ITEM02 C15-2025-0035 LATE BACKUP OCT13_SUPPORT — original pdf

Backup

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 looms forward, disrupting the block’s character. • FAR (Floor Area Ratio) – Keeps buildings at a human scale. Our NCCD’s 0.40 FAR cap ensures proportionality and space for trees and light. A proposed 0.64 FAR would impose oversized, block-filling massing better suited to West Campus, not SF-3 North University lots. Conclusion The North University NCCD exists to balance growth with preservation of our neighborhood’s character, safety, and livability. This project, as filed, disregards those standards and undermines the intent of the zoning overlay. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Board to grant the appeal, reverse the permit approval, and require any resubmission to demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joseph Kirchhoff October 6th, 2025 Address: 203 ½ E 34th St, Unit B, Austin, TX 78705 Phone: Email: j BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 BOA Case Address: 205 E 34th St. Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/2-SUPPORTITEM02/3-SUPPORTITEM02/4-SUPPORTOctober 9, 2025 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 support the appeal C15-2025-0035. We live at 310 E 34th Street and own the apartment building at 308 E 34th Street. We have lived in this neighborhood for 49 years and we have firsthand experience of the fallout from the Board of Adjustment allowing this type of housing in our neighborhood; i.e., the Steck House at 305 and 307 E 34th Street. I support the appeal as this proposed development will severely impact our quality of life on 34th Street. It does not support/conform to the North University Neighborhood Conservation–Neighborhood Plan, Part 7 of which states: “New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” The proposed project does not meet several key requirements of the NCCD and violates the overall intent of the NCCD. Use / type concerns (apartment-style, functionally four units). This is obviously a four-unit project thinly disguised as three units to meet SF-3 guidelines. The plans and marketing indicate an apartment/communal living program rather than a family-residential form: 20 bedrooms with shared kitchen/living, rooms labeled only “bedroom,” and a rear “single” building that mirrors the front duplex layout (two front entries, two stairways, a fire-rated wall, and a kitchen/wet-bar pair separated by a small pass-through). In substance this appears to be four units, inconsistent with the ≤ 3 units contemplated for SF-3 under HOME and the NCCD’s family-residential context. Again, as we know from past experience, the use will be student housing with a minimum of 20 people living in a small area with zero parking provided. And people who live in these houses do have cars, as much as the City would like to believe that they don’t. Come take a look at our street when UT is in session. ITEM02/5-SUPPORT We also have many issues on our street with water runoff (see Steck House again, which has flooded the neighboring condos.) On a personal note, imagine your own homes abutting this development. Besides the height and boxing in/overshadowing the neighboring homes and the inconvenience of no parking along the street, there will be people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Our experience with the Steck House is that parties begin at roughly 11 pm and end around 4 am. These parties include live music, amplified sound, and sometimes hundreds of attendees. Police do not respond to complaints. If you want to pursue a sound ordinance violation, the onus will fall solely upon you to take decibel measurements and pursue recourse through municipal court. And if you prevail in court, the noisemakers will *maybe* get a small fine or slap on the wrist. Supporting more housing such as this will only decrease the value of remaining properties on this street and increase the likelihood of NUNA becoming a West Campus like area full of student housing. 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. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Terry S. McGinty, Leon Barish, October 9, 2025 310 E 34th and 308 E 34th Streets Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 BOA Case Address: 205 E 34th St. Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/6-SUPPORT (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:2) (cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:5)(cid:32)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:5)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:30)(cid:38)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:37) (cid:6)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:41)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5) (cid:42)(cid:43)(cid:5)(cid:40)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5) (cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:47)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:45)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:29)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:39)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5) (cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:37) (cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:48)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:39)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:39)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:45)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5) (cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:45)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:39)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:49)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:40)(cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:50)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:29)(cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5) (cid:51)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:52)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:53)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:54)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:37) (cid:16)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:37) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:26) (cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:57)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:59)(cid:56)(cid:60)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5) (cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:11)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:60)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:31)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:37) (cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:5)(cid:36)(cid:5)(cid:30)(cid:38)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:57)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:62)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:63)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:59)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:45)(cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:59)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:59)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:62)(cid:42)(cid:26)(cid:64)(cid:63)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:65)(cid:16)(cid:66)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:45)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:11)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:37) (cid:34)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:11)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:5) (cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:62)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:5) (cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:50)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:67)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:54)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:45)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:68)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:5)(cid:32)(cid:40)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:60)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5) (cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:63)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:59)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5) ITEM02/7-SUPPORT(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:62)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:42)(cid:27)(cid:59)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:42)(cid:59)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:43)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:57)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5) (cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:63)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:5) (cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:37) (cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:46)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:40)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:35)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:61)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:49)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:60)(cid:66)(cid:5) (cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:39)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:45)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:69)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:70)(cid:58)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:46)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:11)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:35)(cid:33)(cid:9)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:35)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:12)(cid:37) (cid:28)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5) (cid:60)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:59)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