Reports and Updates Austin Animal Services | October 13, 2025 Monthly Reporting September 2025 Austin Animal Center The live outcome rate for September was 94.57%. 541 animals were adopted 81 dogs and cats were returned to their owners September 1, 2025 1241 animals in the AAS inventory October 1, 2025 1253 animals in the AAS inventory 3 Animal Protection Field Data Field Return to Owner (RTO) Fencing Applications Impounded Injured Impounded Regular or Sick Rabies Specimens In-Field Owner Surrenders 7 3 19 108 38 1 Wildlife Coyotes Coyote Related Activities 38 Activities Breakdown 14 wild sick 3 incidents 16 sightings 1 encounter 2 wild speaks 2 observations 4 Volunteering Hours Overview 521 volunteers contributed 6,642.05 hours 4 orientations, introducing 137 potential volunteers 15 Community Service Restitution individuals to perform 224.5 hours 28 individuals donated 56 hours toward group volunteer service, through dog-walking and cat care Social Media Facebook • 1.4 million page views • 438,000 unique individuals • 44,000 content interactions Instagram • 823,000 page views • 115,000 unique individuals • 31,000 content interactions 5 Foster and Rescue In September, 20 different rescue partners pulled a total of 212 animals from the Austin Animal Center. ▪ 384 different people/families fostered. ▪ As of October 2, there are 348 animals in foster care. ▪ 35 animals were a part of Finder to Foster ▪ More than 100 animals were adopted directly from foster care. ▪ 190 new foster applications were processed. ▪ There are currently 1098 approved foster care providers 6 Vet Services ▪ 565 spay/neuter surgeries were performed in September. ▪ 1614 animals were vaccinated. ▪ 38 animals were euthanized in July. ▪ 35 for severe injury, neurological, congenital, cardiac, suffering, toxicity, or agonal reasons. ▪ 1 for court ordered euthanasia, 2 for aggression/public safety risk. 7 GoodFix Free Spay/Neuter Clinic Update from Elizabeth Ferrer FREE SPAY/NEUTER CLINICS PROGRESS AND IMPACT Shared Goal: Reduce unplanned litters and fully utilize clinic capacity through accessible, community-based services. Upcoming Clinic: November 13 – 17, 2025 | 11580 Stonehollow Dr., Suite 160 ( Council District 7) AAS is facilitating special appointments for shelter fosters and Community Cats Recent Success: July 2025 clinic at Circuit of The Americas drew strong participation Contributing factors: increased awareness, convenient location, strong partner collaboration Marketing in Action: Cross-promotion with clinic hosts Expanded social media and media coverage Flyers distributed in targeted neighborhoods 9 NEXT STEPS AND CONTINUED EFFORTS Implementing …
RESPONSE TO COUNCIL RESOLUTION 20241121-073 BIRD-FRIENDLYDESIGN REPORT 10/6/2025 Response to 20241121-073 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 Overview of Bird Friendly Design .......................................................................................................... 5 Migration and Habitat in Austin............................................................................................................ 5 Glass and Building Design Elements ..................................................................................................... 6 Lighting Standards to Minimize Light Pollution .................................................................................... 9 Behavioral practices ............................................................................................................................ 10 Benchmarking Report on Bird Friendly Design in North America ....................................................... 11 New York City, NY ............................................................................................................................... 11 Madison, WI ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Portland, ME ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Berkeley, CA ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Toronto, ON ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Arlington County, VA........................................................................................................................... 14 Bird Friendly Design in Austin ............................................................................................................. 15 Austin Energy Green Building ............................................................................................................. 15 Lights Out Austin! ................................................................................................................................ 16 Site Specific Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 16 Glass and Lighting Requirements in Code ........................................................................................... 17 Case Studies of Bird Friendly Projects in Austin.................................................................................. 17 Considerations for New Construction ................................................................................................. 19 Co-Benefits of Bird Friendly Design .................................................................................................... 19 The 100/100/100 rule ......................................................................................................................... 21 Best Practices for Low-, Mid-, and High-Rise Buildings ...................................................................... 21 Feasibility of Bird Friendly Building in Austin ....................................................................................... 23 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Building Plan Review ........................................................................................................................... 25 Inspection and Compliance ................................................................................................................. 26 Education ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................................... 26 Boards and Commissions ................................................................................................................... 28 Staff Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 29 1. Land Development Code Amendment ............................................................................................ 