ITEM04/36 ITEM04/37 PropertyProfileReportPermittingandDevelopmentCenter|6310WilhelminaDelcoDrive,Austin,TX78752|(512)978-4000GeneralInformationZoningMapImageryMapVicinityMapLocation:4700WEIDEMARLNParcelID:0414030127Grid:MH17Planning&Zoning*Rightclickhyperlinkstoopeninanewwindow.FutureLandUse(FLUM):SingleFamily,Multi-familyRegulatingPlan:NoRegulatingPlanZoning:MF-6-CO-NPZoningCases:C14-05-0107C14-2021-0015NP-05-0020NPA-2021-0020.01ZoningOrdinances:19990225-070b20050818-Z00420220324-08920220324-090CompatibilityStandardsResidentialDesignStandards:LDC/25-2-SubchapterFZoningOverlays:NeighborhoodPlan:EASTCONGRESSInfillOptions:SmallLotAmnestyInfillOption,ParkingPlacement/ImpCoverDesignOptionNeighborhoodRestrictedParkingAreas:EastCongressNPAMobileFoodVendors:--HistoricLandmark:--UrbanRoadways:NoZoningGuideTheGuidetoZoningprovidesaquickexplanationoftheaboveZoningcodes,however,theLandDevelopmentInformationServicesprovidesgeneralzoningassistanceandcanadviseyouonthetypeofdevelopmentallowedonaproperty.VisitZoningforthedescriptionofeachBaseZoningDistrict.Forofficialverificationofthezoningofaproperty,pleaseorderaZoningVerificationLetter.GeneralinformationontheNeighborhoodPlanningAreasisavailablefromNeighborhoodPlanning.EnvironmentalNoFullyDevelopedFloodplain:NoFEMAFloodplain:SUBURBANAustinWatershedRegulationAreas:WilliamsonCreekWatershedBoundaries:NoCreekBuffers:EdwardsAquiferRechargeZone:NoNoEdwardsAquiferRechargeVerificationZone:ErosionHazardZoneReviewBuffer:NoPoliticalBoundariesJurisdiction:AUSTINFULLPURPOSECouncilDistrict:3County:TRAVISSchoolDistrict:AustinISDCommunityRegistry:AustinIndependentSchoolDistrict,AustinNeighborhoodsCouncil,FriendsofAustinNeighborhoods,GoAustinVamosAustin78745,HomelessNeighborhoodAssociation,OnionCreekHomeownersAssoc.,OvertonFamilyCommittee,PreservationAustin,SouthAustinNeighborhoodAlliance(SANA),SouthCongressCombinedNeighborhoodPlanContactTeamTheInformationonthisreporthasbeenproducedbytheCityofAustinasaworkingdocumentandisnotwarrantedforanyotheruse.NowarrantyismadebytheCityregardingitsaccuracyorcompleteness.Datecreated:5/28/2025ITEM04/38 ITEM04/39 □ ITEM04/40 Architectural Signage Design Group, LLC. 4101 W GREEN OAKS SUITE 405. ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76016 1 A halo-lit channel letter sign uses a lighting technique that creates a glow or halo effect around the letters. Instead of the letters being lit from the front, as in traditional channel letters, the light is emitted from behind the letters, illuminating the surrounding area. This results in a soft, radiant appearance. ITEM04/41 ITEM04/42 ITEM04/43 ITEM04/44 ITEM04/45
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday September 8, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Niccolo A Sacco (D6) OUT-RESIGNED ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) OUT ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) OUT-UNAVAILABLE ___-____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 ITEM05/1 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. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM05/2 September 23, 2025 Letter of Support for Variance Requests C15-2025-0026 & C15-2025-0027 Dear Chair Cohen and Members of the Board of Adjustments — …
From: To: Subject: Date: Ramirez, Diana FW: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Monday, August 11, 2025 12:34:59 PM External Email - Exercise Caution Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Please add these pictures to my email ITEM05/34 ITEM05/35 ITEM05/36 ITEM05/37 Re: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments, We, Bruce and Niloofar Slayden, representing the SLAYDEN BRUCE & NELLIE REVOCABLE TRUST at 1744 Channel Road, respectfully submit this letter to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the variance request submitted by Red Bud Partners LP for the property located at 1750 Channel Road. The request seeks approval to construct a new dock extending 37 feet and 3 inches from the shoreline—substantially exceeding the 30-foot maximum length permitted under the Land Development Code (LDC 25-2-1176). We urge the Board to deny this request. This request is not only excessive and unjustified, but also poses a threat to navigation safety, neighborhood consistency, and surrounding property values. Critically, this variance request is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of the applicable regulations. 1. Undermining Code’s Intent The variance request proposes a dock length that is 124% of the maximum allowable by code—exceeding the 30-foot limit by a more than 7 feet. The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that this increased length is necessary for navigation safety, as required under LDC 25-2-1176. In the absence of such justification, approval would set a troubling precedent and undermine the intent and the integrity of the Code. 2. Navigation Hazard and Community Consistency The proposed 37+ feet, multi-level dock would constitute a significant navigational hazard. It would be the only residential multi-level dock in the area extending nearly 125% of the standard shoreline distance. This outlier configuration deviates dramatically from the existing character of surrounding docks along Lake Austin, which are predominantly