:25)(cid:43)(cid:30)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:60)(cid:66)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:60)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:37) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:35)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:46)(cid:33)(cid:35)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:65)(cid:59)(cid:30)(cid:59)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:59)(cid:56)(cid:60)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:35)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:44)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:10)(cid:46)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:37) (cid:55)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:45)(cid:5)(cid:40)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:40)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:37) (cid:34)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:24) (cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:33)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:35)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:5)(cid:32)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12) (cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:2)(cid:41)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:31)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:74)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:42)(cid:27)(cid:59)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:59)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:27) (cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:58)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:5)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:5)(cid:30)(cid:38)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:34)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:24)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:31)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:5)(cid:5) ITEM02/8-SUPPORTDear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I strongly support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 3309 Grooms Street #205, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. The application has significant errors/omissions, preventing you as reviewers and neighbors from proper review! I strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD was adopted with purpose by City Council The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns nor demonstrate compliance with requirements: • FAR limit (0.40) – my historically significant building & 16 adjacent owners are suffering extreme structural and drainage damages b/c FAR got pushed and development commenced to violate impervious cover. The lack of discipline to follow code at the beginning has resulted in disharmony and costly disputes and remediation that takes years! Please DO NOT ALLOW THIS! • Height limit (30′) – their proposed height is imposing to the beautiful tree lines, sunrises and sunsets that we currently enjoy around the neighborhood and will affect neighborhood well-being. Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) – there are many other profitable options to develop this site that do not need to be so intrusive and offensive to the way our neighborhood is configured. • • Front-setback will make this a very intrusive place especially combined with the egregious height 2) City staff should enforce the NCCD as the priority where it differs from base code or other ordinances. A complete, compliant submittal before approval should be required as it is the purpose of the NCCD. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). 3) Unit Count Standard Exceeded. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. ITEM02/9-SUPPORTunder §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of 0.92 exceeds the 0.65 cap for three units. Cramming more residents will create more cars. Street parking is already problematic. We need a stop sign to slow traffic on 34th at Grooms. This is already an accident waiting to happen with people speeding down 34th and visibility problematic due to the low-lying intersection and so much street parking that blocks visibility. While I realize there are no parking minimums I urge the City to be vigilant in packing density (the tenants will have many cars with this many bedrooms). Evidence is my property (81% have one car per bedroom). Steck House has a parking lot full of cars and they park in alley and side street which is problematic as well. You have an opportunity to avoid an accident that could mame or kill people in our neighborhood with a different design that is more suitable to neighborhood well being and safety. Just because you can approve all on-street parking, doesn’t mean you should, especially where safety is a concern. 5) Complete Lack of Respect for City Process and Lack of transparency to neighbors. My entire building of 16 owners did not receive the required demolition notice! The demolition crew informed me when I was walking my dog and inquired about what was happening that they were rushed and being yelled at by the owner to get the structures down quickly which indicates a lack of respect for process and neighbors. I work in this industry and respect the process of neighborhoods and cities working together for responsible development. We are not in a housing crisis here now nor in the immediate future. This project as designed is not an ‘affordable housing’ play, it is an attempt at a revenue grab by a greedy and inexperienced investment group creating ‘communal housing’ that violates code and risks 34th street to becoming a pseudo fraternity/sorority row. This developer doesn’t care about our neighborhood nor understand or have a background in housing. I urge the City to be careful about letting a false narrative drive irresponsible development! There are multi- family vacancies all around us that are offering incentives for move-in; these are high quality units not squalor. Request to please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application in compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michelle Mace 3309 Grooms Street #205 Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/10-SUPPORT ITEM02/11-SUPPORTITEM02/12-SUPPORTDear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 3309 Grooms St. Apt 204, Austin, TX 78705, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/13-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Courtney Torregrossa Address: 3309 Grooms St., Apt 204, Austin, TX 78705 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/14-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: We support the appeal C15-2025-0035. We are the property owners at 303 E 35th St., which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. We therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose
 The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application
 The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum:
 • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′)
 • FAR limit (0.40)
 • Height limit (30′)
 The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances.
 Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more- restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns.
 Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92, well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency.
 Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff would not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors ITEM02/15-SUPPORTasked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request.
 Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
 Marianne K. Mulrey and John H. Lacy October 10, 2025
 Address: 303 E 35th St., Austin TX 78705
 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035
 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/16-SUPPORTDear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the [property owner / utility account holder] at [your address], which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose
 The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application
 The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum:
 • Front-setback averaging
 • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′)
 • FAR limit (0.40)
 • Height limit (30′)
 The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances.
 Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more- restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns.
 Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency.
 Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/17-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request.
 Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jolene Hudson
 Address: 301 East 34th Street, Unit 104, Austin, TX 78705
 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035
 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/18-SUPPORT
 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 200 E 34th St, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/19-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cindy Wilkinson Address: 200 E 34th St Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/20-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 3306 Grooms Street, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose
 The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application
 The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum:
 • Front-setback averaging
 • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′)
 • FAR limit (0.40)
 • Height limit (30′)
 The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances.
 Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more- restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns.
 Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency.
 Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/21-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request.
 Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
 Molly Aldred and Brian Aldred 3306 Grooms Street, Austin TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035
 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/22-SUPPORTDear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the utility account holder at 204 E 34th St. Unit A, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested ITEM02/23-SUPPORTparties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff would not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Caelin Talongo Address: 204 E 34th St Unit A 78705 Email: c BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/24-SUPPORT BOA Case Number C15-2025-0 035 Case Address: 205 E. 34th St., Austin, Texas, 78705 Public Hearing: Board of Adjustment October 13, 2025 Pamela Bell, Ph.D., President North University Neighborhood Association (NUNA) 3500 Speedway, Austin 78705 DATE: October 12, 2025 The North University Neighborhood Association supports the appeal of the 205 E. 34th project as building plans approved by staff do not follow the North University NCCD-NP, and it does not follow City ordinances. We also request a refund of the required fee to file for the hearing. BACKGROUND The project did not begin well. The developers hired a demolition contractor who bulldozed the existing, newly remodeled affordable two-family use prior to noticing the neighbors. They were awakened and frightened by the noise, and appalled that the building materials, including new appliances, were destroyed. They had no idea the property had been sold. Despite neighbors’ numerous attempts to refer City Planning staff to the North University NCCD-NP, staff refused to meet and advised us that due to the “expedited review,” we must wait until the permit was issued. At that time we noted that during the “expedited review” there were numerous rejections of the building plans. Neighbors learned that we had only a few days to appeal, that we must pay a large fee ($3253.93 with the amount and due date a moving target). This is unacceptable and contrary to responsible planning. The last-minute deadlines for fees and filing, and a sudden meeting staff requested for no reason (declined) made neighbors feel that the city’s tactics were to make us withdraw from the hearing. The North University NCCD “is intended to protect the patterns of the neighborhood that were established for residential use. Single family homes and some of older multi-family structures were built in the context of the traditional development patterns. New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” This project does not follow the traditional pattern of North University in any way. The building permit allows buildings that do not follow the traditional residential elements of the NCCD. The Residential Design and Compatibility Standards in the Land Development Code were a useful tool in ensuring that new development respected existing development, but the City ITEM02/25-SUPPORT Council has now changed this to be only a punishment to folks who only want one dwelling on their lot. Developments with multiple units are exempted so that assurance of compatibility no longer applies. The HOME Ordinance does not apply, because it specifies the requirements for three-unit dwellings in SF-3, but not on SF3-NCCD-NP lots. This means the SF3-NCCD-NP requirements spelled out in the North University NCCD-NP do apply to this project. (Note: While the ETOD/DBETOD ordinance does not apply to SF3 zoning, the ordinance specifically applies it to multifamily properties in an NCCD and rezones each property.) In addition, in 2024, Council Member Zo Qadri provided the following answer to “Please explain how HOME, HOME2, and ETOD interface with our neighborhoods’ NCCDs. Which ones override the others? Is the City planning on eventually eliminating or amending specific neighborhood NCCDs?” “HOME and HOME2 apply only to non-single-family zoned properties in NCCDs.” Specific Issues within the Approved Plans OVERALL APPEARANCE The drawings for the project do not in any way reflect the traditional nature of the cottages in the neighborhood. SETBACKS The front setback does not follow the North University NCCD-NP’s prescription for determining front setbacks: a. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block. The maximum setback may not exceed the average setback by more than five feet. “ The side setbacks violate the NCCD-NP rules for side setbacks: “A new principal structure must be at least 10’ from a principal structure on an adjacent lot.” The surveys of 203 E. 34th St. and 207 E. 34th St. in combination with the 205 E. 34th St. site plan clearly show that the 10’ requirement is violated by Building 1, which sits 8.5’ from a primary structure at 207 E. 34th and by Building 2, which sits 9’2” from a primary structure at 203 E. 34th St. HEIGHT: The maximum height allowed in the North University NCCD-NP is 30’. The plans do not include a correct measurement of the building height as required by city code. Using the height of the huge roof in the middle of the building, which per code is the roof that sets the building height, results in a height of 31’7 and 5/16”, well over the 30’ height limit. ITEM02/26-SUPPORT FLOOR AREA RATIO The North University NCCD-NP specifies the FAR for a duplex (which was the most intense land use in SF3 when the NCCD was crafted) is limited to 0.40/1.00. The FAR of this project appears to be .64 even if the third floor which has structural accommodation for live loads and egress windows is not counted. NUMBER OF UNITS The project purports to build 3 units, but close inspection of the plans on page 31 show a Braced Wall Plan of the “one unit” of Building 2 that allow it to be made into a second unit. There are other pages in the drawings that indicate how the LET-IN BRACING (LIB) will turn it into a 2- unit building. Thus, 3 Unit Dwellings will turn into 4 Unit Dwellings. REQUEST We urge the Board of Adjustment to 1) Deny current approval for 205 E. 34th; 2) to again review compliance with the North University NCCD-NP; and 3) to direct planning staff to work with the North University neighborhood planning team and the developer to revise this project. We also request that the Board of Adjustment to approve refunding the exorbitant fee of $3,253.93 to hold this hearing. Such fees are a burden for neighborhood organizations. Thank you. Pamela Bell, Ph.D., President North University Neighborhood Association ITEM02/27-SUPPORT October 12, 2025 Board of Adjustment – City of Austin c/o Elaine Ramirez (elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov) Re: Support for Appeal – BOA Case# C15-2025-0035 BOA Case Address: 205 E 34th St. Austin, TX 78705 Dear Board of Adjustment, I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am a property owner at 206 East 33rd Street. I support the appeal for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:  The North University Neighborhood Conservation–Neighborhood Plan (“NCCD- NP”) is a zoning overlay that was previously approved and adopted by City Council to protect our neighborhood’s traditional residential form and standards. Part 7 of NCCD-NP states: “New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” The proposed project for 205 East 34th Street (the “Proposed Plan”) does not meet several key requirements of the previously approved NCCD-NP and violates the overall intent of the NCCD-NP. For example, my own house includes architectural elements that are key to the traditional residential form and standards that NCCD- NP was expected to uphold, including, but not limited to, single front entry, modest massing/roof form, and front and back porches – none of which are present in the Proposed Plan.  