Idealhealth: A sex positive, status neutral, and affirming sexual health clinic at CUC Presentation Overview • What is the Idealhealth clinic? • Where is it located? • What services will be provided? • What are the hours of operation? • Who can be seen at the sexual health clinic? • How to get connected to the sexual health clinic 2 The Idealhealth clinic: Inclusivity, diversity, equality, accessibility, and sex liberation 3 Sandra Joy Anderson (SJA) Clinic (campus of Huston-Tillotson University) 1705 E 11th St, Austin, Tx 78702 4 Idealhealth services offered • STI testing and treatment, including rapid HIV start • HIV prevention/PrEP and PEP • Gender affirming care • Contraceptive options (i.e. Nexplanon, Nuvaring, birth control pills, etc.) • Evaluation and management of sexual dysfunction (i.e. vaginal atrophy and dryness related to menopause, erectile dysfunction, and more) • Sexual health related vaccines: HPV, Hepatitis A and B, MPOX • DoxyPEP • Expedited Partner Therapy • Linkage to primary care and more!! 5 Hours of Operation and Staff First day of operation: November 4, 2024 • Clinic hours: Monday – Friday 8am- • • 5pm Lab hours: Monday-Friday 8am- 4:30pm (closed 11:30am-1:30pm for lunch) • The clinic will not serve minors • Sexual health staff • 3 Providers, 1 nurse, and 2 medical assistants 6 7 Getting connected to the Idealhealth clinic • Internal referrals • Walk-ins • Self-scheduling option through Mychart for established patients • Call 512-978-9015 to schedule an appointment 88 Thank you!
LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Commission & Immigrant Communities 02/10/25 Roberto Lopez Senior Advocacy Director Texas Civil Rights Project Agenda ● Grounding ● Texas Legislature ● Resources ● Practices Limits to what I can address today ● Can: ○ Broad Attacks on Immigrant Communities ○ Movement Ecosystem, Resources to Access ○ How the commission can help ● Can’t: questions ○ Specific “Know Your Rights” material & legal Advocacy: Texas Legislature ● Troubling Bills: ○ SB 1 - 6.5 Billion for “Operation Lone Star” (State Immigration Enforcement) ○ 287 (g) requirements ■ SB 134, HB 2361, etc. ○ Undocumented Youth in Education - HB 160, strips residency status for Higher Ed, requires campus to alert police if there’s an undocumented person. Texas Legislature bit.ly/TCRPinsiders - Weekly Updates on happenings at the lege bit.ly/TCRPlegeaction -Volunteer options to advocate with us. What else can you do? 1. Undertake Preventive Measures 2. Prepare for an Emergency Response 3. Support Advocacy Work Preventive Resources ● “Know Your Rights” (KYR) material ○ ILRC Red Cards: https://www.ilrc.org/red-cards-tarjetas-rojas ○ We Have Rights videos: www.wehaverights.us ● Upcoming KYR Presentations: ○ TCRP @ Frida Friday ATX 2/16 ○ aclutx.org/events through March -------------------> ● Austin Sanctuary Network: 512-640-9080 ○ “Resources and events related to deportation defense and/or ways to get involved with ASN” Emergency Resources ● ICE Detainee Locator: ○ locator.ice.gov ● Austin’s Legal Support post arrest: ○ RAICES ○ American Gateways ○ Private Immigration Firms ● *Potential Hotlines* Practice ● Refresh: 10 - 20 minutes every other meeting to refresh on latest resources, immigration news, policy changes. ● Learn: Every member of the commission attends at least 1 immigration related KYR in the next 3 months. ● Advocate: The commission supports local policy pushes in the coming months to protect immigrant communities. Questions? ● Follow us on social media! Tiktok/Instagram/Facebo ok/LinkedIn: @TXCivilRights txcivilrights.org Questions & Answers txcivilrights.org
Austin-Travis County Food Plan ATCFPB February 2024 – Staff Update City of Austin Food Plan Updates Report back to Council in Spring 2025 ● City staff will provide a Memo to Council in spring 2025 ○ Updates on Strategy progress including defined leadership roles and responsibilities for implementation of the various strategies within the Plan ○ Funding needs in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget for investment in and implementation of the Plan and to identify strategy priorities to be included as part of the next bond package ○ Updates on a Food Plan Dashboard ○ Updates on an Implementation Coalition Dashboard Preview Implementation Coalition ● City and County staff are exploring a funding opportunity to support a Food Plan implementation coalition (Strategy 9.1) ● Staff are scoping and negotiating specifics and hope to have an Interlocal Agreement complete in spring 2025 ● RFP for support of an implementation coalition will be released in mid-2025 ● City staff are seeking ATCFPB input on the RFP. Travis County Food Plan Updates Exploring Departmental Alignment ● Travis County Staff Food Plan Team Updates ○ Briefed County Executives on outreach plan: 1/24/2025 ○ Next step: consulting with departmental staff leaders to explore Food Plan goal & strategy alignment with departmental goals ○ Goal: share top-aligned goals & strategies with Commissioners Court members, Spring 2025 ● Travis County Comprehensive Parks Plan Community Engagement ○ Please participate! https://outdoorengage.mysocialpinpoint.com/travis ○ Open now through February 13, 2025 Thank You! Travis County Environmental Quality: Sustainability Programs www.austintexas.gov/food /austinsustainability
