SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2024 AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JOINT MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2024 The City Council of Austin, Texas, convened in a Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2024, at Austin City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, TX. Mayor Watson called the Council Meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Vice Chair Azhar called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. Chair Hempel and Commissioners Barrera-Ramirez, Howard, Mushtaler, and Phillips were absent. DISCUSSION l. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on proposed amendments to City Code Title 25 (Land Development) that would revise regulations that apply to lots with one housing unit; create regulations that allow properties to be used for charging electric vehicles; create regulations, including a density bonus program that modifies height and compatibility in exchange for community benefits, for properties that are located within a half mile of the planned Phase l Light Rail and Priority Extensions (also known as the Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) overlay); revise regulations that apply to flag lots and small lots; and revise height, building placement, and other related regulations that apply to property and are in addition to the base zoning regulations (also known as Compatibility Standards). Presentation was made by Veronica Briseno, Assistant City Manager; City Manager's Office; Andrea Bates, Assistant Director, Planning Department; Eric Thomas, Zoning Division Manager, Planning Department; Laura Keating, Associate Project Manager, Project Connect Office; Jonathan Lee, Planner Senior, Planning Department; and Warue1· Cook, P1·incipal Planner, Planning Department. The public hearing was conducted. Mayor Watson adjourned the Council Meeting at 2:03 p.m. without objection. Vice Chair Azhar adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 2:03 p.m. without objection. Chair Hempel and Commissioners Barrera-Ramirez, Howard, Mushtaler, and Phillips were absent. 1
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025 AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025 The City Council of Austin, Texas, convened in a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at Austin City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, TX and via videoconference. Mayor Watson called the Council Meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Chair Hempel called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Commissioners Cox, Haney, Haynes, Howard, Johnson, and Phillips were absent. DISCUSSION 1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on proposed amendments to City Code to make short-term rental (STR) use an additional (accesso1y) use for all residential uses in all. zoning districts; to regulate STR owners, operators, and platfom1s as businesses; and to require STR platfom1s to collect and remit hotel occupancy taxes (HOT). Funding: This item has no fiscal impact. Presentation was made by Trish Link, Division Chief, Law Department, Daniel Word, Assistant Director, Development Services Department. The public hearing was conducted. Mayor Watson adjourned the Council Meeting at 2:06 p.m. without objection. Chair Hempel adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 2:06 p.m. without objection. Commissioners Cox, Haney, Haynes, Howard, Johnson, and Phillips were absent. 1
Proposed Rezoning Opposition [Tract 34 – Lantana Neighborhood Corner of William Cannon & Rialto - NPA-2025-0025.03 C14-2025-0087] Why Removing Transitional Zoning Conflicts with Austin’s Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Austin’s land development framework relies heavily on transitional, or buffer zoning, to prevent abrupt changes between land uses that would create conflicts or diminish livability. Office zoning in this location is functioning exactly as intended — it provides a low- intensity, daytime-driven use that steps down from the busier roadway toward single-family homes. It limits trip generation, noise, late-night activity, and lighting spillover in a way that protects adjacent residential areas. Commercial zoning removes that buffering function and replaces it with a district that allows: • • • • • • high trip-generating uses later operating hours on-site alcohol service larger structures amplified lighting and signage event-oriented or transient-oriented businesses This creates a direct adjacency of incompatible intensities, which Austin’s long-standing compatibility standards are meant to prevent. From a planning perspective, this is a leap, not a step — a direct escalation from low-impact, professional daytime use to open-ended commercial entitlement less than 500 feet from homes and a creek corridor. Austin’s compatibility model — reaffirmed repeatedly through Imagine Austin, Small Area Plans, and corridor studies — rests on three core principles: 1. Transitions in height and intensity matter. Office zoning operates at a height, traffic, and noise profile similar to civic or institutional uses — compatible with nearby homes. Commercial zoning authorizes much more intense activity that violates gradual transition principles. 2. Buffers protect health, safety, and quality of life. Transitional zoning avoids late-night noise, loading docks, bars, drive-throughs, and event venues where houses are sleeping, children are playing, or wildlife is nesting. 08 NPA-2025-0025.03 - Lantana Tract 34; District 81 of 2 Health of residents is also impacted, with studies showing air quality impacts from nearby construction and high-traffic commercial uses have negative effects on breathing, lung health, asthma, elderly, and children. 3. Where you place intensity determines whether it succeeds or fails. Compatibility-driven land use ensures high-intensity uses thrive where appropriate, and neighborhoods remain stable where intended. Eliminating the buffer destabilizes both. Therefore, removing Office zoning here is not just a change — it contradicts the City’s own planning structure by eliminating the intended “step-down” layer between commercial activity and residential/environmentally sensitive land. At minimum, if Council moves forward, a Conditional Overlay and/or Restrictive Covenant must re-constitute compatibility protections, including …
