A COMMUNITY GUIDE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Practical Tips for Zoning Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals Approved by the Board of Adjustment, on April 13, 2015, and prepared in collaboration with the City Law Department and Development Services Department. Chair Vice Chair Boardmembers: Don Leighton-Burwell, Melissa Hawthorne, Brooke Bailey Jessica Cohen Ada Corral William Hodge Rahm McDDaniel Darryl Pruett Veronica Rivera Yasmine Smith Michael Von Ohlen Legal Advisors: Lee Simmons Steven Maddoux Staff Support: Elaine Ramirez Diana Ramirez - Common examples of hardship include restraints, unusually if they are wants to preserve topographical lot shapes. Trees may constitute required them. lots with steep slopes, small lot area, or irregular or if an applicant to be preserved a hardship, - Personal troubles hardship. focus primarily circumstances, with neighbors, An applicant cannot be the sole basis for finding a but should may mention on characteristics such factors, itself. such as financial of the property or difficulties A hardship cannot be self-created. - An applicant based on conditions for a permit or site plan cannot claim a hardship for creating. that he or she is responsible - For example, if a structure is designed in a manner that fails to comply with regulations, hardship. Or, if a landowner pieces, hardship. the structure's subdivides he or she can't rely on their irregular shape to prove a a lot into irregular non-compliance isn't a A hardship where it's located. must be unique to the property, not general to the area - If steep slopes then neither hardship by itself. or small lots are common to a particular condition is sufficiently unique to constitute area, a - If a lot is entitled automatically relaxes small lots, then of a hardship. evidence the understanding area, development regulations. certain lot amnesty," under city code to "small which regulations for development be relied on as lot size alone should not with was approved of minimum lot Small lot amnesty that, with the exception would meet other site development - The City's example, regulations alone cannot be the hardship. cannot request a height variance and For an applicant BOA Community Guidebook -10 variance, different "hardship." the criteria kinds of situation exception and don't necessarily can be tailored require to address of for a special a showing In 2011, the City of Austin adopted a special exception designed periods required summarize followed to address of time …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Board of Adjustment on February 11, 2019 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (A) Legal Authority & Jurisdiction. (1) The Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is a sovereign board established by the City Council pursuant to Subchapter A of Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code (“Chapter 211”). The BOA derives its authority from state law, as well as City Code § 2-1-111 (Board of Adjustment) and Chapter 25-2 (Zoning). (2) As stated in Chapter 211 and the City Code, the BOA’s primary functions are to hear and decide: Requests for variances from site development regulations adopted under Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C (Use and Development Regulations) and from certain sign regulations under Chapter 25-10 (Sign Regulations); Requests for special exceptions from site development regulations, where expressly authorized by Code; and (c) Appeals of administrative decisions made in the enforcement and administration of City zoning regulations and decisions made in the enforcement of Chapter 211. (B) Rules of Procedure. (1) These Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) establish standards, guidelines, and requirements for: (a) the conduct of public hearings and the resolution of cases before the BOA; (b) applications for variances or administrative appeals; and processing of applications for variances and administrative appeals filed with the Development Services Department; and notification to the BOA of the filing of an application for a variance and administrative appeals. (a) (b) (c) (d) BOA Rules of Procedure – Page 1 of 16 (2) In the event of a conflict with City Code, Chapter 211 or other applicable law, the Code, Chapter 211 or other law supersedes these Rules. (3) Applicants should familiarize themselves with these Rules before filing an application or presenting a case to the BOA for decision. For more detailed information regarding Board and the rules for variances, special exceptions, and appeals, see the Board of Adjustment Community Guidebook, at: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Applicati ons_Forms/Board_of_Adjustment_Guidebook__July_2015_.pdf ARTICLE II. REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING BOARD ACTION (A) Complete Application Required. All requests to the BOA shall be filed on an application form provided by the staff liaison. The staff liaison shall determine if an application is complete before accepting it for filing. (B) Timing of Submittal & Other Application Requirements. (1) Variances & Special Exceptions. (a) Except as provided in Paragraph (B)(1)(b), below, an application for a variance or special exception may be filed at any time provided that the Development Services …
