ITEM07 C15-2026-0005 ADV PACKET APPELLANT PART1 — original pdf

Backup

BOA INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2026-0005 BOA DATE: Monday, March 9th, 2026 ADDRESS: 205 E 34th St COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 APPELLANT: Peter Journeay-Kaler PERMIT HOLDER/OWNER: JBD CR HOLDING, LLC. ZONING: SF-3-NCCD-NP (NUNA) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 BLK 19 DIV D HARRIS SIDON RESUB OF GROOMS ADDN APPEAL REQUEST: appellant has filed an appeal challenging determinations by City staff in connection with approval of a building permit (Permit No. 2025-140201 PR) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. SUMMARY: any proposed development must comply with the provisions of the NCCD ISSUES: application is incomplete, and the plan set No. 2025-140201PR does not demonstrate full compliance with relevant regulations. ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Austin Neighborhoods Council CANPAC (Central Austin Neigh Plan Area Committee) Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Homeless Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Development Review Committee Preservation Austin ITEM07 February 23, 2026 Peter Journeay-Kaler 205 E 34th St Austin TX, 78705 Property Description: LOT 3 BLK 19 DIV D HARRIS SIDON RESUB OF GROOMS ADDN Re: C15-2026-0005 Dear Peter, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider an Interpretation for Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, provided that any proposed or existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s Clearance & Safety Criteria, the National Electric Safety Code, and OSHA requirements. All signage will need to stay out of Austin Energy easements and 5’ from existing underground electric lines. Any removal or relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner’s/applicant’s expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1 .10.0CLSARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Ashley Robinson, Project Assistant Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050 ITEM07ITEM07/1 - APPELLANTDevelopment Services Department interpretation is: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ I feel the correct interpretation is: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Section 2: Findings The Board must determine the existence of, sufficiency of and weight of evidence supporting the findings described below. Therefore, you must complete each of the applicable findings statements as part of your application. Failure to do so may result in your application being rejected as incomplete. Please attach any additional supporting documents. 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ City of Austin | Board of Adjustment Interpretations Application 6/24/20 | Page 3 of 5 That the application for Permit No. 2025-140201 PR was complete, that the plan set for Permit No. 2025-140201 PR demonstrated compliance with all relevant regulations.That the application for Permit No. 2025-140201 PR was incomplete, that the plan set for Permit No. 2025-140201 PR does not demonstrate compliance with all relevant regulations.The application is demonstrably incomplete and the plan set does not contain the information necessary to demonstrate full compliance with relevant regulations, as described more fully in the attached cover letter.The appeal requests only that the application and plan set in question demonstrate compliance with relevant regulations, a s described more fully in the attached cover letter.The appeal ensures fairness and equity by requiring a complete application package and requiring the plan set to demonstrate full compliance with all applicable regulations, as described more fully in the attached cover letter.ITEM07/2 - APPELLANT Section 3: Applicant/Aggrieved Party Certificate I affirm that my statements contained in the complete application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________ Applicant Name (typed or printed): ___________________________________________________ Applicant Mailing Address: __________________________________________________________ City: ________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: _______ Phone (will be public information ________________________________________ Email (optional – will be public information): ____________________________________________ Section 4: Owner Information Owner Name: ____________________________________________________________________ Owner Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________________ City: ________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: _______ Section 5: Agent Information Agent Name: ____________________________________________________________________ Agent Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________________ City: ________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: _______ Phone (will be public information): ____________________________________________________ Email (optional – will be public information): ____________________________________________ Section 6: Additional Space (if applicable) Please use the space below to provide additional information as needed. To ensure the information is referenced to the proper item, include the Section and Field names as well (continued on next page). _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ City of Austin | Board of Adjustment