conform to code. A new multi-level dock of up to a 30’ height and 37+’ length would obstruct sight lines around the shoreline curve, increasing the risk of boating accidents. The Board must not approve any new structure that compromises boater safety on Lake Austin. ITEM05/38 3. Adverse Impact on Neighboring Properties and the Lake Community Approval of this variance would result in immediate and measurable harm to neighboring properties, including ours. A multi-level dock of this size (extending …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday September 8, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Niccolo A Sacco (D6) OUT-RESIGNED ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) OUT ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) OUT-UNAVAILABLE ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica ITEM06/1 Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and 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 forITEM06/2 September 23, 2025 Letter of Support for Variance Requests C15-2025-0026 & C15-2025-0027 Dear Chair Cohen and Members of the Board of Adjustments — We …
From: To: Subject: Date: Ramirez, Diana FW: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Monday, August 11, 2025 12:34:59 PM External Email - Exercise Caution Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Please add these pictures to my email ITEM06/34 ITEM06/35 ITEM06/36 ITEM06/37 Re: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments, We, Bruce and Niloofar Slayden, representing the SLAYDEN BRUCE & NELLIE REVOCABLE TRUST at 1744 Channel Road, respectfully submit this letter to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the variance request submitted by Red Bud Partners LP for the property located at 1750 Channel Road. The request seeks approval to construct a new dock extending 37 feet and 3 inches from the shoreline—substantially exceeding the 30-foot maximum length permitted under the Land Development Code (LDC 25-2-1176). We urge the Board to deny this request. This request is not only excessive and unjustified, but also poses a threat to navigation safety, neighborhood consistency, and surrounding property values. Critically, this variance request is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of the applicable regulations. 1. Undermining Code’s Intent The variance request proposes a dock length that is 124% of the maximum allowable by code—exceeding the 30-foot limit by a more than 7 feet. The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that this increased length is necessary for navigation safety, as required under LDC 25-2-1176. In the absence of such justification, approval would set a troubling precedent and undermine the intent and the integrity of the Code. 2. Navigation Hazard and Community Consistency The proposed 37+ feet, multi-level dock would constitute a significant navigational hazard. It would be the only residential multi-level dock in the area extending nearly 125% of the standard shoreline distance. This outlier configuration deviates dramatically from the existing character of surrounding docks along Lake Austin, which are predominantly conform to code. A new multi-level dock of up to a 30’ height and 37+’ length would obstruct sight lines around the shoreline curve, increasing the risk of boating accidents. The Board must not approve any new structure that compromises boater safety on Lake Austin. ITEM06/38 3. Adverse Impact on Neighboring Properties and the Lake Community Approval of this variance would result in immediate and measurable harm to neighboring properties, including ours. A multi-level dock of this size (extending …
BOA Monthly Report July 2025-June 2026 September 8, 2025 Granted 1 1. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback and 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback and 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations) (C) (3) (a) from impervious coverage requirements to increase Postponed 3 1. 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area and (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area 2. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length 3. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length Withdrawn 0 Denied 0 Discussion Items 1 Sept 2025 Interpretations Sept 2025 BAAP 1 new inquiries 0 (Added Sept 8# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 3 5 0 0 4 Board members absent: Niccolo A Sacco, Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) (1 vacant alternate position) August 11, 2025 Granted 1 1. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback Postponed 2 1. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length 2. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length Withdrawn 0 Denied 0 Discussion Items 2 Aug 2025 Interpretations Aug 2025 BAAP 0 new inquiries 0 (Added Aug 11# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 2 2 0 0 3 Board members absent: Niccolo A Sacco, Sameer Birring, Maggie Shahrestani (tech issues) (1 vacant alternate position) July 14, 2025 Granted 1 1. 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height Postponed 0 Withdrawn 0 Denied 0 Discussion Items 2 JULY 2025 Interpretations JULY 2025 BAAP 0 new inquiries 1 (Added jul 14# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 1 0 0 0 1 Board members absent: (1) Niccolo A Sacco (1 vacant alternate position)