Case Number: 2024-000021 BA D-10/1 6708 Bridge Hill Cove A History of Unpermitted Work and Permit Anomalies Appealed Permits: BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 August 12, 2024 Presenter: Warren Konkel ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT D-10/2 Original Construction in 1989 1989 Original house and driveway completed (BP-8717316) June 29, 1989 Original survey performed by Michael McMinn. He still has his field notes. July 11, 2024 McMinn performs an IC Study based on his original survey and determines: Total IC at that time was 10,803 sqft. ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT D-10/3 Pool Addition in 1990 Original swimming pool and patio finished construction in March 1990 (BP-8912843). July 11, 2024 McMinn used historical photos and documents to estimate that the pool deck added 605 sqft. Total IC is now 11,408 sqft. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT D-10/4 Annexation and Ordinances Changes Annexation (2000): ● City Ordinance: 001214-34 ● Exception for Existing IC: LDC § 25-2-532 Lake Austin Overlay District Ordinance (2014): ● Ordinance: 20140626-114 ● Effective Date: July 7, 2014 ● IC Requirement: Must comply with LDC § 25-2-551 Total IC at Time of Annexation: 11,408 sqft ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Unpermitted Expansions (2014) In October 2014, there were unpermitted expansions to the driveway, front walkway, and pool patio. According to a 2021 survey, this increased impervious coverage by 3,457 sqft. Total IC is now 14,865 IC. D-10/5 Oct 2013 Oct 2014 Aug 2015 ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT D-10/6 Unauthorized Construction (2021) In March 2021, an application was submitted for addition of front porch and master closet expansion. (PR-2021-050731) This permit was not approved, yet the additions were constructed, adding an estimated 240 sqft. PR-2021-050731 Total IC is now 15,105 IC. Before After After ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Pool House and Cabana Application Errors (2023) In June 2023, an application containing numerous errors was submitted to replace the pool and back patio with a 707 sqft pool house and covered terrace. (PR-2023-069215) D-10/7 ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Wood Deck Reclassified as “Existing Conc Patio” Here are the unapproved 2021 PR and the 2023 PR side-by-side: 2021 2023 D-10/8 The 359 sqft of “Uncovered wood decks” is no longer present on the 2023 application. Instead this is represented as “Existing Conc Patio”. The McMinn survey shows that the original construction was a “wood deck” and only counts 50% towards IC. ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Unapproved Additions Not Included D-10/9 The 2023 PR does NOT include the unpermitted 2021 front additions: This addition should be considered “new construction” and included on this permit. It still has not been inspected. ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT Non-Existant “Lower …
TO: FROM: Jessica Cohen, Chair Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department DATE: August 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Case No. C15-2024-0025 | 6708 Bridge Hill Cove The matter before the Board is an appeal of an administrative decision by the Development Services Department (“DSD”) to approve a building permit for residential development 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. The issues in the appeal concern the amount of impervious cover (“IC”) approved for the project in relation to applicable zoning regulations. To assist the Board in understanding the issues, this report is laid out as follows: (1) General background, including DSD’s decision approving the permit under appeal and the development history of the subject property, at pp. 1-2; (2) Procedural requirements for the appeal, at pp. 2-3; and (3) DSD’s recommended action on the appeal, at p. 3. 1. Background — Decision on Appeal On March 24, 2024, DSD approved a building permit (BP No. 2023-129658) for construction of a two-story addition and related improvements to the existing residential structure at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. After the permit was approved, the Appellant (Mr. Warren Konkel) identified errors in the review process related to the calculation of impervious cover. In particular, Mr. Konkel correctly pointed out that some of the impervious cover shown as “existing” on the approved building plans was associated with development that had never received permits from the City. After reviewing Mr. Konkel’s concerns, DSD determined that the proposed plans submitted on behalf of the landowner, Ms. Christy May, incorrectly denoted unpermitted development as “existing” and that review staff had failed to catch the error. Consistent with LDC Sec. 25-11-66 (Errors in Permit Support Documents), DSD placed an administrative hold on the permit halting further inspections pending resolution of the impervious cover issues. ITEM05/1-STAFF REPORT While the hold remained in place, DSD reviewed the site’s development history using available plans, aerial photography, and an IC analysis provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) to determine the amount of impervious cover associated with the original construction permitted in 1987 and 1989. Based on that review, DSD determined that approximately 12,811 square feet of impervious cover was associated with the original development and that an additional 1,000 square feet is permissible based on an established policy allowing limited modifications to projects initiated before currently applicable regulations took effect.1 (See Attachment B.) On June 21, 2024, DSD lifted the administrative …