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20250210-005 Date: February 10, 2025 Subject: Animal Services Office Strategic Plan 2025-2030 Motioned By: Commissioner Nilson Recommendation The Animal Advisory Commission recommends the Animal Services Office Strategic Plan 2025-2030 as written, with the following modifications passed by the Commission: Seconded By: Vice Chair Linder Spay Neuter (Page 13) • Goal 2: Add language to Strategy A as noted in underlined terms so that sentence is: “Partner with volunteers and organizations that support community cats to identify opportunities to enhance, reduce barriers to, and maximize the impact of trap-neuter- return programs. Open Intake (Page 14) Open Intake (Page 15): Live Release (Page 16): Live Release (Page 17): Open Intake (Page 26): • Goal 1: Add Strategy C as follows: “C. Develop methods to identify and implement policies to prioritize emergency cases and most at-risk animals for immediate intake.” • Goal 3: Remove “Get” in title. • Add language to Strategy A as noted in underlined terms so that sentence is: “Review, research, and provide recommendations on policies, regulations, processes, and programs that advance pet-friendly policies (e.g., restrictions on pet rent, pet deposits, breed restrictions, and weight limits), seeking review and/or approval from governing bodies as applicable. • Goal 1: Add Strategy G as follows: “G. Develop and implement plan to foster media partnerships in English and Spanish and increase opportunities for media coverage.” • Goal 2: Add Strategy E as follows: “E. Analyze and explore opportunities for fixed satellite adoption centers in high-traffic locations.” • Goal 1, Measures 1 and 2: Request that those measurements be categorized for strays and owner surrenders and listed by the number of animals in each category as well. 1 of 2 Vote For: Chair Clinton, Vice Chair Linder, Commissioners Dulzaides, Herrera, Huddleston, Nemer, Nilson, Smagula, and Tucker. Against: n/a Abstain: n/a Absent: Commissioner Hoke Recuse: Commissioner Holt Attest: [Staff or board member can sign] Christi Vitela Animal Advisory Staff Liaison 2 of 2
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: (20250210-003): Support for community agriculture on City parkland WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan was approved by City Council on October 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, Goal 1 of the Food Plan is to expand community food production, preserve agricultural lands, and increase the amount of farmland dedicated to regenerative food production long-term in Austin/Travis County which includes Strategy 1.12 to “fully fund City and County park plans that include strategies to support community agriculture (such as the Vision Plan at John Treviño Jr. Metropolitan Park) and include support for staff to implement community agriculture programs in these locations and distribute food grown to surrounding communities”; and WHEREAS, “community agriculture” may be defined as agricultural activities that have a larger community impact, including, but not limited to a) individuals, organizations or groups growing food for distribution through food pantries, faith communities or resource centers, b) community gardens and food forests, or c) agricultural education. WHEREAS, the John Treviño Jr. Metropolitan Park Vision Plan was adopted by the Austin City Council on October 15, 2020 with one of the defined values to adapt the heritage of the site by carrying the site’s productive agricultural heritage into the present and future by exploring possibilities for food production and agricultural education, and includes “The Farm” in the design of the park to to connect local food production and education with opportunities for multi-generational participation; and WHEREAS, Austin Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has funding and is in the design process for Phase I of the Treviño Vision Plan which includes basic park infrastructure to be able to open the park to the public, and Phase II of the Treviño Vision Plan could include community agriculture at the park; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin’s 2024 Environmental Investment Plan recommends $10 million in funding for Phase II of the Treviño Vision Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin already has a Community Gardens Program (started in 2009 when the Austin City Council passed the Urban Farm Ordinance) to establish a single point of contact and streamline the process for establishing community gardens on city land; and WHEREAS community survey responses for Our Parks, Our Future, the City of Austin Parks & Recreation Department’s Long Range Plan names the following strategies: 4.4 “Increase the number of dedicated park staff for the community garden program”, 4.4.1. “Consider …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20250210-006: Support for the Development of Local Food Hubs and Strengthening Regional Food Systems WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report states that less than 0.6% of the food consumed in Travis County is produced locally, and that approximately 16.8 acres of farmland are lost daily to development pressures, underscoring the critical need to support regional food systems; and WHEREAS, schools in the Austin-Travis County region spend millions of dollars annually on food, most of which is sourced from large-scale distributors that typically obtain their products from farms outside of Texas. Even when Texas-produced food is available, it is often sourced from regions outside of Central Texas, resulting in long supply chains, a larger carbon footprint, and a missed opportunity for local farmers in the Central Texas region; and WHEREAS, The Austin-Travis County Food Plan, approved by the Austin City Council in October 2024, calls for the development and support of central aggregation, processing, and distribution facilities (food hubs) to supply regional institutional purchasers