BOA MEETING DATES FOR 2026 301 W 2ND STREET, AUSTIN TEXAS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS-ROOM 1001 2ND MONDAY OF THE MONTH 5:30 PM January 12, 2026 February 9, 2026 March 9, 2026 April 13, 2026 May 11, 2026 June 8, 2026 July 13, 2026 August 10, 2026 September 14, 2026 October 12, 2026 November 9, 2026 December 14, 2026
To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd, Development Officer, ADS Lyndi Garwood, Principal Planner, ADS Date: October 3, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Staff Interpretation of Site Development Standards in North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NUNA NCCD) The matter before the Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is an administrative appeal challenging staff’s approval of residential building plans submitted for development of a proposed three-unit residential use at 205 E. 34th Street. The issue in the appeal is whether the Austin Development Services (“ADS”) correctly applied site development standards established in the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (“NUNA-NCCD”) and other adopted zoning regulations. Summary of Issues & ADS’s Position As discussed below, following submission of the appeal, ADS determined that errors were made in the review process that render the approved structure noncompliant with NUNA- NCCD setback requirements. Our intent is to require the permit applicant to submit revised construction plans to fix the setback errors prior to proceeding with construction, so we would ask the Board to take action to modify the plan approval to explicitly require these corrections. We respectfully disagree with appellants, however, that the NUNA-NCCD’s 0.40 limit on floor-to-area ratio (FAR) applies to the proposed three-unit residential use. As discussed below, this NCCD only limits FAR for duplexes and two-family uses within the Residential District; the proposed development, while within the Residential District, is not a duplex or a two-unit use, but rather a three-unit residential use that is not subject to a FAR limit under the NCCD. Additionally, while appellants are correct that not all of the required materials were provided during the plan review process, the permit applicant has submitted revised application materials and stamped surveys that remedy this deficiency and demonstrate ITEM02/1-STAFF REPORT C15-2025-00235 (205 E. 34th St.) BOA Appeal Staff Report that the proposed corrections will achieve compliance with the NCCD setback requirements. Procedural Requirements for Appeal DSD believes that this appeal is properly before the BOA because it was filed within 20 days of the date the plans were approved1 and because the named appellants, Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay, own property within 200-feet as required by state law to invoke the BOA’s authority to review permitting decisions.2 We encourage the Board to consult legal counsel if you have questions on standing, timeliness, or other issues affecting the legal sufficiency of the appeal under Local Gov’t …
205 E 34th St Case: C1-2025-0035 ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Summary The application is incomplete and does not comply with all applicable requirements The application does not reflect the intent of the North University NCCD Accordingly, we ask the Board of Adjustment to reject the plan set ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Part 6, Section 3.a. of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD) “The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block” The plan set does not demonstrate compliance ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD) “A new principal structure must be at least 10’ from a principal structure on an adjacent lot” The plan set does not demonstrate compliance ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD) limits floor-to-area ratio (FAR) to 0.4:1 The application shows an FAR of 0.64:1 ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION APPELLANT The applicant failed to provide required information & gave incorrect information on the application Thus, the application is incomplete Zoning District should be SF-3-NCCD-NP Neighborhood Plan Area missing Required FAR calculations not completed Application site plan shows incorrect sizes and locations for buildings on adjacent lots and does not mark distances needed to determine side setbacks ITEM02/6-PRESENTATION APPELLANT “The Residential District is intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood … New residential development should respect traditional patterns” Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 The plan set does not demonstrate compliance 205 Building 1 Facing E 34th St ITEM02/7-PRESENTATION APPELLANT “The Residential District is intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood … New residential development should respect traditional patterns” Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 The plan set does not demonstrate compliance 205 Building 2 Facing Alley ITEM02/8-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Designed & marketed as a multifamily communal dwelling Apartment Complex Violates NCCD, SF-3 zoning and HOME ITEM02/9-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Plan allows for construction as 4 units and inclusion of additional bedrooms in “attic” Violates NCCD, SF-3 zoning and HOME ITEM02/10-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Two recently restored affordable homes demolished for a project likely to rent above market to carry land & construction costs North University is already dense & multi-use; we need human-scale homes fitting the development pattern, not stealth dorms ITEM02/11-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Recap North University’s NCCD supports dense, multi-use, affordable housing and a diverse population The 205 project …
Three unit dwellings at 205 East 34 by Professor Kate Juschenko UT Austin ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Initiative “HOME” a small introduction to a big zoning change • The city council passed the ordinance “HOME” in several phases to improve home options and affordability in Austin. • HOME increases density by allowing up to 3 units on one lot. HOME allows to build more square feet per square feet of lot (Floor to area ratio). • Current zoning with no HOME: 40% Floor to area ratio. • with HOME for 3 unit dwelling: 65% Floor to area ratio. • No parking requirement. ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER What we fear, we judge as evil. What we judge as evil, we attempt to control. What we attempt to control we attack. …any fear comes from the anticipation of what might be, not what is… ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER HOME APPROVED PROJECTS ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER
ITEM02/9-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/10-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM 1: Incorrect front yard setback ITEM 2: Incorrect Floor to Area Ratio ITEM 3: Incomplete application ITEM 4: Setback from the adjacent property ITEM02/11-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER CORRECTED ITEM 1: Incorrect front yard setback NO NO ITEM 2: Incorrect Floor to Area Ratio ITEM 3: Incomplete application CORRECTED ITEM 4: Setback from the adjacent property ITEM02/12-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM 1: Incorrect front yard setback ITEM02/13-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/14-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER 24’4” is averaged setback ITEM02/15-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER
NCCD: ITEM 4: Setback from the adjacent property CORRECTED ITEM02/16-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM 3: Incomplete application ITEM02/17-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM 3: Incomplete application ITEM02/18-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM 2: Incorrect Floor to Area Ratio The FAR at the approved by the city project is 64% ITEM02/19-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER NCCD: • The proposed development is “Three-unit dwellings”, defined by the code as “any combination of units” • “Three-unit dwellings” is not a duplex even if it consists of a combination of a duplex and single family • But even if we frivolously try to apply the NNCD to the duplex in our “Three-unit dwelling” development, the project will still stand as FAR of the duplex is 0.32:1 which is much less than 0.4:1 ITEM02/20-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/21-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER
BOA Variance Presentation: Property Address: 1750 Channel Road, Austin, TX 78746 Case Number: C15-2025-0026 Site Plan #: SP-2025-0119D Presenter: Stephen Hawkins, Aqua Permits ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road: ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION Seeking Variance From: LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1): "A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline [into the lake], except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety" To Allow For: -The permitting and construction of a NEW boat dock 37' 3" from the shoreline into the lake. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● ● ● ● Shown here is the site as seen today in an image taken from City of Austin GIS. The existing boat dock was constructed in the early 1980’s and is a grandfathered structure. The existing boat dock extends 37’ 9” from the shoreline. The existing boat dock is being removed and replaced with a new boat dock in the same general location. This new boat dock design conforms to all current code requirements, including height allowances, in regards to boat docks on Lake Austin. ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● This image shows the neighboring docks along this stretch of lake channel, taken from COA GIS ● Most of the neighboring boat docks have all existed in a non-compliant, but grandfathered form, for at least 40 years or more. ● These docks historically have been constructed to extend greater than 30’ from the shoreline, as the depth of the lake in this area is too shallow to operate a functional boat dock at the 30’ length. ● Modern watercraft requires at least 4 ft. of water depth to operate - in this area the water depth is too shallow inside of the 30’ setback. ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock in Land Development Code 25-2-1176(A)(6) is insufficient in its application for this property. Due to the existing shallow lake conditions along this stretch of Lake Austin, the dock will need to be constructed at a greater length than the allowable 30’ from shoreline. Dredging of the lake bed is restricted to 25 cubic yards per address by code - in this location the amount of dredge needed to create basic navigability would exceed that amount (see below exhibit). Therefore, building deeper into the lake is required. …