Interpretations Application 6/24/20 | Page 4 of 5 01/26/2026Peter Journeay-Kaler207 E 34th StAustinTexas78705JBD CR HOLDING LLC16801 Addison Rd, Suite 124AddisonTexas75001See attached cover letter for additional information and discussion.ITEM07/3 - APPELLANT Keith Mars, Director Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr. Austin, TX 78752 Re: Appeal of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR (the “Project”) Dear Mr. Mars, Please accept this letter as an official notice of appeal pursuant to Section 25-1-182 of the Land Development Code. I, the appellant, am an interested party and have submitted this appeal within twenty (20) days of the administrative decision in question. I am also providing the following information, as required by Section 25-1-183: Appellant Name: Peter Journeay-Kaler Appellant Address: 207 E 34th Street Appellant Phone: Appellant Email: Appellant Status: Interested Party Appealed Decision: Issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR Date of Decision: January 8, 2026 Reasons for Appeal: As described below Project Description and Background This appeal concerns the Property and Project described below: • Property: 205 E 34th Street • Zoning: SF-3-NCCD-NP • Project: Permit No. 2025-140201 PR • Project Description: Development of three residential units This appeal follows a prior Board of Adjustment appeal concerning the same property (Case No. C15-2025-0035). At the October 13, 2025 hearing, the Board upheld that appeal and found that the prior project did not comply with multiple provisions of City Code and the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD). The Board’s Decision Sheet for this case is linked here. The present appeal (Case No. C15-2026-0005) concerns a revised iteration of the prior project. This version of the project has been advanced by the same development team that controlled the project design and interacted with City staff during review of both the earlier and current applications, rather than a wholly new or independent proposal. Certain aspects ITEM07/4 - APPELLANT of the design have been modified to address issues identified in the prior appeal; however, the City’s approval of the current application continues to apply interpretations of City Code and the NCCD that, in the appellant’s view, do not fully enforce applicable requirements. These interpretations form the basis for the present appeal. Summary of Appeal Grounds The Project was reviewed and approved under Chapter 25 of the Land Development Code, which enforces adopted zoning regulations, including the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District, as well as the adopted International Residential Code, International Building Code, and International Fire Code. The bullets below summarize the grounds for appeal, each of which is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. 1. Adequacy of Review Path and Enforceability of Approved Plans – Building 2 During plan review, staff determined that Building 2 could not be constructed with more than five bedrooms and retain classification as a one-family dwelling subject to review International Residential Code (IRC). The approved plans do not under the demonstrate compliance with that limitation, and therefore do not demonstrate that Building 2 qualifies for review and approval under the IRC. Because the approved plan set does not demonstrate that the project satisfies the conditions upon which IRC approval was based, the Applicant’s application and plan set do not comply with the applicable code requirements. Accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. 2. North University NCCD Floor Area Ratio Ordinance No. 040826-58, the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD), establishes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits as a primary mechanism for regulating building scale. The approved plans rely on the HOME ordinance FAR allowance and exceed the FAR limits established by the NCCD for SF- zoned lots. Because the NCCD remains in effect and City Code requires that the more restrictive regulation apply where multiple standards govern, the Applicant’s application and plan set do not demonstrate compliance with applicable NCCD site development standards. Accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. In particular, this appeal asks the Board to apply the NCCD FAR limit of 0.4 as the controlling standard for SF-zoned lots within the North University Conservation-Neighborhood Plan Combining District. ITEM07/5 - APPELLANT 3. NCCD Front of Building and Lot Requirement Part 6, Section 2 of the NCCD requires that a building front on the short side of the lot, which is the street-facing frontage. Because the approved plans place Building 2 facing the alley rather than the street, the Applicant’s application and plan set do not demonstrate compliance with applicable NCCD site development standards. Accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. 