ITEM07 C15-2026-0005 PRESENTATION OWNER — original pdf

Backup

PRESENTATION C15-2026-0005 Permit No. 2025-140201 PR Address: 205 East 34th Street Owner or Permit Holder: Leonid Murashkovskiy ITEM07/1-PRESENTATION OWNERATTACHMENT LIST (EXHIBITS) Exhibit A: Permit Decision & Master Comment Report • Description: A copy of Permit No. 2025-14020 I PR and the final City of Austin Master Comment Report. • Purpose: Establishes the "Appealed Decision" and proves that City staff explicitly reviewed and approved the project as a 5-bedroom single-family dwelling under the IRC, not a 12-bedroom congregate living facility. It also refutes the claim of an "incomplete application" by showing the City deemed it sufficient for review. Exhibit B: Official Recorded Survey • Description: The stamped and recorded land survey of 205 East 34th Street. • Purpose: This is the controlling legal document for the site. It definitively refutes the Appellant's claim that the alley is only 12 feet wide by documenting the full 20-foot Right-of-Way (ROW). This directly disproves the Fire Code violation claim. Exhibit C: Correspondence from Residential Plan Review Supervisor • Description: Email correspondence from John Bowman, Residential Plan Review Supervisor, regarding visitability. • Purpose: Provides the Board with the City's official interpretation that a visitability route may originate from an alley "where a vehicle can drive". This negates the Appellant's argument that the alley origin is non-compliant. Exhibit D: Austin Energy Approval for Guy Wire Removal • Description: Documentation or approved utility plan from Austin Energy authorizing the removal of the down guy wires. • Purpose: Proves that the "obstruction" cited by the Appellant is already slated for removal as part of the approved utility design. Exhibit E: Site Photographs of Alley Conditions • Description: Current photographs of the alley surface behind the property. • Purpose: Demonstrates that the alley surface is paved and stable, supporting the City's determination that it is accessible for visitability and emergency vehicles, contrary to the Appellant's claims of it being "poorly paved". Exhibit F: Excerpts from Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure • Description: Article I(A) regarding ''Legal Authority & Jurisdiction" and Article IV(A) regarding "Administrative Appeals." ITEM07/2-PRESENTATION OWNER• Purpose: Provides the Board with the black-letter law limiting their jurisdiction to zoning matters only, explicitly excluding the Building and Fire Code issues raised by the Appellant. Exhibit G: Excerpts from North University NCCD (Ordinance No. 040826-58) • Description: Part 7 (Residential District) of the NCCD ordinance. • Purpose: Highlights the text showing FAR limits for "Single Family" and "Duplex" uses but the absence of any restriction for "Three-Unit Residential" use. This supports the argument that the base code (HOME Ordinance) applies where the NCCD is silent. Exhibit H: IRC Stairway Compliance Memo & Field Inspection Standards • Description: Technical documentation regarding IRC stair geometry requirements and City of Austin field inspection protocols. • Purpose: Demonstrates that the 6-inch minimum tread depth is a mandatory construction standard enforced during field inspections, rendering the Appellant's critique of the architectural drafting moot. Exhibit B: Approved Fire Suppression (Sprinkler) • Design Description: Excerpts from the approved utility or building plan showing the inclusion of an automatic fire sprinkler system for Building 2. • Purpose: Provides the factual basis for the Fire Marshal's approval of the building's distance from the street, refuting the Appellant's 150-foot access claim. ITEM07/3-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit A: Master Comment report Tech Master Rob..-n Mende I l/l 4i25 2:42 PM M: BSPA Bruce Crosby 11,21/25 l-56 PM Tr('c Ordinance. Rob Grotry l.1'4/25 I 1.00 AM Tech Ma.slt:r Robcn Mende 1215/25 9.44 lVvf Couunc:nt RT3.SHEEr A2.I.BUI1DJNG2FLOORPLANS. l. Building 2 coutains J 2 boch:oo= aud sluill bc rcvi.:w,;<l as 1111 R-3 Occupancy under the 2024113C as a congregare livlllll facility. 