with local agricultural goods, ensuring the stability and resilience of the food system in Austin/Travis County (Goal 5, Strategy 5.1); and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan calls for supporting institutions and developing supply-chain infrastructure and regional food networks to facilitate large-scale pro-climate, pro-health food procurement, supporting regenerative agricultural producers and increasing access to sustainable, healthy food options (Goal 1, Strategy 1, Food and Product Consumption); and WHEREAS, In 2019, the Sustainable Food Center (SFC) conducted a Central Texas food hub feasibility study and concluded that the most effective path forward at the time was to leverage existing intermediaries rather than invest in a new brick-and-mortar facility. The study recommended immediate actions, including: ● Matchmaking between producers and institutional buyers to build relationships and ● Establishing micro-aggregation nodes to create distribution models that could evolve into a strengthen local supply chains. larger hub-and-spoke system; and WHEREAS, Since 2019, SFC has facilitated supplier-buyer matchmaking, and a food hub pilot program has been launched in partnership between the Central Texas Food Bank and Central Texas school districts including Lake Travis ISD, Manor ISD, and Florence ISD. However, significant barriers persist in scaling institutional procurement of local food; and WHEREAS, The landscape of local food procurement has changed significantly since 2019. Key developments include: ● Loss of Key Supply Infrastructure: The largest local farm in …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20250210-04C: Support for Agricultural Land Acquisition and Preservation in Austin, Texas WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report indicates that less than 0.6% of the food consumed in Travis County is produced locally, and that approximately 16.8 acres of farmland are lost daily to development pressures, underscoring the critical need for dedicated agricultural land preservation efforts; and WHEREAS, land in Austin-Travis County is continuing to increase in value and decrease in quantity, it is imperative to act quickly as the cost of action will only increase over time; and WHEREAS, agricultural lands are vital to local food security, environmental sustainability, emergency preparedness, and climate resilience; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, approved by the Austin City Council in October 2024, includes strategic, measurable, and time-bound goals and strategies to strengthen food security, promote environmental sustainability, and address climate change; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan’s Goal 1 prioritizes expanding community food production, preserving agricultural lands, and increasing the amount of farmland dedicated to regenerative food production long-term in Austin and Travis County; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.1 of the Food Plan calls for the preservation of land for food production in Central Texas through conservation easements, fee-simple purchases, and land-banking, ensuring that farmland remains dedicated to agricultural use; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.2 directs the City of Austin and Travis County to pursue capital funding sources to finance the conservation of land for agricultural use through conservation easements or direct purchases; and WHEREAS, preserving agricultural land also supports the goals of the Austin Climate Equity Plan by promoting sustainable land use, strengthening local food systems, and reducing carbon footprints through localized food production; and WHEREAS, Natural Systems Goal 2 of the Austin Climate Equity Plan aims to protect 500,000 acres of farmland across the five-county region through legal conservation or regenerative agriculture programs by 2030; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin currently lacks a dedicated mechanism to effectively manage and prioritize the preservation of agricultural lands; and WHEREAS, the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board’s Recommendation Number 20240318-7 urged the City of Austin to allocate funds and create a full-time equivalent (FTE) position to support the implementation of the Food Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board encourages the Austin City Council to allocate funds and explore all available means …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Recommendation Number: 20250210-04D: Support for Farmland Acquisition and Preservation in Travis County WHEREAS, the 2022 City of Austin State of the Food System Report indicates that less than 0.6% of the food consumed in Travis County is produced locally, and that approximately 16.8 acres of farmland are lost daily to development pressures, underscoring the critical need for dedicated agricultural land preservation efforts; and WHEREAS, land in Austin-Travis County is continuing to increase in value and decrease in quantity, it is imperative to act quickly as the cost of action will only increase over time; and WHEREAS, agricultural lands are vital to local food security, environmental sustainability, emergency preparedness, and climate resilience; and WHEREAS, the Travis County Commissioners Court passed a Resolution of Support for the Austin-Travis County Food Plan on October 29, 2024, whose goals and strategies prioritize addressing local food security and environmental sustainability; and WHEREAS, the Austin/Travis County Food Plan’s Goal 1 prioritizes expanding community food production, preserving agricultural lands, and increasing the amount