4. Exterior Visitable Route and Visitable Dwelling Entrance – Buildings 1 and 2 Sections R322.8 (Visitable Dwelling Entrance) and R322.9 (Exterior Visitable Route) of the International Residential Code require that each visitable dwelling include a no- step entrance served by an exterior visitable route originating from a garage, driveway, public street, or public sidewalk. The approved plans for Buildings 1 and 2 depict exterior visitable routes, but do not reliably demonstrate compliant route origins, no- step entrances, or compliance with applicable slope and ramp requirements. The approved plans expressly invoke the International Residential Code visitability requirements, but do not demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The approved plan set does not demonstrate compliance with the International Residential Code, and the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. 5. Fire Apparatus Access – Building 2 The International Fire Code (IFC) requires approved fire apparatus access roads that provide emergency vehicle access to within 150 feet of all first-story exterior walls. These roads must have a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width. The approved site plan shows that a substantial portion of Building 2 is located more than 150 feet from the public street. The only apparent access to the rear of Building 2 is via a narrow alley depicted on the plans as approximately 12 feet wide. Because the application and plan set do not demonstrate compliance with applicable fire apparatus access requirements, the approved plan set does not demonstrate compliance with adopted fire code provisions. Accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. 6. Stair Winder Tread Safety Requirements – Building 1 Section R318.7.5.2.1 of the International Residential Code requires that winder treads have a tread depth of not less than six (6) inches at any point within the clear width of the stair. The approved plans show two staircases incorporating winder treads that taper to a sharp point, resulting in portions of the stair with less than the minimum required tread depth. The Applicant’s application and plan set do not demonstrate ITEM07/6 - APPELLANTcompliance with the requirements of R318.7.5.2.1 and, accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025- 140201 PR. 7. Incomplete Application Materials Section 25-1-82 of the Land Development Code provides that an application is complete only after the Applicant provides all required information, and that omission of required information may be permitted only if it is not material to a decision on the application. The application for the Project omits required zoning and neighborhood plan information and approves site plans that are internally inconsistent regarding lawful site access and construction activities following required removal of the driveway apron. These deficiencies are material to review of the application. Accordingly, the application does not comply with Section 25-1-82, and the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025- 140201 PR. Appeal Rationale This appeal asserts that the application for the Project is incomplete and that the application materials and approved plan set do not adequately demonstrate compliance with all relevant regulations, as described below. Adequacy of Review Path and Enforceability of Approved Plans – Building 2 During plan review, staff originally identified that Building 2 contained twelve bedrooms and required review as an R-3 occupancy under the 2024 International Building Code (IBC), as an R-3 Occupancy Congregate Living Facility. Without removing any habitable space, the floor plans were amended by relabeling bedrooms as “pantry” and “office/study,” and divider walls and closet doors were removed. Staff then approved Building 2 under the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC) as a one-family dwelling unit, explicitly stating that Building 2 could not be constructed with more than five bedrooms to retain that status. ITEM07/7 - APPELLANT Figure 1: Staff Review Comment Identifying Building 2 as R-3 Occupancy Based on Twelve Bedrooms (IBC Review Required) Figure 2: Staff Review Comment Approving Building 2 Under IRC as One-Family Dwelling Subject to Five-Bedroom Limitation The approved plans for Building 2 label five rooms as “bedrooms.” However, the two rooms labeled as a “pantry” and an “office/study” meet all functional characteristics and IRC minimum requirements of sleeping rooms. Both rooms have full-size doors consistent with those used for labeled bedrooms and operable egress windows consistent in size and type with those used in other bedrooms. Access to both rooms is provided only by ascending two steps and passing through a cased opening into a bedroom suite. The “pantry” has no direct connection to the kitchen or other common living areas. The “pantry” and “office/study” each occupy the same location where bedrooms were shown in prior plan versions (see Attachment A). The bedroom count shown on the plans is therefore a matter of labeling rather than an enforceable design constraint. Because these rooms are functionally indistinguishable from bedrooms, the approved plans do not reliably demonstrate compliance with the five- bedroom limitation that staff relied upon to approve the project under the IRC. In addition, the approved plans for Building 2 are derived directly from an earlier twelve- bedroom configuration, accomplished primarily through changing how rooms are labeled and the removal of interior partitions rather than through substantive changes to the building layout or envelope. As shown in Attachments A and B, the upstairs layout was reduced from eight bedrooms to four by removing interior partitions and the downstairs layout was ITEM07/8 - APPELLANT reduced from four bedrooms