The Proposed Plan and its related marketing indicate an apartment/communal living program rather than a family-residential form. According to the Proposed Plan and its marketing materials, the structure will have twenty bedrooms with shared kitchen/living, rooms labeled only “bedroom,” and a rear “single” building that mirrors the front duplex layout (two front entries, two stairways, a fire-rated wall, and a kitchen/wet-bar pair separated by a small pass-through). Moreover, the Zillow listing for the Proposed Plan lists the structure as having four units, and a four-unit ITEM02/28-SUPPORT structure is blatantly inconsistent with the three or less units contemplated for SF-3 under HOME and the NCCD-NP’s family-residential context.  The Proposed Plan does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD-NP items, including but not limited to front-setback averaging, ten-foot principal-to-principal separation, and limitations on total floor area divided by lot size. Moreover, a misidentification or omission of overlays has made review of the Proposed Plan di(cid:431)icult. Thus, the submission is incomplete or incorrect and should not be approved as filed. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask the Board to sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the Proposed Plan 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. Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Ti(cid:431)any E. Walker 206 East 33rd Street Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/29-SUPPORT Mary Catherine Jarvis 205 E 35th Street Austin, TX 78705 October 12, 2025 Board of Adjustment – City of Austin c/o Elaine Ramirez Email: elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov Re: Letter Supporting Appeal – C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 Dear Board of Adjustment, I support the appeal of BOA Case #C15-2025-0035. The proposed project at 205 E 34th Street does not align with the intent or requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation–Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP), which was established to preserve the neighborhood’s traditional character and residential scale. Neighborhood Character and Form The NCCD states that new residential development should respect existing patterns, including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location. The current proposal introduces a much larger and denser building form that is inconsistent with the surrounding single-family homes. Its massing and design would disrupt the balance and rhythm of the block, replacing the modest scale and spacing that define this historic neighborhood. Use and Density Concerns The plans show approximately twenty bedrooms, multiple kitchens or wet bars, and a mirrored duplex layout in the rear structure. In effect, this design functions as four separate units—exceeding what is allowed under SF-3 zoning and the HOME regulations. This apartment-style configuration is out of step with the NCCD’s goal of maintaining a family-oriented, low-density residential environment. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Board to sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930PR, and require any future submittal to fully comply with the NCCD and SF-3 standards. ITEM02/30-SUPPORTThank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Mary Catherine Jarvis Date: October 12, 2025 Address: 205 E 35th Street, Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/31-SUPPORT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 support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am a property owner at 205 E 35th St. Austin, TX 78705. I support the appeal because the plan doesn't appear to comply with SF-3 zoning or the NCCD. I understand the need for sustainable growth and density in our city and generally support it. However, I believe development should be pursued responsibly by following the standards and policies we have in place. 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. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Canaan Davis 10/12/2025 Address: 205 E 35th St. Austin, TX 78705 Phone: Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 BOA Case Address: 205 E 34th St. Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/32-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. We are Michelle Jakubowski and Mark Schueller at 208 E 33rd Street, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/33-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michelle Jakubowski & Mark Schueller Address: 208 E 33rd Street, Austin, TX 78705 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/34-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the utility account holder at 206 E. 34th St Apt B, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it di<ers from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that di[ers from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City sta[ should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with sta[ at the start of the application but were told sta[ ITEM02/35-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review di[icult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Pendy Lall Address: 206 E. 34th St Apt B, Austin, TX 78705 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/36-SUPPORT From Robert Kaler, Architect I support the appeal C15-2025-0035 I am the property owner at 207 East 34th Street, which is within 500 feet of 205 East 34th Street. The application for 205 East 34th Street raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Irregularities are also found within the sheets provided for the proposed plan, such as the engineer’s drawings not matching the other drawings. I support the appeal for these reasons. Please consider the comments below. (Sheets included). Sheet A1.0 appears to be a site plan. It shows two buildings, BLDG 1 and BLDG 2. Sheet S4.3 shows these two buildings to be four units. BLDG 1 (consist of units 1A & 1B) for 2 units. The side setbacks are to be 10.0’ between primary structures. The plan only allows for around 8.5’ between 205 and 207 East 34th. BLDG 1 - The plans for units1a & 1b show a 2-hour fired rated wall between units 1a & 1b plus a large detail with notes and drawings for a two-hour fire rated wall. The plan further shows 2 additional notes requiring a fire rated wall. BLDG 2 appears to be an exact copy of BLDG 1 with minor changes, but is counted as one BLDG, for a so-called total of 3 units on the site. (Sheet A2.1.2). There is an opening between the units that does not appear on the engineer’s drawings. (S4.3) The engineer’s drawings (Sheet S4.3) clearly show 4 units. This is not allowed even under HOME. BLDG 2 according to the engineer’s drawings consist of 2 units. Why does an