Fence Height Variance Request April 13, 2026 BOA Hearing Case No: C15-2026-0006 4301 Manzanillo Drive Austin, Texas Applicant: Cole Stewart ITEM03/1-PRESENTATION Corner Lot Configuration Subject property has frontage on Manzanillo Drive and Eskew Drive ITEM03/2-PRESENTATION Physical Site Conditions • 32-inch cumulative grade change • Fence measures 91-95 inches from grade • Measurements verified using laser level and post-by-post field measurements 91 ft Drop: 21.5 in 47 ft Drop: 10.5 in ITEM03/3-PRESENTATION Limited Scope and No Public Impact • Over-height segments limited to side and rear yard • Fence remains outside public right-of-way • No obstruction of corner visibility ITEM03/4-PRESENTATION
C16-2026-0003 311, 321, 323, 325, and 327 W. 6th Street ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION 221 W. 6th Street – Chase Bank Tower Sign is 4-feet and 11 inches tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of W. 6th Street ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION 201 W. 5th Street – 5th & Colorado Sign is 5-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Colorado Street ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION 300 Colorado Street Sign is 6-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Colorado Street ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION 110 E. 2nd Street – Corner Restaurant Sign is 4-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Congress Avenue ITEM04/9-PRESENTATION 110 E. 2nd Street – Dean’s Steakhouse Sign is 4-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Brazos Street ITEM04/10-PRESENTATION 98 San Jacinto – San Jacinto Center Sign is 5-feet and 8 inches tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Cesar Chavez Avenue and Brazos Street ITEM04/11-PRESENTATION 111 Congress Avenue – One Eleven Congress Sign is 5-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Cesar Chavez Avenue ITEM04/12-PRESENTATION 301 W. 2nd Street – The Austinite Market Sign is approximately 7-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of Lavaca Street and 2nd Street ITEM04/13-PRESENTATION 525 N. Lamar – Whole Foods Market Sign is approximately 5-feet tall and located within 12-feet of the street right-of-way of W. 5th Street ITEM04/14-PRESENTATION 525 N. Lamar – Whole Foods Market Signs are approximately 6-feet 3 inches tall each and located within 12-feet of the street right- of-way of W. 5th Street ITEM04/15-PRESENTATION
4219 S 1st Street Board of Adjustment Case # C15-2026-0010 April 13, 2026 1 ITEM07/1-PRESENTATION Project Location 2 ITEM07/2-PRESENTATION Project Location 3 ITEM07/3-PRESENTATION Site Zoning GR-MU-CO-NP CS-MU-NP LO-CO-NP CS-MU-NP CS-MU-NP 4 ITEM07/4-PRESENTATION Proposed Site Plan 5 ITEM07/5-PRESENTATION Proposed Site Plan Required compatibility setbacks Heritage tree to be preserved Existing utility corridor showing significant congestion 6 ITEM07/6-PRESENTATION 25-2-814 – Service Station Use § 25-2-814 - SERVICE STATION USE. § 25-2-814 - SERVICE STATION USE. A service station use: (1) must be screened from the street by a building or a landscape buffer that includes shade trees; (2) may not have more than 16 fuel dispensers; and (3) may not have more than eight vehicle queue lanes. A service station use: (1) Compliant with buffer. • Screened from street by a landscape buffer that includes shade trees. (2) Compliant with number of fuel dispensers. • Only 12 fuel dispensers proposed. (3) Requesting a variance from LDC §25-2-814. • Applicant is proposing 12 vehicle queue lanes. • The queue lane listed in the Transportation Criteria Manual (allowing up to 16 pumps) requires outdated fuel dispensing configuration. • The Applicant is requesting a safer and more accessible configuration. 7 ITEM07/7-PRESENTATION Transportation Criteria Manual – Figure 9-10 • Figure 9-10 illustrates outdated conceptual queuing layouts ▪ Newer convenience stores do not use this “inline” approach because it: • Increases vehicular conflict points, which decreases safe maneuverability; • Reduces user visibility, which decreases safe maneuverability; and • Customers do not like this configuration. • The intent of the standard is to ensure: ▪ Safe circulation; ▪ Safe vehicle stacking; and ▪ Minimized conflicts. • The proposed site layout meets the functional intent of the Transportation Criteria Manual by: ▪ Providing clearly defined queue lanes; ▪ Separating circulation from pedestrian routes; and ▪ Reducing internal vehicle conflict points. Transportation Criteria Manual: Figure 9-10 8 ITEM07/8-PRESENTATION Queue Lane Configuration Comparison TCM Compliant Queue Lane Configuration • Not enough space for vehicular maneuverability • Multiple points of vehicle conflict • Doesn’t matter where on the site it goes Proposed Queue Lane Configuration • Allows adequate vehicular maneuverability • Improves safety/reduces conflict points • Industry standard design 9 ITEM07/9-PRESENTATION Improvements to Pedestrian Experience Existing Conditions 1 2 Photo 1. No sidewalk along Radam looking west Photo 2. No sidewalk along S. First looking north 10 ITEM07/10-PRESENTATION Similar Projects Approved by Board of Adjustment Project: Board of Adjustment Action: • C15-2025-0001 …
205 E 34th St Board of Adjustment Reconsideration Case C15-2026-0005 1 ITEM08/1-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Basis for Reconsideration and Requested Action • Procedural concerns regarding Board participation and required voting thresholds • A clear NCCD building orientation requirement was not addressed • The NCCD 0.4 FAR standard was not evaluated under the applicable Part 7 provisions • The approved plans allow construction of a building configuration that does not meet requirements identified during staff review Accordingly, we ask the Board of Adjustment to: • Reverse issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR based on failure to demonstrate compliance with applicable NCCD standards and other adopted code requirements 2 ITEM08/2-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Procedural Issue: Participation of a Disqualified Member • Board member received material information about this case outside the hearing record • No disclosure was made as required under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, and the member did not recuse • The statutory requirement that at least 75% of Board members hear a case was not met • The disqualified member’s seconding of the motion to deny and vote in support of the motion determined the outcome of the appeal 3 ITEM08/3-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT NCCD Building Orientation Requirement Not Addressed Visitability path from Alley to Building 2 Main Entrance Building 2 Main Entrance (Alley Facing ) • NCCD Part 3 defines front of building as the side of a building that includes the main entrance • NCCD Part 6 requires that “a building shall front on the short side of the lot” defined as the street frontage • Approved plans orient Building 2’s main entrance to the alley • Compliance with NCCD Part 6 would require a redesign, as the current layout does not allow the main entrance to front the street 4 ITEM08/4-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT NCCD FAR Evaluated Under Part 5 Instead of Part 7 • The NCCD is a Council-adopted ordinance governing development within North University • Staff report and motion to deny relied on NCCD Part 5 • Part 5 governs permitted uses, not site development standards • NCCD Part 7 governs site development standards, including FAR • Part 7 applies to New Residential Development • Part 7, Item 7 applies the 0.4 FAR Standard to a SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot with Three-Units 5 ITEM08/5-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Part 7 applies the 0.4 FAR Standard to Three-Unit Residential Use 201 E 34th Street & 3307–3309 Helms Street Lot 1, Block 19, Grooms Addition (SF-3-NCCD-NP) sq ft Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross …
FAR Issues – Outside the Scope of BOA Authority The NCCD specifies FAR for single-family and duplex uses. The City later introduced two- and three-family dwelling terminology, so that the HOME ordinance applies citywide, including within NCCDs. NCCD was specifically designed to impose regulation on then existing uses. HOME ordinance specifically added 3-plex regulation on city wide scale. Home Ordinance Being regulation adopted later in time and covering the whole City it is the controlling regulation for this project. Any change to NCCD FAR requires action by Mayor and Council and is outside the authority of the BOA. The building orientation issue was not identified as a distinct ground in the original appeal or preserved as a specific issue for Board determination. ITEM08/1-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER The building orientation issue were not before the Board in the original appeal and therefore cannot serve as a basis for reconsideration. The deadline for appeal is passed and no other item can be added into consideration after that. Even if we consider this item, the BLDG 2 front and back are exactly the same and either side can be called building front. ITEM08/2-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER The lot is surrounded by multifamily buildings and the blue area marks rental/investment property. This particular area is already heavily populated by tenants. Over 11 houses in North University NCCD have over 15 bedrooms, and are rentals. This is a modest project and it is not located at Historical Aldridge Place, where most of the houses are single family. ITEM08/3-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER The block of 34th Street where this project is located consists of poorly maintained houses, tear- downs, and homes in desperate condition. It is also surrounded by multifamily and commercial properties, where new single-family, low-density construction would be inconsistent with the surrounding context and economically impractical, placing the owner at a financial loss. The ITEM08/4-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER proposed development not only provides more affordable housing but also improves the overall appearance of this particular block, which is, without exaggeration, in very poor condition. ITEM08/5-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM08/6-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM08/7-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM08/8-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM08/9-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER
Courtney Blanton To: me, Cc: Message Body · Tue, Nov 25 at 7:37 AM This looks good to us. You have our blessing. We are all good with the structure to go back where it was before. Happy Holidays! Courtney & Tom 2205 Quarry Garage rebuild • John Lohr To: Message Body Courtney, Tom, · Sun, Nov 23 at 2:20 PM As discussed, we are preparing to submit an application to allow our garage to be rebuilt in the same spot and same configuration as was there before the fire. If you could just a reply to this email to confirm y'all are good with that plan. I have attached a copy of our survey prior to the garage being demolished. The new structure would go right back in the same spot, same size, height, design etc. No plumbing, Let me know any questions. Thanks, John and Sally John L. Lohr mobile ITEM05/1-SUPPORT Garage rebuild 2205 Quarry Road • • • • John Lohr John and Sally, As your next door neighbors, Patrick and I are in support of your application to allow your garage to be rebuilt in the same spot and same configuration as was there before the fire! • • Hi John, • • I'm just letting you know that I also fully support your application to allow your garage to be rebuilt in the same spot and in the same configuration as was there before the fire. • • • • • I know Tracy has already spoken on my behalf, but sometimes attorneys or courts want signatures from both married parties. Patrick Parker 2203 Quarry Road --Tracy LaQuey Parker 2203 Quarry Road • • • • Hi John, • • I'm just letting you know that I also fully support your application to allow your garage to be rebuilt in the same spot and in the same configuration as was there before the fire. • • • • • I know Tracy has already spoken on my behalf, but sometimes attorneys or courts want signatures from both married parties. Patrick Parker 2203 Quarry Road ITEM05/2-SUPPORT Garage rebuild 2205 Quarry Road • John Lohr To: , Nov 22 at 7:27 PM Wells, Thanks to you and Leslie for chatting with me this morning. As discussed, we are preparing to submit an application to allow our garage to be rebuilt in the same spot and same configuration …
ITEM06/1-SUPPORT Neighbor Letter of No Opposition Date: 3/30/2026 To: City of Austin Board of Adjustment QT South, LLC is the owner of the property located at 9509 E Parmer Lane. I am writing to express no opposition for Board of Adjustment Case No. C15-2026-0009. This case requests a variance to reduce the southeastern side setback requirement from 25 feet to 15 feet for the property located at 9419 E Parmer Ln, Austin, TX 78653. After reviewing the request and understanding the nature of the proposed development, I do not oppose the requested setback reduction. I do not believe the variance will negatively impact my property or the surrounding area. Please consider this letter as my formal statement of no opposition to the variance request. Sincerely, Signature: ______________________________ Printed Name: Robert Costello, Real Estate Project Manager, QT South, LLC Property Address: 9509 E Parmer Lane ITEM06/2-SUPPORT
ITEM08/1-SUPPORT Heritage Association Steering Committee Letter of Support - BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 Dear Chair and Members of the Board of Adjustment: On Monday, February 16, the Heritage Neighborhood Steering Committee met and voted unanimously to support the BOA appeal C15-2026-0005, concerning a proposed project at 205 E. 34th Street in the North University Neighborhood. The Heritage Neighborhood Association shares concerns regarding adherence to the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) and enforcement of City Code. This request is not about opposing development or density. The Heritage Neighborhood Association supports affordable housing in Austin. The proposed development at 205 E 34th Street has resulted in the demolition of existing affordable housing and the displacement of residents. This makes it especially important that new development comply with standards adopted by City Council, including the North University NCCD, and be subject to a complete and transparent review process. The reconsideration request raises several issues that were not addressed during the March 9 hearing: • • • • A Board member participated after receiving information about the case outside the public hearing process A required NCCD building orientation standard was not addressed The NCCD’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard, which regulates building scale, was not evaluated under Part 7 of the NCCD, which sets a 0.4 FAR limit for a lot with the same zoning (SF-3-NCCD- NP) and use (three-unit residential) as the proposed project The proposed project’s layout raises questions about whether it can be constructed and used in a manner consistent with applicable zoning requirements, including requirements identified by City staff during the review process Accordingly, the Heritage Neighborhood Association respectfully requests that the Board grant reconsideration and sustain the appeal to ensure that the proposed project complies with applicable NCCD and City Code requirements. Sincerely, Laura Grim, President Heritage Neighborhood Association ITEM08/2-SUPPORT President: Charles d’Harcourt, Vice President: Bart Whatley, Treasurer: Bruce Fairchild, Secretary: Christopher Oakland April 13, 2026 Re: BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 Dear Chair and Members of the Board of Adjustment, In the case regarding the building permit for the property at 205 E 34th Street, the Hancock Neighborhood Association membership has voted to support the appellant, particularly because: ● The project's floor-to-area ratio exceeds the 0.4:1 ratio set out by the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District for SF-3 properties (ordinance 040826-58, Part 7, site development standards table, "Max. FAR" line) ● The building permit applicant has …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0003 ___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: Luke Caraway OWNER: Yair Cohen Hoshen ADDRESS: 8506 and 8507 Walhill Cove 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 interior yard setback from five feet (5 ft) (required) to one foot (1ft) (requested) in order to complete two residential structures in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postponed to April 13, 2026; Board member Corry Archer- Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO APRIL 13, 2026. April 13, 2026 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to approve as per drawing Item02/4 in advance packet, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED AS PER DRAWING ITEM02/4 IN ADVANCE PACKET. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: is currently applied doesn’t allow for the reasonable use of the property in its existing configuration, the structure at 8506 Walhill Cove does not have an attached garage or driveway and is therefore entirely reliant on on-street parking along Walhill Cove. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the primary challenge for 8506 Walhill Cove is that the existing structure was built without on-site parking and it’s cul-de-sac unique shape of the lot as well as the topography further limits available parking, the two lots experience extreme topographical changes as result the buildable area is significantly restricted and the garage is built at the only level place that they can locate on the property. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: although extreme topography exists throughout the general area at Northwest Hills Neighborhood is known for its elevation in numerous cul-de-sacs the combination of these conditions create a unique hardship for only a …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0006 __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: Cole Stewart ADDRESS: 4301 Manzanillo Drive VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from six feet (6 ft) (maximum allowed) to eight feet (8 ft.) (requested) along rear property line (southeast) and street side yard property line (northeast), in order to erect a fence in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid material to open space of not more than one to four; and (2) a solid fence is a fence other than an ornamental fence. (C) The height restrictions of this section do not apply to an ornamental fence. (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed a height of six feet measured from the natural grade up. (E) If there is a change in grade of at least one foot measured along any run of a solid fence along a property line, then the portion of the fence where the grade change occurs may be constructed to a maximum height of seven feet. (F) a solid fence along a property line may be constructed to a maximum height of eight feet if each owner of property that adjoins a section of the fence that exceeds a height of six feet files written consent to the construction of the fence with the building official; and (1) there is a change in grade of at least two feet within 50 feet of the boundary between adjoining properties; or (2) a structure, including a telephone junction box, exists that is reasonably likely to enable a child …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C16-2026-0003 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ABSTAINS ___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: Richard T Suttle, Jr. OWNER: Joseph G. Doran ADDRESS: 321, 311, 323, 325, 327 W 6th Street VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-191 (Sign Setback Requirements) (F) to decrease the setback from street right-of-way of twelve feet (12 ft.) (minimum allowed) to two feet six inches (2 ft. 6 in.) (requested) (F) (1) to increase height of thirty inches (30 in.) (maximum allowed) to five feet ten inches (5 ft. 10 in.) (requested) (F) (2) to decrease clearance of at least nine feet (9 ft.) (minimum allowed) to zero feet (0 ft.) (requested) in order to erect a Freestanding sign for an office building in a “CBD”, Central Business zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-10-191 Sign Setback Requirements (A) A sign installed in compliance with this section is not required to comply with building setback requirements established elsewhere in this title. (B) A sign support 12 inches or less in diameter is not required to be set back from a street right-of- way. (C) A sign support more than 12 inches and not more than 24 inches in diameter must be set back at least three feet from a street right-of-way. (D) A sign support more than 24 inches and not more than 36 inches in diameter must be set back at least five feet from the street right-of-way. (E) A sign support more than 36 inches in diameter must be set back at least 12 feet from the street right-of-way. (F) Except for a wall sign, a sign within 12 feet of a street right-of-way must have either: (1) a height of not more than 30 inches; or (2) a clearance of at least nine feet. (G) This section does not apply to a sign permitted by Section 25-10-102(F) (Signs Associated with Political Elections). Source: Section 13-2-886; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031030-11; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817- 072, Pt. 22, 8-28-17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0001 ___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: Samantha Riddell OWNER: John Lohr ADDRESS: 2205 Quarry Road 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 interior yard setback from 5 feet (required) to 2 ft 3 in (requested) in order to rebuild a Detached Garage in a “SF-3NP”, Single-Family Neighborhood Plan (West Austin Neighborhood Group) zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne’s motion to approve, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: there was a detached garage in the same location it existed for decades before it was destroyed by a fire and current setback requirements prohibit the construction within the prior footprint with all the trees that are surrounding this is the best place to rebuild the garage. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the placement of the mature tree surrounding it and it’s also the location where the prior detached garage was there for decades. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the placement of the trees around the actual garage structure and the constraints provided by it as well as not having visibility because of those trees makes it a little different. 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: as the rebuild garage will match the form, scale, and location of the original structure that existed for many years without a negative impact to adjacent neighbors. Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0009 ___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: Wylder Conoly OWNER: Mehtaab Brar (Brar Properties) ADDRESS: 9419 Parmer Lane 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 interior side yard setback (southeastern property line) from twenty-five feet (25 ft) (required) to fifteen feet (15 ft) (requested) in order to erect a Tim Horton’s restaurant with drive- thru service in a “CH-CO”, Commercial Highway Services-Conditional Overlay zoning district. 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: strict application of the 20-foot side setback requirement doesn’t allow for reasonable ability due to the cumulative effect of the property’s physical constraints. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the subject property’s constrained by on multiple sides by a steep 30% slope along the southwest boundary on existing detention and water quality pond occupying the frontage and an unusually narrow lot width of approx. 100 feet. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the adjacent nearby commercial developments possessed significantly greater lot widths and they do not have detention facilities occupying their developmental frontage and they’re not constrained by the 30% real slope. 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 intent of commercial setback requirements is to provide adequate separation between structures and ensure safety and allow maintenance access and preserve orderly developed patterns with this design, this applicant will be able to provide that. Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM07 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0010 ___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: David Anderson OWNER: Mark A Macaulay ADDRESS: 4219 1st Street VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-814 (Service Station Use) (3) to increase queue lanes from eight [8] vehicle queue lanes to twelve [12] vehicle queue lanes (requested) in order to erect a Service Station in a “CS-MU-NP ” Commercial Services-Mixed Use Neighborhood Plan (West Congress) zoning district. Note: 25-2-814 - SERVICE STATION USE. A service station use: (1) must be screened from the street by a building or a landscape buffer that includes shade trees; (2) may not have more than 16 fuel dispensers; and (3) may not have more than eight vehicle queue lanes. Source: Ord. 20060831-068; Ord. 20110804-008. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to approve with a condition that the heritage tree is preserved, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED WITH A CONDITION THAT THE HERITAGE TREE IS PRESERVED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: compliance with the queue lane configuration illustrated in the TCM would prevent the site from functioning safely and efficiently as intended, the TCM illustration depicts a configuration that does not reflect modern fueling operations and would result in increased vehicular conflict points, reduced maneuverability and reduced visibility. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: property is a subject to physical constraints due to configuration including lot, limited lot depth that prevents code required double stack configuration limited lot width which limits safe maneuverability and required residential compatibility buffer along the eastern portion of the site and required storm water detention and water quality infrastructure along the west and heritage tree which will be kept. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: the combination of site constraints uniquely limits the design flexibility on …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM08 DATE: Monday April 13, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0005 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ABSTAINS ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___N____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___N____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___N____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: Peter Journeay-Kaler OWNER: JBD CR HOLDING LLC – Leonid Murashkovskiy ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The appellant has filed an appeal challenging determinations by City staff in connection with approval of a building permit (Permit No. 2025-140201 PR) 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 and related construction plans failed to comply with: (1) applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation- Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or City Code Chapter 25-2, related to maximum allowable Floor-Area Ratio (FAR); (2) requirements of the International Residential Code (IRC) related to bedroom count, occupancy classification, visitability, and stair tread depth requirements; (3) International Fire Code (IFC) requirements related to minimum required access for fire apparatus; and (4) City Code Section 25-1-82 related to completeness requirements for development applications. BOARD’S DECISION: MARCH 11, 2026 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to uphold staff’s decision and appeal denied; Board member Brian Poteet second on 3-5-2 votes (Chair Jessica Cohen, Board members Bianca Medina- Leal, Yung-ju Kim, Michael Von Ohlen, Jeffery Bowen nay; Board Members Corry Archer- Mcclellan, Haseeb Abdullah abstained); UPHOLD STAFF’S DECISION AND APPEAL DENIED. RECONSIDERTION REQUEST: APRIL 13, 2026 Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to reconsider the appeal case, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 7-2-2 votes (Board members Sameer Birring, Maggie Shahrestani nay and Board members Tommy Ates, Brian Poteet abstains); VOTE PASSES TO RECONSIDER THE APPEAL CASE. Board member Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to uphold staff’s decision; a substitute motion made by Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to modify staff’s decision to apply .4 FAR to SF-3 lots regardless of how many units within the NCCD, Board member Yung ju Kim second on 7-3-1 votes (Board members Sameer Birring, Maggie Shahrestani, Brian Poteet nay, Board member Tommy Ates abstains), MOTION FAILS APPEAL DENIED; UPHOLD …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 13, 2026 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:43 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Melissa Hawthorne Vice-Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Jeffery Bowen, Bianca A. Medina-Leal, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Michael Von Ohlen Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Tommy Ates, Sameer S Birring, Yung-ju Kim APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Regular meeting on March 9, 2026 On-Line Link: March 9, 2026 draft minutes The minutes from the meeting on March 9, 2026, were approved on Board member Michael Von Ohlen, Vice-chair Melissa Hawthorne second, Approved minutes with no objections. Discussion and action on the following cases Previous Postponed cases: 2. C15-2026-0003 Luke Caraway for Yair Cohen Hoshen 8506 & 8507 Walhill Cove On-Line Link: ITEM02 ADV PACKET ; PRESENTATION 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 interior yard setback from five feet (5 ft) (required) to one foot (1ft) (requested) in order to complete two residential structures in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to approve as per drawing Item02/4 in advance packet, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; GRANTED AS PER DRAWING ITEM02/4 IN ADVANCE PACKET. 3. C15-2026-0006 Cole Stewart 4301 Manzanillo Drive On-Line Link: ITEM03 ADV PACKET PART1, PART2, PART3; PRESENTATION The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from six feet (6 ft) (maximum allowed) to eight feet (8 ft.) (requested) along rear property line (southeast) and street side yard property line (northeast), in order to erect a fence in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid material to open space of not more than one …
- REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2026, AT 5:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1406 6310 WILHELMINO DELCO DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board may be participating by videoconference. Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Amanda Rohlich, (512) 974-1364, Amanda.Rohlich@austintexas.gov. CURRENT AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD MEMBERS: Joi Chevalier, Chair Lisa Barden, Vice-Chair Andrea Abel Marissa Bell Beth Corbett Nitza Cuevas Kacey Hanson Seanna Marceaux Melody McClary Erin McDonald Natalie Poulos Andrew Smith AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Board Member roll call and introduction of new and existing board members. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Special Called Meeting on Monday, March 23, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding Austin-Travis County Food Plan Implementation. Presentation by Edwin Marty, Food Policy Manager, Austin Climate Action & Resilience and Yaira Robinson, Assistant Director of Environmental Programs, Travis County. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Presentation and discussion regarding Agricultural Evaluations, Nickolas Fritz, Land & Special Valuation Manager, Travis County Appraisal District. Report from Joint Sustainability Committee on March 25, 2026. Presentation and discussion regarding the working group to expand access to nutritious foods through improvement to existing materials and resources and explore alternate or expanded hours for existing resources. Presentation and discussion regarding the working group to participate in the USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) application for funding for conservation easements as a regional partnership. Presentation and discussion regarding the working group to explore revenue generators such as sugar sweetened beverage tax, a surplus food donation requirement for events, and/or a percent conservation fund from all land purchases or new developments. Review Board Member Assignments. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Discuss and take possible action on the Joint Sustainability Committee liaison appointment. Discuss …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: XXXXXXXX-XXX: Supporting Food Plan Implementation through Urban Agriculture Coordination and Festival Beach Restoration WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest is a volunteer-led permaculture food forest developed in partnership with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department beginning in 2014, sponsored by 501(c)3 nonprofit organization Fruitful Commons; and WHEREAS, in 2021 the Austin City Council approved expansion of the Festival Beach Food Forest to approximately three acres to support community food production, ecological restoration, and climate resilience on public parkland; and WHEREAS, a wastewater pipeline relocation associated with the Texas Department of Transportation Interstate 35 Capital Express Project has impacted the approved Phase 2 expansion area of the Festival Beach Food Forest, resulting in the removal of 92 trees and shrubs and the loss of approximately $550,000 in public and community investment, including $375,000 in volunteer labor; and WHEREAS, despite quarterly coordination meetings over 18 months, community stewards were notified of the wastewater pipeline relocation only two weeks before construction was scheduled to begin, highlighting gaps in communication and coordination between City departments, infrastructure projects, and community partners stewarding food-producing landscapes on public land; and WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent Festival Beach Community Garden are also expected to be impacted by a proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation associated with the Interstate 35 Capital Express Project, for which Austin Energy has agreed to provide $2,414,240 in parkland mitigation funding for permanent use of parkland, pending approval by the Austin City Council on April 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the combined impacts of the wastewater pipeline relocation and the proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation represent cumulative disruptions to the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent community food production spaces, compounding the loss of established plantings, volunteer investment, and community use of public land; and WHEREAS, community-scale food production projects such as the Festival Beach Food Forest advance goals of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan by increasing local food production, climate resilience, and community stewardship of public land; and WHEREAS, in 2025 the Austin Travis County Food Policy Board adopted Recommendation 20250210-003 urging the City to establish an interdepartmental coordination mechanism, including a dedicated staff role, to support urban agriculture and implementation of the Food Plan across departments; and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate and Resilience Office previously proposed a budget enhancement to create an Urban Agriculture Program Manager position to coordinate Food …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: XXXXXXXX-XXX: Support for Del Valle Food Co-Op Rezoning and Fee Relief WHEREAS, the Austin‑Travis County Food Plan, adopted by Austin City Council in October 2024, calls for expanding access to nutritious and affordable food for all residents, prioritizes community‑led solutions, and emphasizes strengthening food markets and retail outlets in underserved areas; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co‑Op is a community‑driven initiative launched in 2023 to establish a neighborhood grocery store in East Austin — a location with limited retail access to healthy foods — with the goal of improving food accessibility, reducing transportation barriers, and providing a walkable, community‑centered food retail option; and WHEREAS, the project received a $500,000 allocation from the City of Austin through the American Rescue Plan Act, representing a public investment in equitable food access and local economic development; and WHEREAS, the co‑op has been developed through strong, ongoing collaboration with community partners including Go Austin Vamos Austin (GAVA) and Austin Cooperative Business Association (ACBA), with community organizing and outreach central to designing a store that reflects local needs, priorities, and lived experience; and WHEREAS, Phase I activities have been completed, including business planning, creating a market study, cooperative incorporation, governance development, and hiring operational leadership, demonstrating readiness for next-phase site planning and implementation; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co‑Op has established over 40 paid member‑owners and has secured additional membership pledges, reflecting sustained local support and community engagement; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co-Op has identified a development site at 5807 Ross Road to serve East Austin residents; and WHEREAS, the selected site is within an area identified in a 2023 market feasibility study as having strong potential to support a neighborhood grocery store; and WHEREAS, the selected site also meets key feasibility criteria, including access to utilities, location outside of the floodplain, proximity to public transportation, and accessibility to surrounding neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the site must be rezoned from SF-6 (Townhouse & Condominium Residence) to LR (Neighborhood Commercial) or an equivalent commercial designation that permits a neighborhood- scale grocery store to proceed; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co-Op has secured site control through a lease agreement with the property owner, including authorization to pursue rezoning and an option to purchase the property; and WHEREAS, the standard rezoning process is estimated to cost $10,000 or more, including application fees, planning or legal …
Nickolas Fritz, Land & Special Valuation Manager To qualify for agricultural evaluation, a property must show: • Agricultural use for 5 of the preceding 7 years • Agriculture is the land's primary use • Degree of intensity generally accepted in the area • Current intensity guidelines are generally designed around larger traditional operations. However, the law does not allow TCAD to deny a qualifying use solely on the basis of acreage. A small, intensive commercial operation that meets the degree-of-intensity test can qualify, regardless of size. • Commercial intent — production for sale, not hobby or personal use Application deadline: April 30 annually (Form 50-129) Land Inside Austin City Limits • Standard 5-of-7 year history becomes a continuous 5-year requirement — no gaps allowed • One missed year inside city limits can break the qualification, whereas it would not outside the city limits • Alternate path: land that does not receive city services comparable to surrounding properties may qualify. This is rarely applicable in Austin proper. • Consistency of documented use is critical — off-season gaps in visible activity matter more inside city limits Both mixed produce and cover cropping are recognized agricultural activities under Texas Tax Code §23.51. Mixed Produce Farms • Qualifies under irrigated or dry cropland categories • Must demonstrate commercial sales — receipts, Schedule F, and buyer documentation are key Both mixed produce and cover cropping are recognized agricultural activities under Texas Tax Code §23.51. Cover Cropping • Explicitly listed as a qualifying activity in Tax Code §23.51 when part of a normal commercial crop rotation • Cannot stand alone as the primary qualifying use — must support an active commercial operation TCAD currently has no formal mixed produce intensity classification — but the legal framework fully supports creating one. • The Chief Appraiser has full statutory authority to establish intensity standards for any agricultural use type. • The Comptroller's framework explicitly supports small intensive operations and does not allow acreage alone to be disqualifying. • TCAD has discussed a mixed produce class for several years — limited demand has slowed formal development. • Engagement from Austin's food community is exactly the kind of input that moves this forward through the Ag Advisory Board. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement — permanently recorded in the deed — that restricts development or commercial use of land for conservation purposes. It is governed in Texas by …