to one through similar interior modifications, with two additional bedrooms slightly reconfigured and relabeled as non-bedroom spaces. These changes do not impose physical constraints that would prevent construction of the twelve- bedroom configuration through minor interior work. As a result, the approved plans do not reliably enforce the five-bedroom limitation upon which IRC approval was based. This conclusion is further supported by statements made in the public record by the prior Applicant responsible for the design of the project. In a request for reconsideration of BOA Case No. C15-2025-0035, the prior Applicant stated that “the designers’ task was to maximize bedroom count.” This statement confirms that bedroom count was a central design objective and reinforces that the reduction in labeled bedrooms reflects a change in designation rather than a substantive redesign of the building layout or use. In this context, the removal of interior partitions functions as a design mechanism to reduce the labeled bedroom count while preserving the ability to construct a higher bedroom count through minor interior work. Fire review comments in the master comment report address residential sprinkler standards, smoke alarm locations, and code version updates applicable to one-family dwellings, reflecting review conducted under the assumption that Building 2 qualifies for approval under the International Residential Code. If Building 2 exceeds the five-bedroom limitation and requires classification as an R-3 Occupancy Congregate Living Facility, materially different fire and life-safety provisions under the International Building Code would apply. As such, approval of the project under the IRC, without reliable enforcement of the bedroom limitation, bypassed review of requirements that are material to occupant safety. Because exceeding five bedrooms would require review under a different occupancy classification and code framework, the approved plan set does not demonstrate that Building 2 qualifies for approval as a one-family dwelling under the International Residential Code. The approval therefore rests on an unenforced and unenforceable assumption regarding bedroom count. Accordingly, the Board should find that the Project does not demonstrate eligibility for approval under the International Residential Code, because the approved plans do not reliably enforce the bedroom limitation upon which IRC approval of Building 2 was based. The Board of Adjustment should therefore reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. ITEM07/9 - APPELLANT North University NCCD Floor Area Ratio (FAR) A. FAR as a Core Scale Control in the NCCD The North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (ORDINANCE NO. 040826-58) was adopted following a detailed analysis of existing built conditions, based on which the City implemented targeted rezonings, established coherent subdistricts, and adopted tailored site development standards to guide future development in a manner consistent with the neighborhood’s established development patterns and the City’s adopted planning objectives. The site at 205 E 34th Street, zoned SF-3-NCCD-NP, is located within the Residential District of the NCCD. As stated in Part 7, the Residential District is intended to protect traditional development patterns, including building scale. Figure 3: ORDINANCE NO. 040826-58 Part 7 FAR is the primary quantitative mechanism used in the NCCD to regulate building scale. The NCCD site development standards tables establish a maximum FAR of 0.4 for residential development on SF-zoned lots. At the time of adoption, duplex development represented the most intensive residential use permitted on SF-zoned lots. Staff approved the Project based on the determination that the 0.4 FAR limit does not apply to three-unit residential development on SF-zoned lots because that use is not expressly listed in the NCCD. Council has previously addressed the addition of new residential uses on SF-zoned lots not expressly listed in the NCCD and did so while retaining the ordinance’s existing 0.4 FAR limit. In 2011, Council amended the NCCD adding Section 5(b) to permit two-family residential use on an expanded range of SF-zoned lots (ORDINANCE NO. 20110804-040). ITEM07/10 - APPELLANT ITEM07/11 - APPELLANTFigure 5: ORDINANCE NO. 20120802-103 applying the NCCD maximum 0.4 FAR to an SF- zoned lot with three dwelling units The Planning Commission materials supporting this amendment reflect that the request originated with the neighborhood and that the amendment was structured to apply the NCCD’s existing 0.4 FAR-based scale controls to regulate overall building scale on an SF- zoned lot containing multiple residential dwelling units. See Zoning Change Review Sheet C14-2011-0016. As such, newly permitted residential uses on SF-zoned lots within the NCCD remain subject to the existing 0.4 FAR site development standard, and an amendment to the NCCD would be required to establish a different FAR limit for any permitted use, including three-unit residential use. B. Three-Unit Residential Use and NCCD Applicability Three-unit residential use on SF-zoned lots was introduced after adoption of the NCCD through Ordinance 20231207-001 (HOME Phase 1). The City has taken the position that because the NCCD does not expressly list a FAR for three-unit residential use on SF-zoned lots, the base-code FAR of 0.65, as