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