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number20260413-011: Supporting Food Plan Implementation through Urban Agriculture Coordination and Festival Beach Restoration WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest is a volunteer-led permaculture food forest developed in partnership with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department beginning in 2014, sponsored by 501(c)3 nonprofit organization Fruitful Commons; and WHEREAS, in 2021 the Austin City Council approved expansion of the Festival Beach Food Forest to approximately three acres to support community food production, ecological restoration, and climate resilience on public parkland; and WHEREAS, a wastewater pipeline relocation associated with the Texas Department of Transportation Interstate 35 Capital Express Project has impacted the approved Phase 2 expansion area of the Festival Beach Food Forest, resulting in the removal of 92 trees and shrubs and the loss of approximately $550,000 in public and community investment, including $375,000 in volunteer labor; and WHEREAS, despite quarterly coordination meetings over 18 months, community stewards were notified of the wastewater pipeline relocation only two weeks before construction was scheduled to begin, highlighting gaps in communication and coordination between City departments, infrastructure projects, and community partners stewarding food-producing landscapes on public land; and WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent Festival Beach Community Garden are also expected to be impacted by a proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation associated with the Interstate 35 Capital Express Project, for which Austin Energy has agreed to provide $2,414,240 in parkland mitigation funding for permanent use of parkland, pending approval by the Austin City Council on April 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the combined impacts of the wastewater pipeline relocation and the proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation represent cumulative disruptions to the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent community food production spaces, compounding the loss of established plantings, volunteer investment, and community use of public land; and WHEREAS, community-scale food production projects such as the Festival Beach Food Forest advance key goals of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, including expanding access to land for community-based food production (Goal 1), increasing equitable access to nutritious and culturally relevant food (Goal 6), and strengthening community leadership, participation, and decision-making in the food system (Goal 9); and WHEREAS, the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board has consistently advanced this priority, adopting Recommendations 20240318-007 in 2024 and 20250210-003 in 2025, both of which urge the City to establish an interdepartmental coordination mechanism, including a dedicated staff role, to support …
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20260414-012: Support for Del Valle Food Co-Op Rezoning and Fee Relief WHEREAS, the Austin‑Travis County Food Plan, adopted by Austin City Council in October 2024, calls for expanding access to nutritious and affordable food for all residents (Goal 6), prioritizes community‑led solutions, and emphasizes strengthening food markets and retail outlets in underserved areas; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co‑Op is a community‑driven initiative launched in 2023 to establish a neighborhood grocery store in East Austin — a location with limited retail access to healthy foods — with the goal of improving food accessibility, reducing transportation barriers, and providing a walkable, community‑centered food retail option; and WHEREAS, the project received a $500,000 allocation from the City of Austin through the American Rescue Plan Act, representing a public investment in equitable food access and local economic development; and WHEREAS, the co‑op has been developed through strong, ongoing collaboration with community partners including Go Austin Vamos Austin (GAVA) and Austin Cooperative Business Association (ACBA), with community organizing and outreach central to designing a store that reflects local needs, priorities, and lived experience; and WHEREAS, Phase I activities have been completed, including business planning, creating a market study, cooperative incorporation, governance development, and hiring operational leadership, demonstrating readiness for next-phase site planning and implementation; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co‑Op has established over 40 paid member‑owners and has secured additional membership pledges, reflecting sustained local support and community engagement; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co-Op has identified a development site at 5807 Ross Road to serve East Austin residents; and WHEREAS, the selected site is within an area identified in a 2023 market feasibility study as having strong potential to support a neighborhood grocery store; and WHEREAS, the selected site also meets key feasibility criteria, including access to utilities, location outside of the floodplain, proximity to public transportation, and accessibility to surrounding neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Cooperative Property is currently zoned townhouse and condominium residence (SF-6) district, a zoning designation which does not allow the use of this property as a grocery store; and WHEREAS, the Del Valle Food Co-Op has secured site control through a lease agreement with the property owner, including authorization to pursue rezoning and an option to purchase the property; and WHEREAS, the standard rezoning process is estimated to cost $10,000 or more, including …
April 13, 2026 Food Policy Board Presentation Founded 2019MissionWe support neighborhood leaders and organizations to grow food,strengthen communities, and foster stewardship of the natural commonsVisionEvery neighborhood has green spaces that reconnect people to food,nature, and each other AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN Fruitful Commons supports Food Plan Strategies: Currently engaged as “Network Weaver” for Food Plan Implemenation Collaborative Expand access to nutritious andculturally relevant food in fooddistribution programs and foodretail locations for residents ofAustin-Travis County experiencingfood insecurity or facing barriers tofood access...GOAL 6: ACCESSExpand community food production,preserve agricultural lands, andincrease the amount of farmlanddedicated to regenerative foodproduction long-term in Austin-Travis County.GOAL 1: LANDDevelop community education,empowerment, and infrastructure tosupport effective implementation ofthe food plan as measured byincreased funding, data collection,partnerships, and communityparticipation in a local food systemnetwork.GOAL 9: EMPOWER FISCALLY SPONSORED PROJECTS Onion Creek Park Neighborhoods Alliance Memorial Garden Orchard Project TREE CARE MINI GRANT PROJECTS UT Microfarm WorkdayInstalling IrrigationSDF Garden Tree PlantingSt. John OrchardExpandedLabyrinth CommunityGardenPEASEl Buen SamaritanoCenter for MaximumPotential BuildingSystems Food ForestAlamo CommunityGardenKealing Middle SchoolAustin DiscoverySchoolSalvation ArmyFestival BeachCommunity GardenFestival BeachFood Forest 2025 MINI GRANT RECIPIENTS Fifth Annual Cohort of Urban Canopy Champions! Applications for the 2026-2027 cohort will be open July 15-August 31. Festival Beach Community GardenFestival Beach Food ForestFriends of Grand MeadowIslamic Center of Greater AustinJollyville ElementaryKalpulli Texas QuetzalcoatlOdom ElementaryOnion Creek Park Neighborhoods AlliancePartners for Education Agriculture andSustainability (PEAS)Rebuilding Broken CommunitiesThe Salvation Army AustinUrban Roots Festival Beach Food forest FESTIVAL BEACH FOOD FOREST FBFF expanded from 3/4 acre to 3 acres in 2022-2024 and will continue to grow in 2026 TXDOT CAPITAL EXPRESS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY “Festival Beach Community Garden and Festival Beach Food Forest onWaller Street, between Clermont and Flores Streets, were added as Section4(f) resources for constructive use analysis, as they would be directlyacross from temporary construction staging areas. No direct impactswould occur at these Edward Rendon Sr. Metro Park facilities.