Presenter and property owner: Christi Lane My dogs, Sophie and Pickles, playing in the exact location of the latest vehicle impact. 2104 Westover Rd Austin, Texas 78703 A little about me: A native Texan, I first moved to Austin in the 90s to attend the University of Texas at Austin. I own 2 businesses. One, Reform Pilates, is a local business established in 2006. I am back at UT studying genetics with the desire to be a part of scientific research. I have lived in my home for about 15 years. I have loved watching Austin grow with the exception of the detriment to my property. I have taken this fall semester off to handle this important issue. I am asking for your help with a hardship variance for my safety and protection of my property. ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION Background: In the 1969 plans for Loop 1 (Mopac), 3 streets were considered Type E Separations for the area: Hancock Dr, W. 45th Street, and my street, Westover Rd. Other intersections were classified as redirects. ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION My home, built in 1952, is unique in that the property was bisected diagonally leaving the remaining property downhill and exposed to the direction of traffic from the southbound Westover Rd exit ramp. No other property in the area with equivalent downtown traffic has this juxtaposition. ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION 185m 183m The problem Another feature of the property is the change in altitude relative to traffic flow. The photo shows readings taken with an altimeter at selected levels of the southbound Westover Rd exit ramp. The difference in grade from the ramp to my property is 13 feet with my home being the lower altitude. . 172m ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION The problem: Hazardous airborne debris, often with the velocity of highway traffic. When I leave my house, I shut the doors to all rooms containing north (backyard) facing windows and I block access to the doggie- door. This gives me some mild reassurance that my dogs will be safe when a window breaks. I have experienced a total of 5 breaks located at the back of the house from airborne debris since I have lived in my home. I have also had punctured siding, though I consider this less threatening. I don’t use my backyard when I have an inadequate fence because I fear injury. ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION June 12, 2024 After the wreck that took the fence down on April 18, 2024, …
4812 Palisade Drive Austin, TX 78731 Board of Adjustment C15-2024-0026 Ryan Scurlock & Sarah Crawford (homeowners) ITEM03/1-PRESENTATION Plot Plan ITEM03/2-PRESENTATION Existing Conditions ITEM03/3-PRESENTATION Variance Summary: We’d like to install a pool without having to make drastic changes to the original home ITEM03/4-PRESENTATION Zoning History • Zoning on property had been incorrect for many years per city property profile ITEM03/5-PRESENTATION Existing Impervious Coverage Map • Original home is existing non-compliant with respect to LA impervious coverage %’s ITEM03/6-PRESENTATION Case Study of Recent Pool Project in Community • We researched the details of our neighbor’s pool project at 4601 Palisade Dr (permitted 2022) to understand the details of their permitting • It quickly became clear they were able to permit without variance due to their lot size being 47% larger than ours (13,325 SF vs 9,039 SF) ITEM03/7-PRESENTATION Hardship (Lot Size) • Our property is one of the smallest lots in the Cliff Over Lake Austin subdivision (9,039 SF) ITEM03/8-PRESENTATION Surrounding Structure ITEM03/9-PRESENTATION
Architectural vision : Peterson residence Presentation for Austin Board of Adjustment ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION Presentation agenda : Today, I’m excited to take you through our project in detail, we will begin by discussing the project objectives, next, we will dive into the proposed design concept. Finally, we will show how our design thoughtfully aligns with the Bouldin neighborhood. ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION Project overview Currently the house stands at 1626 sqf with a lot size of 2,265 sqf. The existing layout includes two bedrooms , 2.5 bathrooms and a cover carport but lacks a main common area. Our plan is to preserve the original design and layout of the house while embracing the unique challenges it presents. Our goal is to create an outdoor space that accommodates the needs of a growing family, while ensuring that the home’s character and charm remains intact. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION Project objective ● Making the house suitable for a military family of three that is moving back from abroad , ensuring enough space and comfort for everyone. ● Ensuring enough outdoor space for gathering or entertainment. ● Gaining an extra covered parking. ● Add attractive design elements, combining a classic and modern styles for a beautiful appearance. ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION Deck design Our outdoor deck design concept aims to create a modern and functional space that serves as a space for family and friend gathering, as well as a connection space for greeting neighbors. ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION Deck design ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION Project variant for second story deck: Second story deck with staircase leading to downstairs size of the deck is 350 square- foot in total including stairs. Addition to extend beyond the front 15 foot front building set back. ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION Deck Variant The current residence occupies 1,626 square feet of a 2,265 square-foot lot, leaving minimal space for outdoor gatherings or events. The purpose of this construction project is to accommodate a retiring military family of three relocating from out of country who require additional outdoor space for family activities. Due to the limited lot size, we have explored various options but have not identified any viable alternatives for creating a more functional outdoor area. Our primary goal is to enhance the outdoor space to better support the homeowner's needs for family gatherings and outdoor activities. Having families outside in their yards encourages safety and togetherness of the community. ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION Today we shared our vision for the transformation of the Peterson residence. We are excited about …