BOA Variance Presentation Property Address: 1752 Channel Road, Austin, TX 78746 Case Number: C15-2025-0027 Site Plan #: SP-2025-0119D Presenter: Stephen Hawkins, Aqua Permits ITEM06/1-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road: ITEM06/2-PRESENTATION Seeking Variance From: LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1): "A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline [into the lake], except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety" To Allow For: -The permitting and construction of a NEW dock that extends 46' 1" from the shoreline into the lake. ITEM06/3-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ITEM06/4-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● ● ● ● Shown here is the site as seen today in an image taken from City of Austin GIS. The existing boat dock was constructed between 1960-1970 and is a grandfathered structure. The existing boat dock extends 49’ 9” from the shoreline. The existing boat dock is being removed and replaced with a new boat dock in the same general location. This new boat dock design conforms to all current code requirements, including height allowances, in regards to boat docks on Lake Austin. ITEM06/5-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● This image shows the nearby docks along this stretch of lake channel ● Most of the neighboring boat docks have all existed in a non-compliant, but grandfathered form, for at least 40 years or more. ● These docks historically have been constructed to extend greater than 30’ from the shoreline, as the depth of the lake in this area is too shallow to operate a functional boat dock at the 30’ length. ● Modern watercraft requires at least 4 ft. of water depth to operate - in this area the water depth is too shallow inside of the 30’ setback. ITEM06/6-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock in Land Development Code 25-2-1176(A)(6) is insufficient in its application for this property. Due to the existing shallow lake conditions along this stretch of Lake Austin, the dock will need to be constructed at a greater length than the allowable 30’ from shoreline. Dredging of the lake bed is restricted to 25 cubic yards per address by code - in this location the amount of dredge needed to create basic navigability would exceed that amount (see below exhibit). Therefore, building deeper into the lake is required. ITEM06/7-PRESENTATION 1752 Channel Road ● Our proposed site plan …
REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 13, 2025 AT 5:30PM Austin City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 1001 301 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Some members of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 email for elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov or call 512-974-2202. remote participation by telephone. To remotely, register speak to CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: ___Jessica Cohen (Chair) ___Melissa Hawthorne (Vice-Chair) ___Thomas Ates ___Jeffery Bowen ___Sameer S Birring ___Bianca A Medina-Leal ___Yung-ju Kim ___Brian Poteet ___Haseeb Abdullah ___Margaret Shahrestani ___Michael Von Ohlen ___Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) ___Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) The Board of Adjustment may go into closed session to receive advice from legal counsel regarding any item on this agenda (Private consultation with legal counsel – Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code). AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) 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 Board of Adjustment meetings on September 8, 2025. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for September 8, 2025 PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34th Street On-Line Link: ITEM02 APPELLANT-ADV PACKET PART1, APPELLANT-PART2, ITEM02 PERMIT HOLDER- ADV PACKET, ITEM02 STAFF REPORT, APPELLANT PRESENTATION, PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION PART1, PART2, PART3, PART4 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 …
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
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
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS 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