opening appear on the site plan A2.1.2 except to call the structure one unit when it is clearly two. The A2.1.2 plan omits the 2-hour fired rated wall. The opening in the wall between units 2a & 2b negates fire protection. If one unit, why are there two sets of stairs right next to each other? Another concerning problem is that the engineer’s drawings provide necessary wall structure which the opening takes away. The engineer’s drawings for BLDG 1 and BLGD 2 give a total of 4 units. (an inconvenient fact) Sheet S4.3 also states there is a braced wall between the units. Sheet S6.0 provides a detail of the braced wall with two options. Neither allows for an opening between the units. The opening shown on A2.1.2. The opening also fails to show the floors are not aligned as found in the elevation drawings. (A3.3.1). This opening would require steps that are not shown on any drawings. Another concern is the wet bar. The plumbing would allow for a complete kitchen. If left as “one” unit, could it not be remolded into a kitchen after a certificate of occupancy is received ITEM02/37-SUPPORTwithout review. The opening could easily be infilled. At that time perhaps meeting the engineer’s drawings of four units. Both buildings, BLDG 1unit 1a & 1b and BLDG 2 show “attic” space that appears to provide evidence for a 3rd floor living space (additional bedrooms?) due to the floor joist and operable windows that appear in the plans. Whether living space is intended here or not, the ceiling height means that the space should be included in the FAR calculations. The developer has drawings and uses images that appear to represent three levels of living space in real state advertisements. See attached image from https://www.zillow.com/apartments/austin- tx/brand-new-construction-august-2026/9T5ZdQ/ Whatever will possibly take place in the “attic” space, this floor space was not calculated into the FAR. City code requires anything over six feet to be part of the FAR calculation. As stated in the appeal application, this project has too many violations, including not meeting the character of the neighborhood. Requirements of NUNA’s NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code should have been met, along with addressing and correcting the irregularities of the proposed project, before a permit was issued. Please consider negating the permit. Respectfully, Robert Kaler, Architect 207 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case # C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 East 34th Street ITEM02/38-SUPPORT ITEM02/39-SUPPORTITEM02/40-SUPPORTITEM02/41-SUPPORTITEM02/42-SUPPORTITEM02/43-SUPPORTITEM02/44-SUPPORTITEM02/45-SUPPORTITEM02/46-SUPPORTITEM02/47-SUPPORTITEM02/48-SUPPORT10/12/25, 10:06 PM Gmail - Case C15-2025-0035. Support of appeal. Case C15-2025-0035. Support of appeal. Michael Riley To: Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov Cc: Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. Michael Riley Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 2:51 PM My wife and I are are the property owners at 209 E 34th St, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. We purchased our home in 2004, raised our children here, and continue to enjoy our neighbors and neighborhood. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. Surveying the homes on the block, the proposed plans are 2x-3x the number of bedrooms present within the other single lots on this block. An anomaly that doesn't seem to mesh w/ prior development patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9ee1de1791&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-778389289626955144&simpl=msg-a:r-77838928962695… 1/2 ITEM02/49-SUPPORT10/12/25, 10:06 PM Gmail - Case C15-2025-0035. Support of appeal. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff would not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael Riley Address: 209 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 Email: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 -- -- Thanks, Michael https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9ee1de1791&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-778389289626955144&simpl=msg-a:r-77838928962695… 2/2 ITEM02/50-SUPPORTDear Board of Adjustment, I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I own the property at 207 E 34th St with my husband Robert Kaler, my son Peter Journeay- Kaler has been assisting us with the appeal. We live next door to the proposed project at 205 E 34th St. I support appeal C15-2025-0035 because the proposed project violates numerous requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) and Austin’s Land Development Code (LDC). In addition, the applicant filed an incomplete application with numerous errors and there are notable concerns about the validity of the application. We kindly request that the Board Of Adjustment sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. My specific concerns are detailed below. Question on the validity of the application. The Architect (Roel Bazan) whose seal appears on the plans has sent emails stating that the applicant used his seal without his knowledge when submitting the application. The plans state that “The drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangements presented herein are and shall remain the property of Urban Building Services of Texas LLC.” Neither Mr. Bazan nor anyone working for Urban Building Services of Texas LLC signed the application as the Design Professional. Instead it was signed by Ana Hendrix. We cannot locate any licensed Design Professional with this name. The plans are marked “DRAWN BY: SERHII” which does not match the names of any staff at Urban Building Services of Texas LLC. These issues raise major concerns about the validity of the application. Based on these issues we ask the BOA to revoke the permit. The project violates the NCCD Building Height Limit. Part 7 and Exhibit D of the NCCD sets the Maximum Building Height limit for 205 E 34th St at 30’ (see Attachment A). Per the LDC § 3.4.1 “Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and lowest grades adjacent to the building to: A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping; B. For a mansard roof, the deck line; C. For a pitched or hip roof, the gabled roof or dormer with the highest average height; or D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building.” ITEM02/51-SUPPORT The plans provide by the applicant do not include the correct height measurements. Both buildings (BLDG 1 and BLDG 2) are shown to have a height of 28’ - 10 ½” to the midline of the gable roof. However, Per § 3.4.1 height is set by “C. For a pitched or hip roof, the gabled roof or dormer with the highest average height”. Both BLDG 1 and BLDG 2 include large dormers that runs almost the entire length of the buildings. These are the “dormer with the highest average height” that determine building height. The plans omits the required measurement of the height of this section of the roof. The correct building height calculated in line with § 3.4.1 is approximately 31’ 7” well over the NCCD limit of 30’ (see Attachment B). As the project violates the NCCD Maximum Building Height limit we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. The