6708 Bridge Hill Cove A History of Unpermitted Work and Permit Anomalies Appealed Permits: BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 Case Number: C15-2024-0025 Date: September 9, 2024 Presenter: Warren Konkel ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Part 1 Introduction ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Bridge Hill Has Four Cliff-Edge “View” Homes The long, narrow lots feature front driveways, with homes built right at the cliff’s edge overlooking a steep drop-off. This design maximizes views for each home, enhancing property values. 6706 6708 6709 6707 ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED 6708 Plans Massive Pool House Expansion This expansion sits directly on the setback line, just 15 feet from the neighboring pool and patio, towering over 6706’s backyard. The massive structure will block views enjoyed since these homes were built in the 80s, drastically reducing property value. ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED So Much Expansion That Cliff Infill Is Needed The expansion pushes so far beyond the natural cliff edge that an "Infill" permit is needed to create more buildable land. 2024-050005 EV ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Firepit and Trees Removed for New Construction This firepit and tree, along with a much larger oak, have already been removed to make way for this massive 24-foot-tall, 32-foot-long building. Previously open space is turning into a towering permanent structure. ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Part 2 History ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Original Construction 1987-1990 The original permit (BP-8717316) was issued in 1987, with the house, front walkway, and driveway completed by 1989. The swimming pool and back patio were added soon after, finishing in 1990 (BP-8912843). ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Survey Conducted on June 29, 1989 by Michael McMinn Michael McMinn (RPLS #4267) surveyed the property in 1989, right after the house was completed and before the pool was added. Recently, using his original survey data and field notes, he conducted an IC Study and found the initial construction created 10,803 sqft of IC. Using satellite photos and historical records, he estimated the pool added 605 sq ft, concluding that the total Original IC was 11,408 sqft. Supporting documents: ITEM05/APPEAL1 143-162 ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED McMinn IC Study Concludes Original IC was 11,408 sqft ITEM05/10-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED No Changes Until New Owners in 2014 The property saw no construction or alterations for the next 24 years. On June 26, 2014, the property was sold to new owners. McMinn IC Study determining 1990 Original Construction Google Earth - 2013/10/31 ITEM05/11-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED Unpermitted Expansions in 2014 In October 2014, shortly after the property changed ownership, unpermitted expansions were made to the driveway, front walkway, and pool patio. Other additions included a firepit area, an outdoor …
6708 Bridge Hill CV ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION-OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • • The Development Officer and the Building Official have both confirmed the original single family principal and accessory structures completed in 1989 with a Certificate of Occupancy were not subject to “LA” zoning requirements because the plat was initiated before annexation. The only impervious cover added by me as current owner of 6708 Bridge Hill Drive is the 290 sq. ft. front entry/master closet addition in 2022. ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION-OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • Neither the City, nor Appellant, nor me, as owner of 6708 Bridge Hill Drive, know exactly how much impervious cover was developed at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Official records were not kept at that time and Appellant relies on a survey done before pool and patio construction were added and before the C of O, leading to speculation and assumptions based upon what can be seen from old aerial photography. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION-OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Building Official has made no error in interpreting the applicable zoning requirements: what was there in 1989 is in 1984 on the grandfathered (as well as what was built Appellant’s lot). The Building Official has gathered the best available information as to how much impervious cover was on the site after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued and has stated that is allowed upon completion of the remodel project. A development plan has been presented that fulfills the stated maximum allowed Impervious Cover determined by the Building Official. is the maximum amount that ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION-OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • • As the owner I accept that I must account for improvements made by my predecessors and limit the impervious cover on my lot based on what the Building Official has determined was grandfathered in 1989. This will likely require removing some or all of the circle drive added by my predecessor. The Building Official has determined from all the available surveys and aerial photography that 12,811 sq. ft. of impervious cover was the minimum amount developed at the Certificate of it was less, but Occupancy in 1989. Appellant speculates that concedes his argument is based upon assumptions of how much decking was added after the McMinn survey was completed and before the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. the time of ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Holt Carson survey of 2021 shows there was 14,860 sq. …
REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 9, 2024 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 ___Marcel Gutierrez-Garza ___Yung-ju Kim 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). ___ Bianca A Medina-Leal ___ Brian Poteet ___ Margaret Shahrestani ___ Janel Venzant ___ Michael Von Ohlen ___ Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) 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. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Regular meeting on August 12, 2024. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for August 12, 2024 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. Previous Postponed cases: 2. C15-2024-0024 Christi Lane 2104 Westover Road On-Line Link: ITEM02 ADV PACKET PART1, PART2; PRESENTATION The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from eight (8) feet (maximum allowed) to twelve (12) feet (requested), in order to erect a fence on the east property line in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (West Austin Neighborhood Group). Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024, AT 9:00 AM HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, LEARNING AND RESEARCH CENTER 5202 E. BEN WHITE BLVD., SUITE 500, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78741 Some members of the Municipal Civil Service Commission may be participating by videoconference. EXECUTIVE SESSION (No Public Discussion on These Items) The Commission will announce it will go into closed session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, to receive advice from Legal Counsel, or to discuss matters of litigation and personnel matters as specifically listed on this agenda. If necessary, the Commission will go into closed session, as permitted by law, regarding any item on this agenda. 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 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, call or email Matthew Chustz, (512)974-2859, Matthew.Chustz@austintexas.gov. John Umphress, Commissioner Mapi Vigil, Commissioner CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Kevin Mullen, Chair Kavita Gupta, Vice Chair Melissa Rogers, Commissioner CALL TO ORDER AGENDA PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first ten (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 from the Municipal Civil Service Commission regular meeting on August 26, 2024. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Conduct a hearing in open session or closed session, pursuant to 551.074 of the Texas Government Code (personnel exception), on the appeal filed by Jonathan Kringen regarding their Discharge from the Austin Police Department. 3. Deliberate in open session or closed session, pursuant to 551.074 of the Texas Government Code (personnel exception), on the appeal filed by Jonathan Kringen regarding their Discharge from the Austin Police Department. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. Action and approval on the appeal filed by Jonathan Kringen regarding their Discharge from the Austin Police Department. 5. Discussion and approval of the 2025 Municipal Civil Service Commission regular meeting 6. Discussion and action to approve future meeting dates, times, and locations. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS schedule. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided …
REGULAR MEETING of the ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PANEL Monday, September 9th, 2024, at 6:00 PM In Person Meeting Members of the ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PANEL may participate by video conference. Public comment will be allowed remotely via video conference or telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item 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 participation. To register to speak, call or email AIPP Program Manager Jaime Castillo at jaime.castillo@austintexas.gov, (512) 974-7852. CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: Chair – Stephanie Lemmo, Vice Chair – J Muzacz, Andrew Danziger, Taylor Davis, Bernardo Diaz, Kristi-Anne Shaer, Monica Maldonado – Arts Commission Liaison CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve minutes of the Art in Public Places Panel Regular Meeting on August 8th, 2024. 1. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. Discussion of Chair’s Report on new AIPP panelists by Stephanie Lemmo Discussion of Arts Commission Liaison Report on Action Items from July 15, 2024, Arts Commissions Meeting by Arts Commission Liaison Maldonado Discussion: AIPP Panel Liaisons for each new AIPP project Discussion: Outreach Plan for September RFQ launch Discussion: Review the Mid Design for Colony Park Pool Discussion: Review the Mid Design for Beverly Sheffield Pool AIPP Project – Sun McColgin Discussion: Schedule an AIPP Panel retreat 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 9. 10. ACTION: Approve Final Design Corridor: Escarpment Trailhead ACTION: Approve List of Selection Panel & Nominated Artists for the Architecturally- Integrated Art in Public Places Projects for the Austin Convention Center Redevelopment Art in Public Places Staff Updates on Conservation, Current Projects, and Milestones STAFF BRIEFINGS 11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please contact AIPP Program Manager Jaime Castillo at jaime.castillo@austintexas.gov or (512) 974- 7852 for additional information; TTY users' route through Relay Texas at 711.
