumptions underlying the decision. Together, these materials create an appropriate and necessary basis for reconsideration. Procedural and Evidentiary Error 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 …
To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd, Development Officer, ADS Lyndi Garwood, Principal Planner, ADS Date: October 3, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Staff Interpretation of Site Development Standards in North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NUNA NCCD) The matter before the Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is an administrative appeal challenging staff’s approval of residential building plans submitted for development of a proposed three-unit residential use at 205 E. 34th Street. The issue in the appeal is whether the Austin Development Services (“ADS”) correctly applied site development standards established in the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (“NUNA-NCCD”) and other adopted zoning regulations. Summary of Issues & ADS’s Position As discussed below, following submission of the appeal, ADS determined that errors were made in the review process that render the approved structure noncompliant with NUNA- NCCD setback requirements. Our intent is to require the permit applicant to submit revised construction plans to fix the setback errors prior to proceeding with construction, so we would ask the Board to take action to modify the plan approval to explicitly require these corrections. We respectfully disagree with appellants, however, that the NUNA-NCCD’s 0.40 limit on floor-to-area ratio (FAR) applies to the proposed three-unit residential use. As discussed below, this NCCD only limits FAR for duplexes and two-family uses within the Residential District; the proposed development, while within the Residential District, is not a duplex or a two-unit use, but rather a three-unit residential use that is not subject to a FAR limit under the NCCD. Additionally, while appellants are correct that not all of the required materials were provided during the plan review process, the permit applicant has submitted revised application materials and stamped surveys that remedy this deficiency and demonstrate ITEM09/1-STAFF REPORT that the proposed corrections will achieve compliance with the NCCD setback requirements. Procedural Requirements for Appeal DSD believes that this appeal is properly before the BOA because it was filed within 20 days of the date the plans were approved1 and because the named appellants, Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay, own property within 200-feet as required by state law to invoke the BOA’s authority to review permitting decisions.2 We encourage the Board to consult legal counsel if you have questions on standing, timeliness, or other issues affecting the legal sufficiency of the appeal under Local Gov’t Code Sec. 211.010 or other authority. In acting on …