29 10/6/2025 Response to 20241121-073 2. Austin Energy Green Building Program and Policy Updates ........................................................... 29 3. Residential Educational Campaign .................................................................................................. 30 Contributors: ..................................................................................................................................... 31 References:........................................................................................................................................ 32 Appendix A: Benchmarking Data and Regulations ............................................................................... 33 Appendix B: Austin Energy Green Building Program Requirements ..................................................... 34 Appendix C: Stakeholder Engagement Plan ........................................................................................ 36 Appendix D: Bird Friendly Design for Residential ................................................................................. 37 10/6/2025 Response to 20241121-073 Executive Summary implementation, In response to City Council Resolution 20241121-073, staff conducted comprehensive research on bird- friendly building design including stakeholder engagement with developers, environmental organizations, and the public through virtual sessions, public tours of the Austin Airport IT building, and professional roundtable discussions in collaboration with the American Institute of Architects (AIA). The following analysis provides an overview of the impact that building collisions have on bird populations and how Austin can address the problem through assessing local case studies, cost feasibility, and regulatory frameworks from peer cities including New York, Madison, Portland, Toronto, Berkeley, and Arlington County, VA. The report explores how Austin's built environment and land development regulations present many opportunities for bird-friendly design implementation, including already existing regulatory mechanisms and programs like Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning and the Austin Energy …
Board of Adjustment – City of Austin c/o Elaine Ramirez (elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov) Re: Support for Appeal – C15-2025-0035 Dear Board of Adjustment, I am writing to express my support for appeal C15-2025-0035. I am a utility account holder at 203 ½ E 34th St (Unit B, an ADU) and a resident of the North University neighborhood. I respectfully ask the Board to sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future submittal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with the SF-3- NCCD-NP standards and the Land Development Code. Reasons I Support the Appeal 1. The NCCD’s purpose and neighborhood pattern. The North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD-NP) was adopted by City Council to preserve the traditional residential form of our neighborhood. Part 7 specifically states: “New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” The proposed project violates these principles, disregarding the block’s historic porch line, modest scale, and single-family residential character. This exact charm is what attracted me to the neighborhood in the first place; This home has been the perfect spot for my Ph.D. studies. 2. Use / type concerns (functionally four units, apartment-style). The project’s design and marketing materials indicate an apartment-style, communal-living use rather than family-oriented residential. It includes ~20 bedrooms, shared kitchens, dual stairways, fire-rated walls, and “wet-bar” layouts that effectively divide the rear building into two units. This configuration functions as four units, inconsistent with the ≤ 3 units allowed under SF-3 zoning and contrary to the family-residential context intended by the NCCD. 3. Incomplete / inaccurate application documentation. The submitted plan set does not demonstrate compliance with several key NCCD standards, including: • Front setback averaging (maintains the porch line and street rhythm) • • FAR limits (0.40 max, proposal exceeds at ~0.64) 10-foot separation between principal structures (fire safety, light, air, privacy) Additionally, overlays have been misidentified or omitted, making the review process unclear and incomplete. This plan should not have been administratively approved. ITEM02/1-SUPPORT Why These Standards Matter • Side setbacks & 10-ft separation – These ensure fire safety, access for firefighters, daylight, ventilation, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of homes. Ignoring them erodes neighborhood livability. • Front setback averaging – Preserves the street’s visual harmony, pedestrian comfort, and tree space. Without it, a new structure …
ITEM02/1-UPDATED APPLICATION ITEM02/2-UPDATED APPLICATION ITEM02/3-UPDATED APPLICATION ITEM02/4-UPDATED APPLICATION ITEM02/5-UPDATED APPLICATION ITEM02/6-UPDATED APPLICATION Tree Review All design proposals must abide by the Tree Preservation Criteria set forth in Section 3.5.2 of the City of Austin’s Environmental Criteria Manual. Cut and fill is limited to 4” within ½ Critical Root Zones (foundations cannot adhere to this), canopy removal is limited to 25% or less per tree, and 50% or more of the full Critical Root Zone must be kept at natural grade with natural ground cover. If proposing to remove a tree that is dead, diseased or an imminent hazard, please provide a Tree Risk Assessment from a Certified Arborist and/ or photographic evidence. Austin Energy Review All overhead and underground electrical facilities need to be clearly shown and labeled on the plot plan including: pad mount transformer and pad, pull boxes, all underground electric wires on site including service wire, utility poles, all overhead wires on subject property and adjacent properties including service wires, down guy wires, existing electric meter location. All electric easements and public utility easements need to be shown and labeled on the plot plan. AE will review based on current Austin Energy Design Criteria for required safety clearance per section 1.10. Any construction not listed in this application will NOT be considered part of the review. Please