of farmland dedicated to regenerative food production long-term in Austin and Travis County; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.1 of the Food Plan calls for the preservation of land for food production in Central Texas through conservation easements, fee-simple purchases, and land-banking, ensuring that farmland remains dedicated to agricultural use; and WHEREAS, Strategy 1.2 directs the City of Austin and Travis County to pursue capital funding sources to finance the conservation of land for agricultural use through conservation easements or direct purchases; and WHEREAS, Travis County has successfully managed agricultural leases on 845 acres of agricultural land through the Parks Land Stewardship Program; and WHEREAS, Travis County currently operates a Conservation Easement Program allowing landowners to preserve agricultural, natural, or cultural resources while retaining ownership of their property. This program, funded by voter-approved bond funds and supplemented by donations, has successfully preserved significant tracts of land and helps protect vital resources such as watersheds, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands; and WHEREAS, the Conservation Easement Program has been a key tool for Travis County in its efforts to protect land from development, with more than $24.9 million approved by voters between 2011 and 2017 for the purchase of easements. The program prioritizes properties in conservation corridors and those with significant environmental or agricultural value, aligning with the broader goals of the Austin/Travis County Food Plan to protect farmland for regenerative …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 02 DATE: February 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0001 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) - ABSTAINED ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____VACANT (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Colton Gohlke OWNER: Ascension Seton – Maria Vinhais ADDRESS: 1201 38th Street VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code; Section 25-10-130 (Commercial Sign District Regulations) (B) to allow from one (1) freestanding sign (maximum allowed), to adding an additional seven (7) freestanding signs (total of eight (8)) in order to erect free-standing sign(s) for Ascension Seton Medical Center in a “PUD”, Commercial Sign District. Note: 25-10-130 - COMMERCIAL SIGN DISTRICT REGULATIONS. (A) This section applies to a commercial sign district. (B) One freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. Additional freestanding signs may be permitted under Section 25-10- 131 (Additional Freestanding Signs Permitted). (C) A roof sign may be permitted instead of a freestanding sign under Section 25-10-132 (Roof Sign Instead of Freestanding Sign). (D) Wall signs are permitted. (E) One flag for each curb cut is permitted. (F) This subsection prescribes the maximum sign area. (1) For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed 20 percent of the facade area of the first 15 feet of the building. (2) For a freestanding sign, the sign area may not exceed the lesser of (a) 0.7 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or (b) for a sign other than a multi-tenant sign, 200 square feet; or (c) for a multi-tenant sign, 250 square feet. (G) The sign height may not exceed the greater of: (1) 30 feet above frontage street pavement grade; or (2) 6 feet above grade at the base of the sign. Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 14, 8-28-17. 25-10-131 - ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS PERMITTED. (A) This section applies in the expressway corridor, downtown, and commercial sign districts. (B) In this section, "lot" includes contiguous lots used for a single use or unified development. (C) For a lot with total street frontage of more than 400 feet, two freestanding signs are permitted. (D) For a lot fronting on two streets, one …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 03 DATE: Monday February 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0048 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____VACANT(M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Maximiliano Martinez OWNER: Shaun Vembutty ADDRESS: 4013 Clawson Road VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from lot width requirements to decrease: and rear flag lot width from 50 feet (required) to 49.82 feet (requested) in order to subdivide the existing tract into two SF-3 lots in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to April 14, 2025; Board member Yung-ju Kim second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO APRIL 14, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: the front lot width from 50 feet (required) to 35 feet (requested), 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair Diana Ramirez for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 04 DATE: Monday February 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0001 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Jeffery Bowen (D6) ___Y____Janel Venzant (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___-____VACANT (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Rodney K. Bennett OWNER: Adnan Awad ADDRESS: 525 Howard Lane VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-814 (Service Station Use) four [24] (requested) and vehicle queue lanes (requested) in order to erect a Gas Station in a “LI-PDA” Limited Industrial Services-Planned Development Area zoning district. (3) to increase queue lanes from eight [8] vehicle queue lanes to twelve [12] (2) to increase the fuel dispensers from sixteen [16] (maximum allowed) to twenty- Note: 25-2-814 - SERVICE STATION USE. A service station use: (1) must be screened from the street by a building or a landscape buffer that includes shade trees; (2) may not have more than 16 fuel dispensers; and (3) may not have more than eight vehicle queue lanes. Source: Ord. 20060831-068; Ord. 20110804-008. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Approve; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 10-0 votes; GRANTED. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: as previously evidenced by multiple variance requests, the city’s queuing design is outdated, the new normal for convenience stores is a larger experience. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: the lot has an oddly shaped and wide waste water easement that restricts the design. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: at 2800 S Heatherwilde they were approved for 12 queuing spaces, at 12401Techridge they were approved for 12 queuing spaces, at 1701 E Howard Lane they were approved for 12 queuing spaces. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: the adjoining neighbors are commercial and because the vehicles have …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 05 DATE: Monday, February 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0031 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Jeffery Bowen (D6) _______Janel Venzant (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______VACANT (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Victoria Haase OWNER: Austin Area School for Dyslexics, Inc. ADDRESS: 2615 ½ HILLVIEW RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section: o feet (requested) o (required) to 15 feet (requested) o (required) to 5 feet (requested) o (requested) o percent (requested) Impervious Coverage to increase from 45 percent (maximum allowed) to 60 Setback Requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback from 10 feet Building Coverage to increase from 40 percent (maximum allowed) to 60% 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations): Setback Requirements to decrease the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet Height Requirements to increase the height from 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 50 25-2-832 (Private Schools) (1) a site must be located on a street that has a paved width of at least 40 feet (required) to 30 feet (requested) from the site to where it connects with another street that has a paved width of at least 40 feet (required) to 30 feet (requested) in order to erect school buildings and structured sub-grade parking facilities in a “SF-3- NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (West Austin Neighborhood Group). BOARD’S DECISION: POSTPONED TO November 14, 2024, BY APPLICANT; November 14, 2024 Postponed to December 9, 2024 due to the absence of a sufficient number of Board Members required for a formal vote on each case; December 9, 2024 POSPONED TO JANUARY 13, 2025; January 13, 2025 POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 10, 2025; FEB 10, 2025 POSTPONED TO MAY 12, 2025 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 06 DATE: Monday February 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0040 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Jeffery Bowen (D6) _______Janel Venzant (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______VACANT (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Leah Bojo OWNER: Chris Affinito ADDRESS: 600 CUMBERLAND RD VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Article 3, Additional Requirements for Certain Districts, Division 5 –Combining and Overlay Districts, Section 25-2-654 (Density Bonus ETOD (DBETOD) Combining District Regulations: (H) Compatibility Requirements (3) Any structure that is located less than 50 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet (maximum allowed) to 2 feet -4 27/32 inches – 5 feet 6 inches (requesting) from 25 feet (minimum width allowed) to 2 feet -4 27/32 inches – 5 feet -6 inches (requesting), in order to erect a Condominium Residential Building in a “GR-V-ETOD, DBETOD and GR-ETOD-DBETOD”, Community Commercial-Vertical Mixed-Use Building-Equitable Transit-Oriented Development and Community Commercial-Equitable Transit-Oriented Development-Density Bonus ETOD. (H) Compatibility Requirements (4) (a) from compatibility buffer to decrease the Note: The Land Development Code Section 25-2-654 (Density Bonus ETOD (DBETOD) Combining District Regulations This section applies to a property with density bonus ETOD (DBETOD) combining district zoning. (A) This section governs over a conflicting provision of this title or other ordinance. (B) Compatibility Requirements. (H) (1) A building is not required to comply with Article 10 (Compatibility Standards) in Subchapter C. (2) In this subsection, (a) TRIGGERING PROPERTY means a site: (i) with at least one dwelling unit but less than four dwelling units; and (ii) is zoned urban family residence (SF-5) district or more restrictive; and (b) STRUCTURE includes a portion of a structure. (3) Any structure that is located less than 50 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet. (4) Compatibility Buffer. A compatibility buffer is required along a site's property line that is shared with a triggering property. (a) The minimum width of a compatibility buffer is 25 feet. (b) A compatibility buffer must comply with Section 25-8-700 (Minimum Requirements for Compatibility Buffers). BOARD’S DECISION: November 14, 2024 Postponed to December 9, 2024 due to the absence of a sufficient number of Board Members required for …