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, October 13, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:45 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Jeffery Bowen, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Thomas Ates, Sameer S Birring, Yung-ju Kim, Bianca A. Medina-Leal Board Members absent: Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) 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. NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings on September 8, 2025. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for September 8, 2025 The minutes from the meeting on September 8, 2025, were approved on Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne, Board member Brian Poteet second, on 10-0-1 Vote (Board member Haseeb Abdullah abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34th Street On-Line Link: ITEM02 APPELLANT-ADV PACKET PART1, APPELLANT-PART2, ITEM02 PERMIT HOLDER- ADV PACKET, ITEM02 STAFF REPORT, APPELLANT PRESENTATION, PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION PART1, PART2, PART3, PART4 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 single- Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION October 13, 2025, 6:00 p.m. Austin City Hall, Room 1101 301 West 2nd St Austin, Texas 78701 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 or in person, 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 Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Whitney Holt, D5 Sarah Huddleston, D9 David Loignon, D10 Nancy Nemer, Travis County Jo Anne Norton, Parliamentarian, D7 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 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 Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on September 8, 2025. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. 3. Staff briefing on updates to safety protocols, programmatic needs, emergency veterinary services and orthopedic contracts by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. 4. Staff briefing regarding Good Fix marketing strategies, outreach efforts, and spay/neuter backlogs by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. Presentation by Austin Pets Alive! regarding license agreement reports. 6. Update on Bond Election Process to improve shelter operations. 7. Presentation regarding Staff’s response to Council Resolution 20241121-073 related to Bird-Friendly design by Leslie Lilly, Environmental Conservation Program Manager, Watershed Protection Department. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 8. Approve a Recommendation to Council related to Bird-Friendly design. 9. Approve the formation of a working group that advocates for renter’s policies for large breed dog owners. 10. Approve the Animal Advisory Commission’s 2026 Regular Meeting Schedule. 11. Approve an update to the membership of the Strategic Plan Working Group. WORKING GROUP UPDATES 12. Update from the Strategic Plan Working Group on the …
Animal Advisory Commission Minutes September 8, 2025 Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, September 8, 2025 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, September 8, 2025, at Austin City Hall, 301 W 2nd St, Room 1101 in Austin, Texas. Chair Nilson called the Animal Advisory Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Dr. Paige Nilson, Chair, D4 Erin Ferguson, D8 Jo Anne Norton, Parliamentarian, D7 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Koby Ahmed, Mayor Ryan Clinton, Travis County Whitney Holt, D5 David Loignon, D10 Nancy Nemer, Travis County Commissioners Absent: Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Sarah Huddleston, D9 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Julie Oliver – Safety failure at AAC Rochelle Vickery – Behavioral support for dogs at AAC APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on August 11, 2025. The motion to approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on August 11, 2025, was approved on Commissioner Norton’s motion, Commissioner Ferguson’s second on a 9-0 vote. Commissioners Dulzaides and Huddleston were absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 1 Animal Advisory Commission Minutes September 8, 2025 2. 3. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. The presentation was made by Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Staff briefing on Updated Process for Euthanasia Notification provided by Rebekha Montie, Program Manager II, Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer, and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. The presentation was made by Rebekha Montie, Program Manager II, Austin Animal Services, Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services, and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Update on the implementation of the prohibition of the purchase of and usage of all glue traps at City-owned and/or City-managed facilities based on the Animal Advisory Commission’s Recommendation 20241014-007. Discussed. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 5. 6. Approve the Animal Advisory Commission Annual Internal Review. The motion to approve the Animal Advisory Commission Annual Internal Review as amended below was approved on Commissioner Norton’s motion, Commissioner Ferguson’s second on a 9-0 vote. Commissioners Dulzaides and Huddleston were absent. The amendment was to insert “from the public” to the sixth bullet …