modified by HOME, applies. That interpretation is inconsistent with the structure and operation of the NCCD. As demonstrated above, the NCCD regulates building scale through site development standards that apply by zoning category, not by enumerating FAR limits for every individual use. The absence of a specific FAR entry for three-unit residential use reflects the fact that this use category was not permitted on SF-zoned lots at the time the NCCD was adopted and, as demonstrated by subsequent Council amendments, the addition of new residential uses does not create an exception to the NCCD’s existing FAR limits. Staff also relies on Part 5 of the NCCD, titled “Permitted and Conditional Uses,” which states that residential uses permitted under the base zoning districts apply unless otherwise restricted by the ordinance. This provision governs which residential uses are allowed within the NCCD; it does not incorporate base-code site development standards or modify the FAR limits established elsewhere in the NCCD. Accordingly, Part 5 does not control which site development standards apply to permitted residential uses on SF-zoned lots. The addition of a new permitted residential use through the HOME ordinance therefore does not alter the NCCD’s applicable site development standards. Where multiple regulations ITEM07/12 - APPELLANT apply, City Code requires that the more restrictive standard govern. Because the NCCD’s FAR limit is more restrictive than the base-code FAR allowance, the 0.4 FAR continues to apply to SF-zoned lots within the North University NCCD. C. Internal Consistency of the NCCD FAR Structure The internal structure of the NCCD further supports this interpretation. Within the Residential District, the NCCD caps FAR for all multi-family zoning categories at 0.5. Under the City’s current interpretation, SF-zoned lots within the NCCD would be permitted to develop at 0.65 FAR, exceeding not only the 0.4 FAR limit applicable to SF-zoned lots, but also the maximum FAR permitted anywhere within the NCCD Residential District. This outcome is inconsistent with the structure of the NCCD, which applies progressively more restrictive scale controls as zoning intensity decreases. Allowing 0.65 FAR on SF-3-zoned lots would invert the ordinance’s scale hierarchy and defeat the graduated scale controls the NCCD was adopted to establish. D. Application to the Project The approved plans for the Project rely on the HOME ordinance FAR allowance and identify a proposed FAR of approximately 0.649. This exceeds the 0.4 FAR limit established by the NCCD for SF-zoned lots. Because the NCCD remains in force and governs development on the Property, the application does not comply with the applicable NCCD FAR standard. Existing development within the North University NCCD demonstrates that enforcing the 0.4 FAR standard does not preclude three-unit residential use on SF-zoned lots. Numerous SF- zoned properties within the NCCD, including multiple lots on the same block and on the block facing 205 E 34th Street, already contain three residential units while remaining below the 0.4 FAR limit (see Attachments C-F). Importantly, many SF-zoned lots within the Residential District are developed at FARs well below the 0.4 maximum, including numerous properties below 0.30 and some as low as approximately 0.12. This demonstrates that the NCCD’s FAR standard does not function as a cap on development, but rather as a scale control that accommodates infill development, remodeling, and additional residential units while respecting the established development patterns identified in the NCCD. This appeal seeks a narrow ruling enforcing the NCCD’s FAR-based scale controls as applied to SF-zoned lots within the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District. Such a ruling would not prohibit three-unit residential development on those lots, but would regulate building scale through a 0.4 FAR, as specified in the NCCD. Importantly, this interpretation would apply only within a single NCCD and would affect a very small fraction ITEM07/13 - APPELLANTof the city’s SF–zoned land area, leaving the HOME ordinance and its FAR allowances fully operative across the vast majority of SF-zoned properties citywide. As stated in the adopting ordinances, the North University NCCD applies to approximately 235 acres and roughly 400 SF-zoned parcels. This represents about 0.1% of the City of Austin’s land area and approximately 0.2% of the city’s SF-zoned parcels. Enforcement of the NCCD’s FAR limits therefore has an inherently limited and localized scope, fully consistent with a narrow ruling and without broader citywide implications. Accordingly, the Board should find that the Project does not comply with the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District because it exceeds the applicable 0.4 FAR limit for SF-zoned lots, and should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. The Board should further find that, within the North University NCCD, the 0.4 FAR established in the site development standards is the controlling FAR for development on SF-zoned lots, including three-unit residential use, unless and until that standard is amended by ordinance. NCCD Front of Building and Lot Requirement Part 3 of the NCCD defines key terms used in the ordinance, including “front of building,” which is defined as the side of a building that includes the main