note if your project has existing transmission facilities and or transmission easements this BSPA and plot plan will be reviewed by our AE Transmission group. The Transmission review is separate from the Distribution review. The Transmission review group may require additional documentation than the Distribution review. Documentation Explanations and Definitions Permit Exhibits Plot Plan Plot Plans must be drawn to a standard scale and are to include but are not limited to the following items: property address and legal description, north arrow, drawing scale, trees within the ROW or trees equal to or greater than 19 inches in diameter located on the property and immediately adjacent to the property, property lines, building lines for both existing and proposed improvements, easements, required zoning setbacks and roof overhangs, water meter and wastewater cleanout locations, clearly shown all overhead and underground electrical facilities (see Austin Energy Review Discipline), and water and/or wastewater line size and material. Floorplan(s) Floorplans must be drawn to a standard scale and are to include (but are not limited to) the following items: drawing scale, room labels, new wall …
ITEM03/1-SUPPORT ITEM03/2-SUPPORT 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 …
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 ITEM05/1-OPPOSITION 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories • 1 watercraft slip • 37’ Shoreline L is 124% of statutory 30’ Limit • 14’ Wide vs. ~10 existing W • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 2 ITEM05/2-OPPOSITION 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 ITEM05/3-OPPOSITION Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing All dimensions and locations of Proposed nonconforming docks differ from existing allegedly “Grandfathered” footprints 4 ITEM05/4-OPPOSITION 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 ITEM05/5-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship; Ignores Readily Available Options 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 ITEM05/6-OPPOSITION 7 ITEM05/7-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP (1750 Channel) Applicants Alleged Hardship Ignores Facts and Alternatives 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 = …
ITEM05/1-SUPPORT ITEM05/2-SUPPORT 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 ITEM05/3-SUPPORT 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 ITEM05/4-SUPPORT 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. ITEM05/5-SUPPORT 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. ITEM05/6-SUPPORT
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 ITEM06/1-OPPOSITION 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories • 1 watercraft slip • 37’ Shoreline L is 124% of statutory 30’ Limit • 14’ Wide vs. ~10 existing W • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 2 ITEM06/2-OPPOSITION 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 ITEM06/3-OPPOSITION Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing All dimensions and locations of Proposed nonconforming docks differ from existing allegedly “Grandfathered” footprints 4 ITEM06/4-OPPOSITION 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 ITEM06/5-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship; Ignores Readily Available Options 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 ITEM06/6-OPPOSITION 7 ITEM06/7-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP (1750 Channel) Applicants Alleged Hardship Ignores Facts and Alternatives 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 = …
ITEM06/1-SUPPORT ITEM06/2-SUPPORT 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 ITEM06/3-SUPPORT 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 ITEM06/4-SUPPORT 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. ITEM06/5-SUPPORT 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. ITEM06/6-SUPPORT
Animal Advisory Commission Recommendation 20251013-008 – Bird Friendly Design WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission passed and sent Recommendation 20221010-008 to Council regarding the adoption of bird friendly design; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes the City of Austin was named a Bird City in Feb. 2023; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes that over 400 species of birds reside or migrate through Travis County every spring and fall, with endangered species and species of concern utilizing the Central Flyway and geological way finders of the Balcones Escarpment, Colorado River and Blackland Prairie during migration, as well as during nesting and wintering seasons; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes the City of Austin benefits from the annual $5.5 billion generated from bird watching and bird tourism in Texas; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes that biodiversity has benefits to our community in its own right, beyond economic benefit. WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes city staff has met with stakeholders, reviewed the policies and codes implemented in other cities, and studied how bird-friendly design standards can best fit within the City’s code; and THEREFORE, the Animal Advisory Commission recommends Council initiate the findings and recommendations of staff as listed with the following addition. 1. In addition to commercial and multifamily buildings, the Animal Advisory Commission recommends all City buildings be required to follow the guidelines and set an example for non-public buildings. Motion: Commissioner Dulzaides Second: Commissioner Huddleston Vote: 10-0 For: Chair Nilson, Vice Chair Linder, Parliamentarian Norton, Commissioners: Dulzaides, Daniel, Ferguson, Holt, Huddleston, Loignon, Nemer Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: Commissioner Ahmed Attest: Nekaybaw Watson Nekaybaw Watson
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. 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 application …
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: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
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 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 would …
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 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 for