project violates LDC FAR limits. The plan and application provided by the applicant do not correctly calculate the FAR. Per § 25-1-21 of the LDC “FLOOR AREA RATIO means the ratio of gross floor area to gross site area” and “GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of more than six feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls. The term includes loading docks and excludes atria airspace, parking facilities, driveways, and enclosed loading berths and off-street maneuvering areas.” The project application does not follow the LDC when calculating GFA or FAR. Issue 1) the applicant did not use the correct gross site area (GSA). The GSA is marked on the plans as 8,942.98 Sq. Ft. The correct measurement is 8,840 Sq. Ft. Issue 2) The applicant appears to have under-measured the GFA for the first and second floors of both buildings, likely by measuring to the inside of the exterior walls. Issues 3) The applicant failed to include any GFA calculation for the attic / third floors of both buildings even though most of this aera has a “clear height of more than six feet”. Using the correct definitions per § 25-1-21 BLDG 1(Unit A and Unit B) has an FAR of 0.46 and BLDG 2 (shown as “one unit”) has a FAR of 0.46 and the FAR for the total site is 0.92. These corrected FAR values violate the FAR limits set by § 25-2-773 of the LDC which states: “(4) Floor-to-area ratio for three-unit residential use. (a) The maximum floor-to-area ratio for the site is the greater of 0.65 or 4,350 square feet. (b) Except for an existing dwelling unit, a dwelling unit may not exceed the greater of 0.4 or 2,300 square feet. (c) Except for two existing dwelling units. (i) two dwelling units may not exceed the greater of 0.55 or 3,200 square feet if an existing unit on the site is not preserved; or (ii) two dwelling units may not ITEM02/52-SUPPORT exceed the greater of 0.65 or 4,350 square feet if an existing unit on the site is preserved under Subsection (F).” The 0.4 FAR limit set by § 25-1-21 (4) (a) is violated as the FAR for the total site is 0.92. The 0.4 FAR limit set by § 25-1-21 (4) (b) is violated by BLDG 1, which has an FAR of 0.46. The 0.55 FAR limit set by § 25-1-21 (4) (c) (ii) is violated by the FAR of BLDG 2 plus BLDG 1 Unit A, which equals 0.69 and also by the FAR of BLDG 2 plus BLDG 1 Unit B, which equals 0.69. As the project violates the LDC FAR requirements we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. In addition, Imagine Austin (p. 207) treats adopted small-area plans as controlling guidance to be respected—not superseded—so the NCCD’s intensity limits (including the duplex FAR limit of 0.4 adopted when duplexes were the highest ‘house-scale’ use) should continue to govern the highest house-scale use on SF-3 today. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections for example in C15-2021-0009. As the project violates the NCCD FAR requirements we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. The project violates side setback limits. City Staff determined that errors were made in the review process that render the approved structure noncompliant with the NCCD side setback requirement, which states “A new principal structure must be at least 10’ from a principal structure on an adjacent lot”. The City is asking the BOA to “modify staff’s approval to require the applicant to: Submit a revision to Plan Review to move the structures to a minimum distance of 10-feet from the sited location of the adjacent lot’s existing structure.” We find this proposal to be deficient. Together, the surveys of 203 E 34th St (Attachment C) and 207 E 34th St. (Attachment D) and the site plan of 205 E 34th St (Attachment E) show the that the 10' requirement is violated by BLGD 1, which would sit 8.4’ from a primary structure at 207 E 34th St, and by BLDG 2, which would sit 9.2’ from a primary structure at 203 E 34th St. The staff recommendation to simply “move the structures” will not work. Moving BLDG 1 to comply with the NCCD 10’ setback requires shifting the entire structure 1.6’ across the lot. This would result in BLDG 1 sitting 3.6’ from the property line of 203 E 34th St, which violates LDC required setback of 5’. Moving BLDG 2 to comply with the NCCD 10’ setback requires shifting the entire structure 0.8’ across the lot. This would result in BLDG 2 sitting 4.5’ from the property line of 203 E 34th St, which violates LDC required setback of 5’. ITEM02/53-SUPPORT Meeting the NCCD 10’ side setback requirement and the LDC 5’ side setback requirement cannot be achieved by simply moving BLDG 1 and BLDG 2. It requires that both buildings be reduced in width by at least 1.6’ (BLDG 1) and 0.8’ (BLDG 2). This requires a redesign of both buildings. As such we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. Unclear what front setback was approved by City Staff. City Staff determined that errors were made in the review process that render the approved structure noncompliant with NCCD front setback requirements, which require a minimum front setback to equal the “average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single family buildings on the same side of the street of a block”. Staff has indicated that this issue has been resolved by the applicant by requiring them to use a front setback 24.4’. Some pages of the approved plans show front set back of 24.4’. However, page A 1.0 of the approved plans (Attachment E) shows a front setback of 15.5’, which violates the NCCD front setback requirement. As such we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. The engineer’s sealed drawings show a 4 unit project. The designer’s drawings allow construction of 4 units. The approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. BLDG 2, labeled as “one-unit” is nearly identical to the two-unit BLDG 1. BLDG 2 has two primary entrances, two separate staircase, two separate rooms for washers and driers, two separate AC units and essentially identical layouts to BLDG 1 for its fully separated 2nd and 3rd floors. The only major differences is that BLDG 2 has a wet bar (in the same location as the kitchen in the BLDG 1 plan) and a passthrough in the central interior wall (Attachment F). This pass through could easily be closed and the wet bar converted into a kitchen with minimal work after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The approved engineering drawings for the project show BLDG 2 as to fully separated units with no passthrough in the interior wall. Instead, in the locations where the designers drawings show a pass through the engineer has required Left-In Bracing (LIB) to support the structural integrity of the building (see Attachments G and H). This LIB cannot be removed from the interior wall without a redesign by a structural engineer. As such, the city approved and the engineer sealed drawings do not allow for the project to be built as 3 units. Cutting a passthrough in the interior wall of BLDG 2 as shown in the designer’s drawings requires a new design sealed by a Professional Engineer. Also, the passthrough is cut into the wall at a point where the floors have a12” height difference, but the designer’s drawing do not show steps that would be required to move one area to the other. Per City code, a four unit project