entrance. Part 6 establishes general provisions applicable to all property within the NCCD. Part 6, Section 2 governs the required relationship between a building and its lot, stating: “Except as provided in Subsection b, a building shall front on the short side of the lot or, where lots have been combined, on the side where the original short ends of the lots fronted.” The site at 205 E 34th Street is not located within the geographic area identified in Subsection b. The approved plan set places the main entrance of Building 2 facing the alley rather than the street frontage, which violates the requirement in Part 6, Section 2 of the NCCD (see Attachment G). As a result, the application and approved plan set do not demonstrate compliance with the applicable NCCD requirements governing building orientation. Compliance with this requirement would require a substantive redesign, as the approved configuration constrains compliance with other adopted code requirements, including exterior visitability. Accordingly, the Board of Adjustment should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. ITEM07/14 - APPELLANT NCCD Residential District Development Pattern Intent Part 7 of the NCCD states that “The Residential District is intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood that were established for residential use. Single family homes and some of the older multi-family structures were built in the context of the traditional development patterns. New residential development should respect traditional patterns.” Attachment H includes scaled elevations of the proposed new residential development and the existing adjacent buildings along East 34th Street and the alley. These drawings are provided to allow visual comparison regarding the development pattern intent described in Part 7. Full scale version of the elevations are included in the Advanced Packet. Exterior Visitable Route and Visitable Dwelling Entrance – Buildings 1 and 2 The International Residential Code establishes visitability requirements to ensure that persons with mobility limitations can reasonably access at least one entrance of a dwelling. IRC Section R322.8 requires a visitable dwelling to include at least one no-step entrance with a beveled threshold and minimum door width. IRC Section R322.9 further requires that such an entrance be accessible via an exterior visitable route with a cross slope not exceeding two percent, originating from a garage, driveway, public street, or public sidewalk. Although the approved plans reference these requirements on multiple plan sheets, the plans do not demonstrate compliance with several material aspects of Sections R322.8 and R322.9 for either Building 2 or Building 1. For Building 2, the approved plans depict the exterior visitable route originating from the alley at the rear of the site (Attachment I). The plans show no garage, driveway, public street, or public sidewalk associated with Building 2, and parking is prohibited within the alley itself. As a result, the plans do not identify a compliant origin point for the exterior visitable route as required by IRC Section R322.9. In practical terms, accessing the visitable route shown on the plans would require a visitor to park elsewhere and travel through the alley to reach the building. As shown in Attachment J, the alley is poorly paved and unevenly graded with a notable slope and irregular surface transitions that do not provide a stable, firm, or accessible arrival environment consistent with the purpose of the exterior visitable route provisions. The approved plans also depict the visitable route as obstructed by existing guy wires supporting a utility pole within the alley (Attachment J). The prior Applicant stated that the ITEM07/15 - APPELLANT guy wires would be removed in response to City review comment, however the guy wires remain in place, and there is no active or approved request with Austin Energy to remove them. A prior request to relocate the utility pole was withdrawn after City and Austin Energy staff determined that relocation would impact a protected tree. As approved, the visitable route depicted on the plans is physically obstructed. In addition, the elevations for Building 2 show that the door where the visitable route terminates includes a vertical step up (Attachment I). While the visitable route could theoretically slope up from the alley to the door elevation, the plans do not include any slope calculations, grading details, or ramp design demonstrating compliance with IRC requirements. Without such information, it is not possible to determine whether the route complies with maximum slope limits or whether a ramp is required. For Building 1, the approved plans depict two exterior visitable routes originating from the sidewalk along E 34th Street (Attachment K). However, the plans do not show any curb cut, driveway, or on-site parking that would allow a visitor to reach the sidewalk adjacent to the site. City review comments state that removal of the existing driveway apron is required, and the approved plans reflect that the driveway approach will be removed. Figure 6: Staff Review Comment Requiring Removal of Existing Driveway Apron In practice, accessing either visitable route shown for Building 1 would require a visitor to park then travel through the street to reach a driveway on an adjacent property or the ADA sidewalk entrances