“ WASTEWATER PIPELINE UTILITY RELOCATION Approved by Parks Board, Nov. 2024 - Board was misinformed that pipeline “would not” directly impact food forest; no public comments given Approved by Austin City Council, Jan. 2025; no public comments given First notification to FBFF & Fruitful Commons - January 6, 2026 - via Rifeline, TxDOT Community Liaison contractors Estimated $550K loss, including city-funded plantings & $375K in-kind community labor COMMUNITY RAPID RESPONSE COMMUNICATION AT AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, BOARD & COMMISSION MEETINGS: Water & Wastewater Commission - 1/14/26 Parks & Recreation Board - 2/2/26, 2/23/26, 3/23/36 Environmental Commission …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: XXXXXXXX-XXX: Supporting Food Plan Implementation through Urban Agriculture Coordination and Festival Beach Restoration WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest is a volunteer-led permaculture food forest developed in partnership with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department beginning in 2014, sponsored by 501(c)3 nonprofit organization Fruitful Commons; and WHEREAS, in 2021 the Austin City Council approved expansion of the Festival Beach Food Forest to approximately three acres to support community food production, ecological restoration, and climate resilience on public parkland; and WHEREAS, a wastewater pipeline relocation associated with the Texas Department of Transportation Interstate 35 Capital Express Project has impacted the approved Phase 2 expansion area of the Festival Beach Food Forest, resulting in the removal of 92 trees and shrubs and the loss of approximately $550,000 in public and community investment, including $375,000 in volunteer labor; and WHEREAS, despite quarterly coordination meetings over 18 months, community stewards were notified of the wastewater pipeline relocation only two weeks before construction was scheduled to begin, highlighting gaps in communication and coordination between City departments, infrastructure projects, and community partners stewarding food-producing landscapes on public land; and WHEREAS, the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent Festival Beach Community Garden are also expected to be impacted by a proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation associated with the Interstate 35 Capital Express Project, for which Austin Energy has agreed to provide $2,414,240 in parkland mitigation funding for permanent use of parkland, pending approval by the Austin City Council on April 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the combined impacts of the wastewater pipeline relocation and the proposed Austin Energy transmission line relocation represent cumulative disruptions to the Festival Beach Food Forest and adjacent community food production spaces, compounding the loss of established plantings, volunteer investment, and community use of public land; and WHEREAS, community-scale food production projects such as the Festival Beach Food Forest advance goals of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan by increasing local food production, climate resilience, and community stewardship of public land; and WHEREAS, in 2025 the Austin Travis County Food Policy Board adopted Recommendation 20250210-003 urging the City to establish an interdepartmental coordination mechanism, including a dedicated staff role, to support urban agriculture and implementation of the Food Plan across departments; and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate and Resilience Office previously proposed a budget enhancement to create an Urban Agriculture Program Manager position to coordinate Food …
Austin-Travis County Food Plan ATCFPB April 2026 – Staff Update City of Austin Food Plan Updates City Staff Updates ● City staff will provide City Council with a Memo in April 2026 ● City staff have started updating the Food Plan Dashboard, to be completed April 2026 ● Travis County Commissioners Court proclamation about the Milan Pact Award tentatively scheduled for April 28th ● Funding from the MUFPP Award will be released via a RFA in fall 2026 Food Plan Implementation Convening ● The Implementation Collaborative is being led by WNT ● Public launch for the Collaborative is scheduled for June 2026 ○ Action: ■ Take the Survey and get on the listserve ■ Consider how the Collaboratives priorities could relate to the Food Policy Board’s Working Groups City of Austin 2026 Bond ● Results from Phase 3 Community Engagement: ○ Housing and transportation remain top priorities. ○ ○ ○ ■ Across all engagement methods, these categories emerged as the most consistent and widely supported, with additional support for quality-of-life investments such as parks, recreation, and community facilities. Community members support bond outcomes, with concerns about cost and implementation. ■ While most respondents indicate support for the bond and its potential benefits, there are notable concerns regarding overall financial impact and the City’s ability to deliver projects effectively. Preference for improving existing infrastructure. ■ Respondents consistently favor reinvestment in existing facilities and systems over new construction, particularly for core services. Different engagement methods surface different types of input. ■ Survey and voting activities highlight broad priorities, while written comments emphasize areas of concern, including transparency, process, and alignment with community needs. City of Austin 2026 Bond - Summary City of Austin 2026 Bond - Next Steps ● March – April 2026: Working Groups present and discuss initial recommendations with full BEATF ● May 4, 2026: BEATF finalizes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council ● May 8, 2026: City staff provides recommendations, integrating feasibility and funding considerations ● May 19, 2026: City Council work session to discuss proposed bond package ● August 6, 2026: City Council Meeting – consideration of an ordinance to call for a bond election and set ballot language ● November 3, 2026: Bond election Travis County Food Plan Updates (No updates) Thank You! www.austintexas.gov/food /austinsustainability
AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2026 AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2026 The Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board (ATCFPB) convened on Monday, April 13, 2026 at the City of Austin Permitting and Development Center, 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Room 1406, Austin, TX 78752. Board Members in Attendance: Joi Chevalier - Chair, Lisa Barden - Vice-Chair, Andrea Abel, Marissa Bell, Melody McClary, Nitza Cuevas, Kacey Hanson, Seanna Marceaux, Erin McDonald, Natalie Poulos Board Members Absent: Beth Corbett, Andy Smith Staff in Attendance: Edwin Marty (City of Austin), Angela Baucom (City of Austin), Amanda Rohlich (City of Austin), Yaira Robinson (Travis County) CALL TO ORDER Lisa Barden called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Laura Rodriguez provided public comment in support for the Del Valle Food Co-op rezoning process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Board Member Andrea Abel motioned to approve the meeting minutes from the Special Called Meeting on March 23, 2026, with Joi Chevalier seconding the motion. Minutes passed on a 10-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Presentation and discussion regarding Agricultural Evaluations, Nickolas Fritz, Land & Special Valuation Manager, Travis Central Appraisal District (see back-up materials for presentation). STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing Staff briefing regarding Austin-Travis County Food Plan Implementation. Presentation by Edwin Marty, Food Policy Manager, Austin Climate Action & Resilience and Yaira Robinson, Assistant Director of Environmental Programs, Travis County (see back-up materials for presentation). DISCUSSION ITEMS AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2026 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Report from Joint Sustainability Committee on March 25, 2026. No update. Presentation and discussion regarding the working group to expand access to nutritious foods through improvement to existing materials and resources and explore alternate or expanded hours for existing resources. Natalie Poulos provided an update that the group has met and are working to establish priorities. Presentation and discussion regarding the working group to participate in the USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) application for funding for conservation easements as a regional partnership. Marissa Bell provided and update that the meetings have been moved to Wednesdays at 4 PM, once per month and all are welcome. They are developing two documents to collect signatures and demonstrate momentum: farmers interested in placing conservation easements on their property to protect food production use in perpetuity (and # of acres); and partner organizations interested in collaborating …
Keep Austin Fed’s Food Rescue How Does it Work? 1 https://www.keepaustinfed.org Be the Change How it happens This is just 1 of 4 pages of our weekly schedule. Our slowest day is Sundays with 19 scheduled food rescues. Our busiest day is Mondays with 36 scheduled food rescues. 2 https://www.keepaustinfed.org Be the Change Where it comes from and where it goes 3 https://www.keepaustinfed.org Be the Change