Proposed Restrictive Covenant – [Tract 34 – Lantana Neighborhood Corner of William Cannon & Rialto - NPA-2025-0025.03 C14- 2025-0087] Background: there is a proposed zoning change from business to commercial near the Lantana neighborhood in Austin, Texas (Tract 34, zip code 78735). The ideal outcome for nearby residents is for the re-zoning to be denied and/or for this area to remain a green space. Though we (the residents within 500 feet of the site) are requesting restrictions, we are reasonable and not anti-development. We understand we cannot stop change and growth. Intent: To allow limited development that is compatible with the surrounding residential community and their families, protective of the environment, natural land and wildlife, and respectful of neighborhood character, safety, and quality of life. This Restrictive Covenant seeks to ensure that any redevelopment on this site enhances—not harms—the surrounding neighborhood. Residents welcome thoughtful growth but request clear boundaries to preserve the area’s safety, natural beauty, and livability for families, pets, and wildlife. Our neighborhood sits on the ecological edge of the Texas Hill Country, where the Edwards Plateau transitions into the Blackland Prairie. This area is defined by its mix of limestone terrain, mature oak and juniper woodlands, creek corridors, and diverse wildlife, including returning hawk populations, fox families, owls, and migratory birds that rely on intact habitat connections. Because West Oak Hill lies at this geographic and ecological boundary, even small changes in development intensity can create outsized impacts on water quality, wildlife movement, light pollution, noise levels, and the health of our shared greenbelt. The Hill Country–edge environment is exceptionally sensitive: it depends on low-impact lighting, protected tree canopy, careful stormwater management, and preservation of natural corridors. For this reason, any redevelopment in our area must incorporate the same environmental stewardship standards expected throughout the Texas Hill Country, ensuring that growth enhances — rather than damages — this unique and irreplaceable landscape. These requested conditions are consistent with long-established Hill Country environmental protections, including the City of Austin Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, SOS watershed standards, and regional dark-sky and wildlife-conservation principles widely adopted throughout the Texas Hill Country. 08 NPA-2025-0025.03 - Lantana Tract 34; District 81 of 9 Prohibited or Restricted High-Impact Uses Below is a comprehensive list of high-impact, incompatible, or nuisance-prone commercial uses to be prohibited through a Restrictive Covenant. These categories reflect sources of noise, traffic, safety, lighting, and environmental issues for residentially-adjacent properties …
Proposed Rezoning Opposition [Tract 34 – Lantana Neighborhood Corner of William Cannon & Rialto - NPA-2025-0025.03 C14-2025-0087] Why Removing Transitional Zoning Conflicts with Austin’s Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Austin’s land development framework relies heavily on transitional, or buffer zoning, to prevent abrupt changes between land uses that would create conflicts or diminish livability. Office zoning in this location is functioning exactly as intended — it provides a low- intensity, daytime-driven use that steps down from the busier roadway toward single-family homes. It limits trip generation, noise, late-night activity, and lighting spillover in a way that protects adjacent residential areas. Commercial zoning removes that buffering function and replaces it with a district that allows: • • • • • • high trip-generating uses later operating hours on-site alcohol service larger structures amplified lighting and signage event-oriented or transient-oriented businesses This creates a direct adjacency of incompatible intensities, which Austin’s long-standing compatibility standards are meant to prevent. From a planning perspective, this is a leap, not a step — a direct escalation from low-impact, professional daytime use to open-ended commercial entitlement less than 500 feet from homes and a creek corridor. Austin’s compatibility model — reaffirmed repeatedly through Imagine Austin, Small Area Plans, and corridor studies — rests on three core principles: 1. Transitions in height and intensity matter. Office zoning operates at a height, traffic, and noise profile similar to civic or institutional uses — compatible with nearby homes. Commercial zoning authorizes much more intense activity that violates gradual transition principles. 2. Buffers protect health, safety, and quality of life. Transitional zoning avoids late-night noise, loading docks, bars, drive-throughs, and event venues where houses are sleeping, children are playing, or wildlife is nesting. 09 C14-2025-0087 - Lantana Tract 34; District 81 of 2 Health of residents is also impacted, with studies showing air quality impacts from nearby construction and high-traffic commercial uses have negative effects on breathing, lung health, asthma, elderly, and children. 3. Where you place intensity determines whether it succeeds or fails. Compatibility-driven land use ensures high-intensity uses thrive where appropriate, and neighborhoods remain stable where intended. Eliminating the buffer destabilizes both. Therefore, removing Office zoning here is not just a change — it contradicts the City’s own planning structure by eliminating the intended “step-down” layer between commercial activity and residential/environmentally sensitive land. At minimum, if Council moves forward, a Conditional Overlay and/or Restrictive Covenant must re-constitute compatibility protections, including …