at the ends of the block. This section of E 34th Street and its sidewalk exhibit notable slope and elevation changes, and do not provide a level or readily accessible arrival environment consistent with the intent of the visitability provisions. The elevations for Building 1 further show that the door serving Unit 1A includes a vertical step up at the point where the visitable route arrives (Attachment K). For Unit 1B, the plans show the door located below the elevation of the sidewalk-origin visitable route, with no retaining wall, grading plan, or ramp design shown to allow the route to reach the door. As with Building 2, the plans do not include slope calculations or grading details demonstrating that the visitable route complies with IRC slope limits or whether a ramp is required. ITEM07/16 - APPELLANT Accordingly, the Board should find that the Project does not demonstrate compliance with the visitability requirements applicable under Chapter 25 of the Land Development Code, because the approved plans fail to show a compliant exterior visitable route or visitable dwelling entrance for either Building 1 or Building 2. The Board of Adjustment should therefore reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. Fire Apparatus Access – Building 2 International Fire Code Section 503 requires approved fire apparatus access roads for all new buildings, ensuring emergency vehicle access to within 150 feet of all first-story exterior walls. These roads must maintain a minimum of 20-foot unobstructed width. Scaled measurements taken directly from the approved site plan indicate that a substantial portion of Building 2, including approximately one-third of the building footprint, is located more than 150 feet from the public street (see Attachment L). The public street is the only fire apparatus access road identified on the approved plans serving the front of the lot. As a result, access to the rear portion of Building 2 would necessarily rely on the alley shown behind the building. The approved site plans depict this alley as having a width of approximately 12 feet. Field measurements further confirm that both alley entrances and multiple locations within the alley provide less than 20 feet of unobstructed clear width between fixed obstructions. As such, the approved plans do not demonstrate compliance with the minimum access width requirements of the IFC, nor do they document a compliant fire apparatus access arrangement serving Building 2. Accordingly, the Board should find that the approved plans do not demonstrate compliance with the fire apparatus access requirements of the International Fire Code, as applied through Chapter 25 of the Land Development Code, and should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. Stair Winder Tread Safety Requirements – Building 1 Section R318.7.5.2.1 of the International Residential Code establishes minimum tread depth and dimensional consistency requirements for winder treads. The approved plans for the Project show two stairways incorporating winder treads that taper to a sharp point, resulting in portions of the stair that provide less than the minimum six (6) inches of tread ITEM07/17 - APPELLANT depth within the clear width of the stair and exhibit excessive variation in tread depth within a single flight (see Attachment M). During plan review, staff identified IRC Section R318.7.5.2 as applicable and required the Applicant to add a stair note referencing that section on the plan sheet containing the stair design. However, the Applicant responded only by adding a code citation note, and no changes were made to the stair geometry. The approved plans therefore depict stairs that do not comply with the winder tread requirements of the International Residential Code. Accordingly, the Board should find that the approved plans do not demonstrate compliance with the stair safety requirements of the International Residential Code, as applied through Chapter 25 of the Land Development Code, and should reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. Incomplete Application Materials Section 25-1-82 of the Land Development Code provides that an application is complete only after the Applicant provides all information required to be included in the application, and that omission of required information may be permitted only if the omitted information is not material to a decision on the application. The approved plans contain multiple omissions and internal inconsistencies that are material to review of zoning compliance, site access, and development feasibility. A. Failure to Complete Required Zoning and Neighborhood Plan Information During plan review, staff expressly required completion of Page 1 of the application to identify the correct zoning district and neighborhood plan area, stating: “Ensure the following items are completed on page 1: Zoning District: SF-3-NCCD-NP; Neighborhood Plan Area: North University NCCD.” The approved application does not reflect these required corrections and continues to list the zoning district incorrectly as SF-3 and the Neighborhood Plan Area as not applicable (N/A). ITEM07/18 - APPELLANT Figure 7: Staff Review Comment Requiring Completion of Zoning and Neighborhood Plan Information Figure 8: Application Page 1 Showing Incorrect Zoning and Neighborhood Plan Fields B. Internally Inconsistent Site Plan Following Required Driveway Removal During