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. AUSTIN CITY HALL, ROOM 1101 301 WEST 2ND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Animal Advisory Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nekaybaw Watson at nekaybaw.watson@austintexas.gov or 512-974-2562. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Dr. Paige Nilson, Chair, D4 Koby Ahmed, Mayor Ryan Clinton, Travis County Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Jennifer Daniel, D6 Erin Ferguson, D8 Whitney Holt, D5 Sarah Huddelston, D9 David Loignon, D10 Julie Maron, D3 Nancy Nemer, Travis County JoAnn Norton, Parliamentarian, D7 Erin Van Landingham, D1 CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular meeting on March 9, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. 3. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports. Presentation by Monica Dangler, Director, Austin Animal Services and Jason Garza, Assistant Director, Austin Animal Services. Staff briefing regarding deceased animal recovery services. Presentation by Amy Slagle, Assistant Director, Austin Resource Recovery. DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Quarterly report from Animal Pets Alive! Presentation given by Mara Hartsell, Quality of Care Director, Austin Pets Alive! DICUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Approve the reprioritization of the legislative priority list sent to the Austin Government Relations Office in February. Approve a Recommendation to Council regarding pet friendly housing policies in public funded housing developments. Approve the election of Chair. Approve the election of Vice Chair. Approve the election of Parliamentarian. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please email or call Nekaybaw Watson at Austin …
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2026 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, March 9, 2026, at Austin City Hall, Boards and Commissions Room 301 W 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Chair Nilson called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioners in Attendance: Dr. Paige Nilson, Chair, D4 Jennifer Daniel, D6 Erin Ferguson, D8 David Loignon, D10 Erin Van Landingham, D1 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Koby Ahmed, Mayor Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Whitney Holt, D5 Nancy Nemer, Travis County Commissioners Absent: Ryan Clinton, Travis County Sarah Huddleston, D9 Jo Anne Norton, Parliamentarian, D7 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Robyn Katz Gonzalez – State of Animals in ATX Rochelle Vickery – Thanks to Pat Valls Trelles and Amy, Animal Control Response Concerns Julie Oliver- Capital Improvements in Bond and ADA Compliance within the Shelter Suzie Chase- Austin Pets Alive! Area Wide Adoption Event APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on February 9, 2026. The minutes of the February 9, 2026, regular meeting of the Animal Advisory Commission was approved during the March 9, 2026, regular meeting on Commissioner Ferguson’s 1 motion, Commissioner Loignon’s second on a 10-0 vote. Commissioners Clinton, Huddelston, and Norton were absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports. Presentation by Monica Dangler, Director, Austin Animal Services and Jason Garza, Assistant Director, Austin Animal Services. Presentation given by Monica Dangler, Director, Austin Animal Services and Jason Garza, Assistant Director, Austin Animal Services. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. 4. 5. 6. Approve the addition of new members to the Budget Working Group. Withdrawn. Approve a FY27/FY28 Budget Recommendation to Council to convert two animal care positions to regular full-time employees from temporary employees. The motion to approve a FY27/FY28 Budget Recommendation to Council to convert two animal care positions to regular full-time employees from temporary employees was approved as amended on Chair Nilson’s motion, Commissioner Loignon’s second on a 10-0 vote. Commissioners Clinton, Huddleston, and Norton were absent. The amendment was to insert “WHEREAS, Austin Animal Services has, as one of the six priorities in the strategic plan as staff and volunteers with a specific goal to “enhance working conditions and build skilled support staff,” under the third WHEREAS statement. Approve a FY27/FY28 Budget Recommendation to Council to provide funding in the general budget for two dog …
Reports and Updates Austin Animal Services | April 13, 2026 30-60-90 Day Horizon Plan Monica Dangler, Director Accomplishments on the Horizon! Completed action items in the past 30 days Process Improvement Met with Doobert about foster management program Programs and Socials Developed marketing plan Created quarterly promo and events calendar Enhance Staffing Adjusted Animal Care Tech schedules to better meet business needs Feedback Met with groups of dog and cat volunteers Develop plan for re-opening intake Trying out different strategies Improvements to shelter presence Collaborating with volunteers for social strategy Updated the Lost & Found page on shelter website Became current with reporting data to Petco Love & Best Friends to apply for grants and compare national data 3 What does the horizon plan look like for April? 30 Community Engagement • Implement Marketing plan • Event calendar website built, but not yet updated Enhance Staffing • Continue interviewing for vacant vet techs positions • Analyze kennel cleaning study results Process Improvement • Continue work on pathways and transfer protocols • Maddie’s Fund Clinic Consultation for efficiency and S/N • Develop communication strategy for kennel space protocol on Socials 4 What does the horizon plan look like for April? 30 Foster Program • Weekly foster posts • Identify 3 dogs for foster every day • Daily foster emails • Launch Dog Day Out to 3 days a week • Develop accountability plan Develop plan for reopening intake • Ongoing process • Work with APA on community-based solutions 5 60 What does the horizon plan look like for April? Foster Program • Weekly foster posts • Identify 5 dogs for foster every day • Daily foster emails • Implement foster management tools • Offer Dog Day Out program 5 days a week Shelter and Process Improvements • Develop communication strategy for kennel space protocol on Socials • Continue recruitment for Vet Tech openings Social Presence • Update language and tone on socials • Implement Newsletter • Implement plan for socials Develop plan for reopening intake • Reduce wait-time for intake 6 What does the horizon plan look like for April? 90 Open Intake Planning • Open intake for all stray animals Foster Program • Identify 7 dogs for foster every day • Offer Dog Day Out program 7 days a week • Implement foster management tools Shelter Database • Evaluate volunteer module for effectiveness and potential future enhancements • Explore allowing …
Deceased Animal Recovery Services Austin Resource Recovery | April 13, 2026 Background Deceased animal collection provided daily, including some holidays Animals are collected from the rights-of way and the Austin Animal Center Employees assigned to north and south zones of city for collection Program does not collect livestock. Contact the county in which you reside for livestock removal: Travis County: (512) 974-0845 Williamson County: (512) 832-7000 2 Collection Process Residents contact Austin 311 via phone, online, or through app to create service request Requests completed within 24 hours of being created Domestic animals are scanned for microchips Microchip information is provided to Animal Services for pet owner notification 3 Metrics Over 6000 calls per year are processed for dead animal collection. Non-domestic animals (deer, opossum, squirrels, etc.)are largest category collected 4 Pet Search Requests All pet searches require department staff to check collection records Austin Resource Recovery received a total of 47 requests for FY25 Outcome will be provided to Animal Services to respond to resident requests 5 Cross Department Collaboration ARR collects deceased animals from the Austin Animal Center 3x per week Austin Watershed Protection retrieves deceased animals found in waterways and creates requests for ARR collection through 311 Parks and Recreation creates a service request through 311 for collection of deceased animals All other City departments create a service request through 311 for collection of deceased animals found on City property 6 Questions? Amy Slagle, Assistant Director Amy.Slagle@austintexas.gov Austin Resource Recovery