Proposed Restrictive Covenant – [Tract 34 – Lantana Neighborhood Corner of William Cannon & Rialto - NPA-2025-0025.03 C14- 2025-0087] Background: there is a proposed zoning change from business to commercial near the Lantana neighborhood in Austin, Texas (Tract 34, zip code 78735). The ideal outcome for nearby residents is for the re-zoning to be denied and/or for this area to remain a green space. Though we (the residents within 500 feet of the site) are requesting restrictions, we are reasonable and not anti-development. We understand we cannot stop change and growth. Intent: To allow limited development that is compatible with the surrounding residential community and their families, protective of the environment, natural land and wildlife, and respectful of neighborhood character, safety, and quality of life. This Restrictive Covenant seeks to ensure that any redevelopment on this site enhances—not harms—the surrounding neighborhood. Residents welcome thoughtful growth but request clear boundaries to preserve the area’s safety, natural beauty, and livability for families, pets, and wildlife. Our neighborhood sits on the ecological edge of the Texas Hill Country, where the Edwards Plateau transitions into the Blackland Prairie. This area is defined by its mix of limestone terrain, mature oak and juniper woodlands, creek corridors, and diverse wildlife, including returning hawk populations, fox families, owls, and migratory birds that rely on intact habitat connections. Because West Oak Hill lies at this geographic and ecological boundary, even small changes in development intensity can create outsized impacts on water quality, wildlife movement, light pollution, noise levels, and the health of our shared greenbelt. The Hill Country–edge environment is exceptionally sensitive: it depends on low-impact lighting, protected tree canopy, careful stormwater management, and preservation of natural corridors. For this reason, any redevelopment in our area must incorporate the same environmental stewardship standards expected throughout the Texas Hill Country, ensuring that growth enhances — rather than damages — this unique and irreplaceable landscape. These requested conditions are consistent with long-established Hill Country environmental protections, including the City of Austin Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, SOS watershed standards, and regional dark-sky and wildlife-conservation principles widely adopted throughout the Texas Hill Country. 09 C14-2025-0087 - Lantana Tract 34; District 81 of 9 Prohibited or Restricted High-Impact Uses Below is a comprehensive list of high-impact, incompatible, or nuisance-prone commercial uses to be prohibited through a Restrictive Covenant. These categories reflect sources of noise, traffic, safety, lighting, and environmental issues for residentially-adjacent properties …
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18th, 2025 The COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION convened in a REGULAR MEETING on NOVEMBER 18th, 2025, at Permitting and Development Center, Room 1407, in Austin, Texas. Some members of the commission participated by video conference. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance: Cynthia Jaso Jenny Achilles Jose Noe Elias (Chair) Raul Longoria Valerie Menard Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ebonie Trice- Oliver Nyeka Arnold Taniquewa Brewster Tisha-Vonique Hood Sonia Martinez Board Members/Commissioners Absent: Jo Anne Ortiz Lyric Wardlow Staff Members in Attendance: Lorena Lopez Chavarin Miguel Lopez Marla Torrado Nefertitti Jackmon CALL TO ORDER Chair Elias called the meeting to order at 6:45 PM, with 10 members present. 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. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the October 14th, 2025, Community Development Commission meeting minutes. On Commissioner Longoria's motion, Commissioner Martinez seconded, and the October 14th, 2025, minutes were approved on a 10-0-0 vote. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) activities and outcomes. Presentation by Angel Zambrano, Program Manager III, Austin Public Health. Angel Zambrano presented. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Staff presentation regarding Austin Housing program activities and outcomes and the cadence and format for regular reports to the CDC. Presentation by Nefertitti Jackmon, Community Displacement Prevention Officer, Austin Housing. Nefertitti Jackmon presented. 4. Discussion on the process and potential priorities for future budget recommendations. Discussion led by Chair Elias. Chair Elias presented. COMMITTEE UPDATES 5. Update from Housing Committee of the CDC regarding DB90 Policy. Commissioner and Chair of the Housing Committee, Raul Longoria, presented. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Presentation and updates for River Park Development- new development over in Southeast Austin, and how it is going to impact the immediate communities. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 PM. 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 by calling 512-974-1606 at least 2 days prior to the meeting date. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Community Development Commission, please contact Edward Blake at 512-974-3108. CDC …