plan review, staff expressly required removal of the existing driveway apron serving 205 E 34th Street, stating that for new infill development it is not permitted to retain a driveway approach if it no longer serves a driveway. The approved plans reflect this requirement by depicting no driveway or vehicular access from the public street. However, the approved “Site Plan Construction Material Location” depicts multiple construction material staging areas located in the front yard of the Property immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk (See Attachment N). Following removal of the driveway apron, the plans do not identify any lawful means by which construction vehicles could access these staging areas from the public right-of-way. No temporary access route, curb cut, or alternative access arrangement is shown, and the plans do not indicate that construction access would occur from the alley. The approved site plan further depicts a proposed concrete washout area located immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk. Concrete washout facilities require physical access by concrete delivery vehicles and controlled containment to prevent discharge into the public right-of-way. Following removal of the driveway apron, the plans do not identify any lawful vehicular access to this washout location, nor do they address protection of the adjacent sidewalk and right-of-way. ITEM07/19 - APPELLANT In addition, the approved plans depict a substantial concrete slab for Building 2 located approximately 100 feet from the public street. Placement of such a slab necessarily requires concrete delivery vehicles and/or pump equipment capable of reaching the rear of the site. Following removal of the driveway apron, the plans do not identify any lawful or stabilized construction access route capable of serving this work, nor do they indicate that access would occur from the alley. The alley is shown on the approved site plans as having a width of approximately 12 feet, which does not demonstrate that it could accommodate concrete delivery or pumping operations for the rear building. As approved, the plans depict construction activities that cannot occur under the same plans without unstated assumptions regarding site access. This unresolved inconsistency demonstrates that the application does not provide complete information necessary for review and does not comply with the completeness requirements of Section 25-1-82 of the Land Development Code. C. Incorrect and Inapplicable Code Citations Undermining Enforceability The approved plans repeatedly invoke compliance with visitability requirements under the International Residential Code, but cite inapplicable IRC sections rather than the governing provisions adopted by the City of Austin. As approved, the plans reference IRC Sections R318 and R320 for visitability-related requirements, despite the fact that visitability is governed by IRC Section R322, as adopted and amended through Chapter 25 of the Land Development Code. By citing non-applicable code provisions while purporting to demonstrate compliance, the approved plans do not reliably identify the standards against which compliance is being claimed or reviewed. This internal inconsistency is material because it impairs the ability of City staff, inspectors, and affected parties to determine whether the plans demonstrate compliance with the applicable code provisions in effect at the time of approval. Accordingly, the Board should find that the application did not satisfy the completeness requirements of Section 25-1-82 of the Land Development Code, because required zoning internal information was not provided and the approved plans contain material inconsistencies regarding site access and development feasibility. The Board should therefore reverse the City’s decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. ITEM07/20 - APPELLANT Conclusion For the reasons described above, I appeal the City’s decision to approve the Project and respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment reverse the administrative decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR. Thank you for your consideration. I am available to discuss this matter further. Respectfully, Peter Journeay-Kaler 207 E 34th St ITEM07/21 - APPELLANT Materials Reference Included in the Board of Adjustment Advanced Packet 01 - 205 E 34th St Appeal app 02 - Cover Letter C15-2026-0005 Advanced Packet 03 - BOA Decision Sheet Oct 13 04 - Master Comment Report – 205 E 34th Street 05 - RECORD SET (approved version) Part 1 06 - RECORD SET (approved version) Part 2 07 - NU NCCD ORDINANCE NO. 040826-58 08 - 20110804-040, Ordinance 09 - 20120802-103, Ordinance 10 - Zoning Change Review Sheet C14-2011-001… 11 - Zoning Change Review Sheet C14-04-0022… 12 - Site Plan of proposed structures 13 - Scaled Elevations E 34th St 14 - Scaled Elevations Alley 15 - Survey 16 - Site Plan of surrounding structures 17 - Appeal notice letter ITEM07/22 - APPELLANT ITEM07/23 - APPELLANTITEM07/24 - APPELLANTITEM07/25 - APPELLANTITEM07/26 - APPELLANTITEM07/27 - APPELLANTITEM07/28 - APPELLANTITEM07/29 - APPELLANTAttachment H: NCCD Part 7 Residential District Traditional Pattern Intent, Scaled Elevations of Proposed Project and Existing Buildings on E 34th Street and Alley ITEM07/30 - APPELLANTITEM07/31 - APPELLANTITEM07/32 - APPELLANTITEM07/33 - APPELLANTITEM07/34 - APPELLANT