REGULAR MEETING of the ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION September 9, 2024, 6 p.m. Austin City Hall, Room 1101 301 W. 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, contact Eric Anderson at eric.anderson@austintexas.gov or (512) 974-2562. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Lotta Smagula, D1 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Dr. Paige Nilson, D4 Whitney Holt, D5 Luis Herrera, D6 Larry Tucker, D7 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Dr. Amanda Bruce, D10 Laura Hoke, Mayor CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on August 12, 2024. STAFF BRIEFING 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 4. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. Discussion of City of Austin use of glue traps for pest control. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please contact Eric Anderson, Office of (512) 974-2562 or eric.anderson@austintexas.gov for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Animal Advisory Commission, please contact Eric Anderson at (512) 974-2562 or eric.anderson@austintexas.gov. the City Clerk at
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2024 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on August 12, 2024, at 301 W. 2nd St in Austin, Texas. Chair Clinton called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Sarah Huddleston, D9 Larry Tucker, D7 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Luis Herrera, D6 Laura Hoke, Mayor’s Appointee Whitney Holt, D5 Lotta Smagula, D1 Commissioners Absent: Amanda Bruce, D10 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Paige Nilson, D4 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Tracey B – Foster/TNR Rochelle Vickery – Spay and Neuter Kristyn Williams – TNR/Rescue/Medical Vouchers APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on July 8, 2024. 1 The minutes from the meeting of July 8, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Nemer’s motion, Vice Chair Linder’s second on a 7-0 vote. Chair Clinton and Commissioner Holt abstained. Commissioners Bruce, Dulzaides, and Nilson were absent. STAFF BRIEFING 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. The presentation was made by Don Bland, Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Commissioner Smagula requested that Animal Services staff provide additional information related to the July 2024 Animal Deaths at AAC/Foster charts in the Austin Animal Center July 2024 Data Report. Vice Chair Linder requested that Animal Services staff provide information on the number of clinics accepting medical vouchers and the average wait times for intake of sick/injured and healthy animals. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. A presentation was made by Stephanie Hayden-Howard, Assistant City Manager; Audrey Muntz, Budget and Performance Manager, Financial Services; Dr. Larry Schooler, Consultant. Commissioner Holt recused herself from the discussion. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. A motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:51 p.m. was approved on Commissioner Huddleston’s motion, Commissioner Hoke’s second on a 9-0 vote. Commissioners Bruce, Dulzaides, and Nilson were absent. The minutes were approved at the XX, meeting on Commissioner XX’s motion, Commissioner XX’s second on a X-X vote. 2
Information is from October 1, 2023 – August 31, 2024 Information compiled via ASO Power BI dashboards. Difference of outcomes - intakes Outcome Year (fiscal) Intake Year (fiscal) Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Cats Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total Dog Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total RTO/RTO Adopt SNR (former SCRP) RTO/RTO Adopt 2024 4812 5291 10103 2024 4798 5233 10031 2024 -14 -58 -72 2024 3362 139 1146 100 67 4 415 5233 2024 3210 715 763 81 26 3 4798
What Is a Glue Trap? A glue trap is a small board made of cardboard, fiberboard, or plastic and coated with a sticky adhesive. It can ensnare any small animal who wanders across or lands on its surface. Glue Traps Are Indiscriminate Small “nontarget” animals, including birds, hamsters, lizards, snakes, and squirrels, often fall victim to these traps. Glue Traps Cause Prolonged Suffering Animals trapped in the glue panic and struggle, which causes them to become even more ensnarled. Often, the glue tears off their fur, feathers, or skin. Some break bones or even chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to escape. The screaming of ensnared wildlife is extremely upsetting to people who don’t know how to “dispose” of these sentient beings. Left alone, the terrified, injured animals die, sometimes days later, of blood loss, shock, suffocation, or thirst. Or they die from being crushed in the garbage, which is where the instructions on the traps advise consumers to put them. Glue Traps Are a Health Hazard The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns the public not to use glue traps because they increase people’s exposure to disease. Animals stuck in the glue continue to produce urine and feces, through which pathogens, including hantavirus, salmonella, and the bacteria that cause leptospirosis, are transmitted. Glue Traps Don’t Work Glue traps are not a long-term solution for controlling “unwanted houseguests.” When rodents are killed, the survivors and newcomers breed faster, which causes an increase in the population! And they fail to address the source of the problem: If holes aren’t plugged up and attractants aren’t removed, more animals will move in to take the place of those who have been killed. The Way Forward Multiple countries—including England, Iceland, Ireland, and New Zealand—as well as two states and one territory in Australia and nearly all 28 states and 8 union territories in India have banned glue traps. And hundreds of companies and other entities have prohibited their sale or use, including Target, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, Walmart Canada, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Public Storage, and more than 100 airports. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510 • 757-622-PETA • PETA.org GLUETRAPCRUELTY