2. Suhroit a Commercial Application for the R-3 Occupancy. Mechanical, electrical and plumlliug mgin<.,-crs ,.-ill nc,-d t,, 81tbwit stamped drJ.wiogs for 1uc co�-rcia_l project. RT :la 1Jpda1e 12/5/202.5. Building 2 ba.s be�u rcvi�wcd nndcr 1hc 2024 '!RC as a one-fanuly dwdlmg nmt. MEP drawings arc not rC<)llircd. Sox, additional info comrn<:nt RT 4. Comment Commem lo cuslOll'.l(,,'f-El<.,-ctrical St'tVlCC is 1101 rcvtt'Wcd at the Plan Rc•icw stage. To l'11Sttrc !he sttc has <--nough elcclrical infraslmcturc w suppon lhc propoS<--d new <lwellioj!�, please Aubmn your ESJJA thronirh the All+C ponal wtlh AE Design to start your proe<:ss for new electrical service IIIX'. 1 I 21 25 Comment Bccau,e uo impll<'ts are allowed in the Quarter CRZ of a proteded tree and no cut/fill gn:alc1 thau 4 • is allowed in the Half CRZ. the insido ,-dgc of the utility pvlc may not l,c placed any closer th.u1 13.5ft from lh,· protcclcd 27" Post Oak. This requirement sllmds even though the relocation of the utih1y pole was approvc-d by Ah. Plc3l!C leave O,e ui.Jbly pole in its cum:nl location or choo,;c a uew location w1lh the inside edge of the utility pole at lc.-.st 13.5ft away from !he 27' Post Oak. \A.)lJUTICtll RT 4. BUil..DING 2 5 BEDROOM D'\VEUJNG UNIT. [Info Oaly Conulli.'111, l'.! 05-2025) Uutlding 2 has been reviewed under the 2024 lntcruational Rcs1de111:ial Code for one ancl two-family dwcllmgs. Buildin:,? 2 cannot be constructed with more than 5 betlrooms to retain 1bc status of a orn:-family dwcllmg uml. I RC Review for ltlljldin.e: 2 docs not require Ml:P drawing.• and shall be deleted from the Plan Sci in PDoxJ Responded by: KATiiRYNA IUST!CllT,NKO Ac'vl Current bedroom c-ouul at bldg 2 is 9. MEP is uploaded. I 1!19/2.S 7:05 Re.solved JnfoOuly Respo11cled by KA11iRYNA IUSHCHENKO 1219125 6 0'.1 Resolved PM posl is lllovcd lo Lin.· old ooe, 11olillllj! else is chanj!l-d Info Only 2 Tedi Master Rene Lopez 1/5/26 7.09 AM Con1Jne11t Bill /1852535.3 is out.,taudinl( and must be paid. Once paymcut is m:u.le. please com.plctc yo1,r l�k w PmjcctDox so ,..c can approve tlic projccl as soon as possible. Rl,,;pon<lcd by. Leonid Murashkovskiy - 1/7,'26 11.59 AM seems to be paid alr�ady Resolwd ITEM07/4-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit B: Correspondence with Fire reviewer Fire Cohn Cruwfonl 6i25l25 l :39 PM note to the plan set; ·',1full residential sprinkler sy,,·icm designed, ins/111/ed, and te.vtl'd in acwrdance h'illi the 2019 NFPA JJD or the 2021 IRC P2904 .,·u11uit1Jd.s will be i11,nolled in this prr.,pr.rty. The pl01ts for rhe .tprink/e.r syxtem must be designed and in<ral/ed by a 1exa;, licensed Spri11k/l!r wntrartor fw NFPA /31) systems or a Tr.:ws licensed l'lli.lnher with che Multipurpose Residmtial Fire f'rotecrwn Sprink�r Specilllist (MRFPSSJ endorsement. The Sprinkler plc'!ls musrbe submi1ted, reviewed, appl1),•ed. trM,iA. w,d in,<pected by AFD prior 10 ,•,w,,ring the wtilh t1nd ceilin,rs, A flow tesr of rhe most demandill.� ar,a will be required." Reviewer Rcoponse: Colin Crawford - 7115{].5 3:48 PM ����- Plr� flow is 2106 GPM on 34th �t. whkh is sufficient for "building l "s fire• area. fin: sprinkler, and tm: inspc�1.ions will not be ,equired for building I. !Re'i!t' Responded by: KATERYNA TTJSHCHENKO- 7/8/25 1:18 PM we added remarks In the plan<, rn;cr 1.s added to sii.: plan ITEM07/5-PRESENTATION OWNER§ i ! � ! t l i � , , . . ,. \ � � 't't ✓ / � , : 1 � , ' ' � · . � • r ' · 1 h i 1 i ' i ! l i ' i i I ! q I ' . i 1 1 .-! H u 1 1 l · , i · : ' . - !_' . , ' I I I l " - - " - " ' - - ! � � J · � I . I I , ! ! l d ; n ! 1 i 1 I i i i ! • ' I j ! . l ' I ! l ' l I i i i ' j i � I i 6 l 1 n h i l ' i f l ' / l j ! " ! ! s , 1 · , l · l · . l '\ .l ! · ( � '. , ! p , H , , U f n : ! " 1 i t r ! ! l ! n i t ; l J · · 1 · , I i l l P • , p ! l l ! 1 1 l l i ; ! 