land use tool llall land justice community school & community powered atx land justic OurStorymaps History Austinislocatedonancestroallandsofdifferenttribes Whitesettlersarrivedinthe1820swhentheMexicangovernmentencourage colonizationforprofit StephenF.Austinbrought500settlerfamiles,establishedtheAustincolony andhelpedformtheTexanmilitia (latertheTexanRangers)whichviolently displacedindigenouspeople EarlyAustinreliedheavilyonlandspeculationandslavery The1928MasterPlanforcedBlackandMexican-AmericanresidentsintoEast Austin Federalredliningpolicies(1930s-1960s) EnvironmentalRacism Defining gentrification Steps to gentrification and displacement in working class communities of color A history of disinvestment Speculators or developers “flipping” properties Rezoning, subsidies, and other policies i CollectingStories Over 20 stories have been documented, highlighting the Ovevv r 20 stss ott ries havevv been documentett d, highlighting the gentrififf cation, histss ott ric displall cecc mnt and syss syy tss ett mic rarr cism in Austss in gentrification, historic displacemnt and systemic racism in Austin Rosewoods CoCC urtrr stt : Rosewoods Courts: Primarilyll AfAA rff ican American Living Primarily African American Living Private redevelopment and demolition along with no Privatett rerr devee evv loll pment and demolitii ion aloll ng witii h no tett netee stt rightstt caused displall cecc ment tenets rights caused displacement The Goodwin appartrr mentstt : The Goodwin apartments: AfAA tff ett r rerr devee evv loll pment, lell ss than 10% wererr ‘affff off rdrr ablell ’ After redevelopment, less than 10% were ‘affordable’ homes homes Displaced families and ⅓ of children at Govalle Displall cecc d faff milies and ⅓ ofoo childll rerr n at Govallell Elell mentatt ry Elementary Acacia Cliffff sff : Acacia Cliffs: DB90 prorr grarr m misrerr prerr sentett d as a tott ol tott increrr ase DB90 program misrepresented as a tool to increase affff off rdrr abilitii ytt living, rerr zozz ned itii stt unitii stt affordability living, rezoned its units Units that were 30-50% MFI now became luxury units – Unitii stt that wererr 30-50% MFI now became luxury unitii stt – fuff rtrr her displall cing rerr sidentstt further displacing residents Solutions People’sPlan CommunityLandTrust EquityOverlay andmore! OURASKS wewouldlikeyoutouse thistool AddmoreEastAustin stories Sharemoresolutions andideaswithus bit.ly/landjusticeatx
OUR APPROACH STRATEGY WORKING GROUP City of Austin Community Development Commission Members: Cmr. Tisha-Vonique (Lead), Chair Elias, Vice Chair Achilles, Cmr. Brewster, Cmr. Longoria, Cmr. Ortiz AIM: Community Development Commission (CDC) Strategy Working Group (SWG) aims to streamline the approach in which the CDC considers, contextualizes, and presents issues impacting communities of the poor and the community at large in Austin. CDC SWG as of 12-9-25 PURPOSE: SWG supports ongoing CDC efforts through effective and efficient feedback loops focused on prioritizing the priorities of communities of the poor in Austin. ● To shape thought process and decision making by City officials, employees, and staff affecting communities of the poor in Austin ● To expand on CDC discussions requiring further investigation ● To assess and deduce approaches to CDBG and CSBG grants ● To clarify narratives and priorities informed by communities of the ● To interpret and generate recommendations from CDC to City officials, departments, other Commissions, and City Council ● To inform and influence legislative considerations of City Council affecting communities of the poor in Austin OBJECTIVES: poor in Austin
OUR APPROACH AIM: Community Development Commission (CDC) Strategy Working Group (SWG) aims to streamline the approach in which the CDC considers, contextualizes, and presents issues impacting communities of the poor and the community at large in Austin. PURPOSE: SWG supports ongoing CDC efforts through effective and efficient feedback loops focused on prioritizing the priorities of communities of the poor in Austin. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES ● To clarify narratives and priorities informed by communities of the poor in Austin ● To expand on CDC discussions requiring further investigation ● To assess and deduce approaches to CDBG and CSBG grants affecting communities of the poor in Austin COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES ● To shape thought process and decision making by City officials, employees, and staff affecting communities of the poor in Austin ● To interpret and generate recommendations from CDC to City officials, departments, other Commissions, and City Council ● To inform and influence legislative considerations of City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OUTPUTS ● Discourse Workflow ● Codifying Importance ● Feedback Frameworks COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP (SWG) MEMBERS Cmr. Tisha-Vonique (SWG Lead) Chair Elias Vice Chair Achilles Cmr. Brewster Cmr. Longoria Cmr. Ortiz
DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION: Home Repair & Construction Services DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION: Home Repair & Construction Services Program Activities, Outcomes, Cadence & Report Format Program Activities, Outcomes, Cadence & Report Format Austin Housing | December 9, 2025 Contents Contents FY25 Households Served Demographic Information Geographic Impact Challenges & Opportunities Households Served ACTIVITY Home Repair Loan Program Minor Home Repair Program Private Lateral (PLAT) Plumbing Architectural Barrier Removal (Homeowner) Architectural Barrier Removal (Renter) GO! Repair TOTAL GOAL 6 HOUSEHOLDS SERVED 5 82 15 15 60 7 292 477 56 7 23 66 0 204 361 FUNDING CDBG CDBG Austin Water Austin Water CDBG Housing Trust Fund GO Bonds 2024 Annual Inquiries: 1,354 2025 Annual Inquiries: 1,379 For calendar year 2025, we served approximately 26% of households that submitted an initial application/inquiry. 3 Households Served ▪ While onboarding new nonprofit partners and HUD-required Environmental Reviews extended project timelines, these investments build long-term capacity. Repairs addressed critical health and safety risks such as faulty wiring, unsafe flooring, and inadequate heating, directly reducing emergency repair needs and improving household stability. ▪ Together, these programs served more than 361 households citywide, improving accessibility, safety, and quality of life. The ABR program’s overperformance highlights the strength of established systems, while the MHR program’s transitional challenges lay the groundwork for expanded reach in future years. Both programs underscore the City’s commitment to equity, independence, and community well-being, ensuring residents can thrive in safe, accessible homes. 4 Demographic Impact Home Loan Rehabilitation Program Ethnicity 20% 20% 60% African American Caucasian Hispanic Female Head of Household 40% 60% Yes No Age of Home 20% 20% 40% 20% 75 Years > 55 Years 45 Years 20 Years < 5 Geographic Impact ▪ This map shows the demographic dispersion of where households were served. ▪ This information is consistent with much of the existing data which show the socio-economic disparities with a large percentage of households receiving services throughout Austin’s Eastern Crescent. 6 Geographic Impact Key 0 Households 1 – 2 Households 3 – 5 Households 6 – 8 Households 7 Challenges & Opportunities Challenges ▪ Long waiting lists ▪ Increasing Construction Costs ▪ Staff Capacity ▪ Unpaid Taxes ▪ Federal Funding Opportunities ▪ Increase program efficiencies ▪ Multiple Funding Sources ▪ Expand the pool of contractors providing services ▪ Update Data Collection and Reporting Systems ▪ Outdated Data Collection and Reporting ▪ Update application process(es) Systems ▪ Targeted marketing of programs and home …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, November 10, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:56 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Sameer S Birring, Jeffery Bowen, Bianca A. Medina-Leal, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Michael Von Ohlen Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Thomas Ates, Yung-ju Kim Board Members absent: Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) 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 Regular meeting on October 13, 2025. On-Line Link: Oct 13, 2025 draft minutes The minutes from the meeting on October 13, 2025, were approved on Board member Michael Von Ohlen, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second, on 11-0 Vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0041 Christ May (Appellant) Warren Konkel (Owner) 6706 Bridge Hill Cove On-Line Link: ADV PACKET APPELLANT; ADV PACKET PERMIT HOLDER; PRESENTATION APPELLANT; PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER; AE REPORT Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) on the grounds that the approved work violates the applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district established under City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), including limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under City Code Sec. 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) and other applicable site development standards. The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone appeal to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. Previous Postponed Sign cases: 3. C16-2025-0005 Jonathan Perlstein for Elizabeth McFarland 4700 Weidemar Lane On-Line Link: ITEM03 ADV PACKET PART1, PART2, PART3, PRESENTATION 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 …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica ITEM02/1 Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent …
ITEM02/49 ITEM02/50 ITEM02/51 ITEM02/52 ITEM02/53 ITEM02/54 ITEM02/55 ITEM02/56 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 ITEM02/57 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 ITEM02/58 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. ITEM02/59 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. ITEM02/60 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 ITEM02/61 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips 2 ITEM02/62 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 ITEM02/63 Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing 4 ITEM02/64 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 ITEM02/65 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, …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS, November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. ITEM03/1 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, …
ITEM03/35 ITEM03/36 ITEM03/37 ITEM03/38 ITEM03/39 ITEM03/40 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 ITEM03/41 ITEM03/42 ITEM03/43 ITEM03/44 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. ITEM03/45 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 …