Austin Can Lead the Way for Animals: Ending the Use of Glue Traps What are glue traps? A small board made of carboard, fiberboard or plastic and coated with a sticky adhesive. The glue trap is designed to ensnare any small animal who wanders across or lands on its surface. “One of the cruelest methods of killing animals in existence today…” – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Glue Trap Fact Sheet. “Responsible for more suffering than virtually any other wildlife control product on the market…” –Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Glue Boards. Why End the Use of Glue Traps? Five reasons to stop using glue traps in Austin • They inflict immense, prolonged suffering • They are indiscriminate • They are ineffective at addressing the problem • Customers are unaware of the cruelty • The CDC says not to use them Glue traps cause immense, prolonged suffering. Animals trapped in the glue panic and struggle, causing them to become even more stuck. In their desperation to break free, the glue tears off their skin or feathers. Some animals’ faces becomes stuck, leading to suffocation lasting hours. Some break bones or chew off their limbs, desperate to escape. Animals suffer slow, painful deaths and can be thrown in the garbage while still alive. Most trapped animals die of blood loss, shock, suffocation, or dehydration, after days of suffering. They die starved and exhausted. Instructions on glue boards have suggested that the traps be thrown away while the animal is still alive. Simply check reviews on Amazon to understand how inhumane glue traps are. They cause indiscriminate suffering. According to the Wildife Center of Virginia's WILD-ONe database, which collects information from wildlife rehabilitation and animal hospitals, 179 species of wildlife have been documented in glue traps, including some protected species of birds. • Source: Schwirtz, M. (2024, March 28). In New York City, glue traps face scrutiny amid push for humane rodent control. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/nyregion/glue-trap-rodents-nyc.html They do not solve the problem. The only long-term way to control rodent populations is to make the area unattractive and inaccessible to the animals. The CDC states: “Removing food sources, water, and items that provide shelter for rodents is the best way to prevent contact with rodents.” Consumers are not prepared. People report being unsure of how to handle discovering an animal immobilized on a glue trap. The …
Administrative Report ACTION ITEM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Ben Harvey, City Manager Brian Popovich, Management Analyst TO: FROM: DATE REPORT PREPARED: MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 February 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance to Prohibit the Use and Sale of Glue Traps Within the City of Ojai Recommendation Introduce an Ordinance prohibiting the use and sale of glue traps within the City of Ojai. Discussion The issue of the use of glue traps has been raised in recent years by animal rights advocacy groups. Recently, the City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of glue traps. The City has a history of supporting items that promote animal welfare, including the recent passing of an ordinance adding the right to bodily liberty for elephants. Glue Traps Glue traps, also known as a sticky board or glue board, is composed of a layer of cardboard, plastic or wood that is coated with a non-drying adhesive, or a shallow tray of adhesive. The goal of the glue trap is to entrap rodents or other pests when they cross the board since their feet or other body parts get stuck in the adhesive. The animals are incapable of freeing themselves and slowly other parts of their bodies get stuck to the trap. After an extended amount of time, the captured animal typically dies from starvation, dehydration, or suffocation. The process is extremely cruel and painful, and subjects the animal to an inhumane and slow death. Glue traps are primarily used by homeowners, food processors and pest management companies to control rodent populations. Glue traps are commonly used for rodents, however, the People for Ethical Animal Treatment (“PETA”), states that these traps have been used to capture other wildlife such as birds, snakes and squirrels. According to PETA, there are reports of cats becoming stuck in glue traps and requiring veterinary assistance afterwards. Furthermore, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) warns against the use of glue traps due to potentially producing harmful human health impacts as the trapped animals produce urine and feces. 344240.1 Page 1 of 3 3-1 While the larger glue traps designed to capture vertebrate animals such as rats tend to be the most problematic due to the increased likelihood to capture larger animals or multiple animals, smaller glue traps designed to capture invertebrate animals such as ants, flies, insects and cockroaches present similar dangers. …