ITEM02/54-SUPPORT is not allowed at 205 E 34th street, which is zoned SF-3-NCCD-NP. As such we kindly ask the BOA to revoke the permit. Process and transparency concerns. There are numerous issues with how the City handled communication with neighbors and the process of approving the project. Several neighbors did not receive the required notices in advance of the demolition work at 205 E 34th St. We requested meetings with City Staff at the start of the application but were told staff would not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, we asked that any code interpretations or staff comments be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. City Staff performing the Planning Review for the 205 E 34th St project was directly asked via email on June 23rd 2025 “if any of the rules from North University Neighborhood Conservation – Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) are relevant for this project”. Staff responded the same day noting they would be examining if “something like an NCCD code can read differently based on the design”. On July 8th 2025, City Staff performing the Planning Review was sent an email stating “I wanted to flag a possible issue that may not be shown on the submitted plans: our house was built in the 1930s and sits less than 5 feet from the shared property line. While I don’t have an exact measurement at the moment, the separation appears to be substantially less than the standard 5-foot setback. If the new structure is built to code minimum, this could result in 8 feet or less of total building separation.” An email to City Staff also included photos showing that 207 E 34th St has a legally nonconforming side setback of around 3’. Despite providing information to assist staff in correctly interpreting the NCCD requirements on setbacks, height and FAR the city approved plans that violate the NCCD and LDC. This forced us to file an appeal. Only after the appeal was filed did City Staff agree that there are errors in their interpretations. I want to be clear that we are not opposed to density and have happily lived in a dense, diverse neighborhood, with students, professionals, families and retirees since moving into our home in 1978. We also want to see affordable housing to keep Austin and North University a diverse and thriving community. The proposed project at 205 34th St destroyed two affordable, well-maintained and recently renovated houses, displacing our neighbors, including one who was a student at UT. The proposed project does not fit the housing needs of our neighborhood and violates numerous NCCD and LDC requirements. ITEM02/55-SUPPORT We kindly request that the BOA sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3- NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your time and consideration, Carol Journeay 207 E 34th St Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/56-SUPPORT Attachment A: NCCD Maximum Building Height for 205 E 34th St is 30’ ITEM02/57-SUPPORT Attachment B: Height § 3.4.1 is approximately 31’ – 7 5/16th. This violates the NCCD 30’ Maximum Buidling Height ITEM02/58-SUPPORTAttachment C: Survey of 203 E 34th St showing legally nonconforming side setback of 4.0’ ITEM02/59-SUPPORT Attachment D: Survey of 207 E 34th St showing legally nonconforming side setback of 3.1’ ITEM02/60-SUPPORT Attachment E: site plan of 205 E 34th St showing side and front setbacks ITEM02/61-SUPPORT Attachment F: BLDG 1and BLDG 2 first floor plans ITEM02/62-SUPPORT Attachment G: BLDG 2 engineer structural drawings showing it as 2 units not 1 unit ITEM02/63-SUPPORT Attachment G: BLDG 2 engineer structural drawings showing required bracing that does not allow for a passthrough needed to make it one unit. ITEM02/64-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 301 E. 34th St. Unit 102, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls that zoning (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more- restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested ITEM02/65-SUPPORTparties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff would not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary and Janet Thompson Address: 2915 Cherry Lane, Austin, TX 78703 Email: g BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/66-SUPPORT  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 support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am an Austin architect and code expert assisting the neighbors with their appeal. I will be in attendance at the hearing and will be happy to answer questions as they come up. Over the last few weeks of reviewing the plans for this project, we've found quite a few significant conflicts with code that staff overlooked in their review. The project exceeds the maximum Height, the minimum Side Setbacks, and didn't comply with the required Front Setbacks. Even the "corrected" front setback cited by the applicant (a professor of Mathematics) features a Math error that makes it still non-compliant. We discovered that the applicant omitted thousands of square feet of Attic Gross Floor Area from their application, and that staff failed to catch the omission. The actual FAR of the project as submitted was .92, which is 42% higher than even the HOME standards for FAR. We discovered that three different people are shown as the Design Professional on the documents. The applicant has admitted to us and staff that she signed the application with an alias as “Design Professional” beneath her legitimate signature on the permit application. According to the architect whose stamp appears on the plans, the applicant submitted the drawings with his name and seal on the drawings without his knowledge or permission. This left staff reviewing an incomplete and questionable set of plans and forms to review, which made the work hard for staff as it did for our group of volunteer experts. Unfortunately, Staff also performed their entire review with no consideration of the NUNA NCCD restrictions. Even after being reminded of the rules early in the process by the neighbors, Staff continued to ignore the NCCD. After we filed the appeal, Staff came around to agreeing with us that most or all of these standards from the NUNA NCCD are still in effect and enforceable with one exception; they feel that the FAR should be the .65 from the HOME amendment, rather than the maximum .4 FAR featured in the NCCD. We're asking BOA to help interpret the intent of the various ordinances to give staff direction for this project and others that will follow it in the city's 6 NCCD zones. NCCDs allow cities to create special zoning regulations for neighborhoods with unique characteristics. In the NUNA area, proximity to the UT Campus created situations where the code that applied to the rest of the city could allow stealth dorms and fraternity houses that just ITEM02/67-SUPPORT wouldn't happen in other parts of Austin. The 2004 NUNA NCCD, coupled with the CANPAC neighborhood plan and the West Campus UNO district was designed to stop the proliferation of high occupancy "stealth dorms" in university area neighborhoods. The NCCD established a maximum .4 FAR for the most intensive development permitted at that time on an SF-3 lot. As the HOME amendments were being debated and adopted, it