1 City Staff Watershed Protection Building Services Liz Johnston, Leslie Lilly, Elizabeth Funk Matt Hollon, Sean Watson Austin Energy Green Building Garret Jaynes, Heidi Kasper Development Services Department Farhana Biswas Kit Johnson, Nate Jackson Animal Services Emery Sadkin Planning Jordan Feldman 2 Resolution 20241121-073 ▪ Came out of a recommendation from a working group and Resolution 20210902-050 on Lights Out Austin ▪ Directs staff to: ▪ Update on Light’s Out Austin ▪ Explore integration of bird-friendly building techniques for new low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings ▪ Conduct a feasibility analysis on the potential impacts of these standards ▪ Seek input from stakeholders, including developers, environmental organizations, and the public. 3 Migration and Habitat ▪ Austin was designated a Bird City in 2023 ▪ Austin within North America’s Central Flyway ▪ Over 400 species of birds ▪ Edwards Plateau and the Blackland Prairies habitat ▪ Premier destination for birdwatchers throughout most of the year. ▪ Birding generates more than $5 billion in annual ecotourism revenue in Texas ($279 billion nationwide) 4 The Problem ▪ Birds do not perceive glass as a barrier. ▪ In daytime, birds encounter reflective or translucent glass. ▪ At night, birds encounter artificial sources of light. ▪ Birds fly to these confusing features without seeing the glass barriers. ▪ The collision is deadly. An estimated 1 billion birds die every year. 5 Solutions Glass Strategies Bird-friendly design includes: ▪ Reducing the use of glass ▪ Reducing glass exposure (using solar shading, external insect/solar screens, louvers, etc.) ▪ Incorporating bird-friendly signals (markers) in or on the glass ▪ UV coating, glazing, and etched or fritted glass patterns that follow the "2x2 rule” 7 Design Strategies ▪ Incorporate physical barriers and architectural design that improve glass visibility ▪ Options include: ▪ Exterior screens ▪ Shutters ▪ Awnings ▪ Facades ▪ Structural shading systems Tracy Aviary, Salt Lake City, Utah 8 Lighting Exterior ▪ Eliminate uplighting, use fully shielded fixtures that direct light downward, and avoid event searchlights ▪ Use lighting management systems that can automatically reduce non-essential lighting during peak migration ▪ Also beneficial to bats and lightning bugs year-round ▪ Use warmer lightbulbs (as white/blue light can disorient birds) Interior ▪ Program automatic controls with timers and occupancy sensors ▪ Use window treatments to reduce light spillage ▪ Schedule janitorial services during daylight hours 9 Benchmarking What have other cities done? New York City (2021) Arlington County, VA …
September 2025 AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT 1 On May 5, 2025, Animal Services transitioned to a new database for shelter management. This transition is ongoing and has potentially impacted data reporting. Austin Animal Center Data is partially incomplete due to systems transfer. • The live outcome rate for September was 94.57%. • A total of 957 animals were brought to the shelter which included 551 cats and 393 dogs. • A total of 541 animals were adopted which included 314 cats and 223 dogs. • A total of 81 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • On September 1, there were 1241 animals within the ASO inventory. • On October 1, there were 1253 animals within the ASO inventory. Animal Protection Data is partially incomplete due to systems transfer. • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 7 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 3 fencing assistance applications and implanted 0 microchip(s). • Officers impounded 19 injured animals and 108 regular or sick animals. • Officers submitted 38 specimens for rabies testing. We had 12 positive bats, 6 decomposed bats, and 1 destroyed raccoon. Wildlife Data is partially incomplete and does not include non-coyote wildlife. • There were 38 total coyote related activities (Behavior types include Sighting, Encounter, Incident, and Observation. “Observation” is defined as hearing coyotes howling and finding scat or footprints.) o 16 sightings, 14 wild sick, 1 encounter, 3 incidents, 2 wild speaks, 2 observations • Out of 38 coyote related activities, 22 (58%) reports fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, incident, and observation) o Encounters: Pets were a factor in 1/1 (100%) of encounters reported 1/1 encounters (100%) involved a coyote with mange sleeping in fenced backyard and o encountered dog without incident Incidents: Pets were a factor in 3/3 (100%) of incidents reported 1/3 incidents (33%) involved a coyote chasing after a dog. No contact was made. 1/3 incidents (33%) involved a coyote killing an outside unsupervised cat 1/3 incidents (33%) involved a coyote injuring a dog Volunteer Data is partially incomplete due to systems transfer. • 521 volunteers contributed 6,642.05 hours in September. • • The Volunteer Program held 4 orientations, introducing 137 potential volunteers to shelter operations. The Volunteer Program scheduled 15 Community Service Restitution individuals to perform 224.5 hours of laundry, dishes and other duties as assigned. • …
Board/Commission Recommendation Animal Advisory Commission Draft 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 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.