was clear that they were intended to create new more affordable housing options. No one involved in the adoption of HOME was trying to open the floodgates again for high occupancy student housing in the North University neighborhood. HOME sits alongside the previous policy documents, adding some new options to the mix, but it also left some gaps in the language that need to be sorted out. Unfortunately, the folks that wrote the NCCD never imagined that 3 units on a lot would ever be considered anything other than "Multi-Family". The NCCD restricted the FAR on duplexes on SF-3 lots and restricted the FAR on multi-family uses on commercial lots, making it abundantly clear that a .4 FAR was the maximum size for duplexes and .5 FAR for multifamily. It's important to keep in mind what's before us in this particular case: the developer demolished existing AFFORDABLE student housing that had been a valuable part of this diverse neighborhood for decades. The developer has advertised this proposed project on Zillow at $1,600 per month, per BEDROOM , which is going wildly in the wrong direction from Affordability. The neighbors on this street have lived intermingled with generations of students, bringing diversity and vitality to a mixed-use neighborhood. Student housing isn't something they fear; but a massive up-scaling of intensity and rental prices is not something that's compatible or reasonable. You have the ability to look at the intent of two decades of policy documents to determine the way forward for review of projects like this. No one that supported the HOME amendments wanted something like this to happen. I hope that you'll support the appeal and revoke the approval of this case. Thank you! Chris Allen Architect 1406 W. 39th ½ St. Austin, TX 78756 ITEM02/68-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I'm writing to express my support for the appeal C15-2025-0035. As a property renter/utility account holder at 204 E 34th St #B, Austin, TX 78705, which is directly across from the property in question, I have significant concerns about the proposed development at 205 E 34th St. After reviewing the application, I've identified several specific non-compliance issues with both the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. The North University NCCD-NP was specifically created by City Council to "protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood" and clearly states that "New residential development should respect traditional patterns." The current proposal fails to meet this fundamental principle in several concrete ways. Specifically, the submittal fails to demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including: • Front-setback averaging requirements • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (which should be 10') • FAR limit (which should be 0.40) • Height limit (which should be 30') Additionally, the application contains errors and omissions that prevent reviewers and the public from properly verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. This lack of transparency is concerning for those of us who live in the immediate vicinity. I'd like to emphasize that sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that diaers from base zoning, the NCCD controls (as Council Member Zo Qadri stated on May 6, 2024, at the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association meeting). The BOA has likewise held in previous cases (C15-2021-0009) that more-restrictive NCCD ITEM02/69-SUPPORT provisions supersede conflicting code sections. City staa should enforce the NCCD completely and require a fully compliant submittal before any approval. To be honest, I feel like this is one of those situations where developers are trying to work around established neighborhood conservation guidelines, and I'm concerned about the precedent this could set. Our neighborhood has distinct zoning protections for a reason. I respectfully ask that you sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the current plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that demonstrates full compliance with SF-3- NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Kelly Schubert 204 E 34th St #B Austin, TX 78705 BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/70-SUPPORT Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I support the appeal C15-2025-0035. I am the property owner at 3402 Grooms Street, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St. The application for 205 E 34th St raises multiple compliance issues under the North University NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. I therefore strongly support the appeal for the following reasons: 1) NCCD purpose The North University NCCD-NP was adopted by City Council to “protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood,” and it states that “New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” The proposed project does not respect those patterns. 2) Non-compliance with NCCD standards and incomplete application The submittal does not demonstrate compliance with key NCCD requirements, including at minimum: • Front-setback averaging • Principal-to-principal side setbacks (10′) • FAR limit (0.40) • Height limit (30′) The application also contains errors and omissions, preventing reviewers and the public from verifying compliance from the plan set as submitted. 3) NCCD controls where it differs from base code and other ordinances. Sitting Council Members have publicly stated that when an NCCD contains a provision that differs from base zoning, the NCCD controls (see Council Member Zo Qadri, May 6, 2024, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association). The BOA has likewise held that more-restrictive NCCD provisions supersede conflicting code sections (C15-2021-0009). City staff should enforce the NCCD and require a complete, compliant submittal before approval. 4) HOME three-unit standards and unit count concerns. Separately, the project does not meet three-unit residential standards under §25-2-773 (HOME). In particular, the FAR of the project appears to be 0.92 well over the 0.65 cap for three units. In addition, the approved plans enable construction of a four-unit project. The rear “one-unit” building is identical to the front two-unit building and could easily be built as two units. Four units are not permitted on SF-3 lots. 5) Process and transparency. Several neighbors did not receive the required demolition notice. Registered interested parties requested meetings with staff at the start of the application but were told staff ITEM02/71-SUPPORTwould not meet on substantive issues. After the PR permit was approved, neighbors asked that any code interpretations be posted to explain the approval; no interpretations or comments appeared on the AB+C portal or in response to specific emails. This made meaningful public review difficult. Request. Please sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future proposal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with SF-3-NCCD-NP and the Land Development Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gregory Behl Address: 3402 Grooms Street Austin , Texas 78705 Email: g BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 ITEM02/72-SUPPORT