1 ) j ! ! j 1 h j 1 1 l ! ,1' ! j f � , , ! l i I ' ! ! 1 1 ! , 1 1 9 , � i i 1 1 ] 1 : 4 I ; ! , [ ! , 1 . 1 . 1 , l , d 1 ! l 1 l H ! · , : I l r ; i i ' I · l i i ' l ' 1 ! 1 ' l j i f i ; ' i 1 1 6 ' 1 ! ? � � ; , I � ' ! � § � � � � ;: � ! � � � Q � � I � i§ iS � ! I 1 ' f - , i J - I I I I I I i I I ) " f . ; 1 M h ' ' l I 1 r ITEM07/6-PRESENTATION OWNER Exhibit C: Correspondence from Residential Plan Review Supervisor Mayra asked that I help you out with your visitability questions. I'll do my best to clarify what's requited. Visitability is required for every new dwelling unit, whether it's a maln house or an ADU on a property. The exterior path must be 36" wide with a cross slope of no greater than 2:% (1:50) that originates from a garage, driveway, public street. or public sidewalk.:n�.can be an.�Ji(well. The path Is required to be solid. firm, and stable but materials can vary as long as they comply. The full explanations of the requirements can be found here; ll!ms.//libra[Y.municode.com/lxlaustlrJcodes/buildlng_ criteria. manual? nodeld::::$4RECO 4.4.0RESURE 4A-�! Let me know if that helps or if you have further questions and 111 do my best to help you out. Have a good day, John Bowman � Residential Plan Review Supervisor n ............. 1---�-" c--•1 .... ,.. ... n� ..... ,...,. ___ • ITEM07/7-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit D: Austin Energy approval for guy wire removal LI V _, ' .:. ,207 / I I I I I I I I /□� t.'t #. / / 205 REMOVE BOTH AE DOWN GUYS & LEAVE SPAN GUY / I'--.... _,/ I ,/ / lo( ' , / / _ , ,-' , , / 209( NSTRUCTION � ITEM07/8-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit E: Site photographs of alley condition ITEM07/9-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM07/10-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit F: Excerpts from Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Board of Adjustment on February 11, 2019 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (A) Legal Authority & Jurisdiction. ( l) The Board of Adjustment ("BOA" or "Board") is a sovereign board established by the City Council pursuant to Subchapter A of Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code ("Chapter 211 "). The BOA derives its authority from state law, as well as City Code § 2-1-111 (Board of Adjustment) and Chapter 25-2 (Zoning). ARTICLE IV. SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS (A) Appeals Limited to Interpretations of Site Development Regulations & Land Use Determinations. The BOA may consider an administrative appeal alleging error in an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by City staff in enforcing a substantive requirement of Chapter 25-2 or other City zoning regulation, including appeals challenging the approval or disapproval of a site plan or building permit and formal code interpretations not related to a particular development. ITEM07/11-PRESENTATION OWNERExhibit G: Excerpts from North University NCCD (Ordinance No. 040826-58) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Min. lot size Min. lot width Max. FAR -- SF-2/SF-3 5750* 50* Dupli!X 0.4: 1 Max. building covcrac;c 40% SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MF-2 MF-I thru 8000 .. 50• 0.5:] 45% . ·- 8000• 50* 0,5:1 50% MF-3 Mf-6 sooo• 5(1• 0.5:1 55% -- NO 5750• · 50% 0.35:1 35% ITEM07/12-PRESENTATION OWNERm ::T ·C' - >< � :::c: ITEM07/13-PRESENTATION OWNER 1 I , · · · · ··· · ····· ····· 1 , I / _ _ � · · ] · · · � -- · . ,. · · · · · , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITEM07/14-PRESENTATION OWNER BOA authority is limited to zoning and land-use matters; it may not vote on technical building code provisions, including the International Residential Code (IRC) or Fire Code. BOA is govern by the following bylaws: BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARTICLE I. NAME. The name of the board is the Board of Adjustment. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE AND DUTIES. (A) The purpose of the Board of Adjustment is to: I. 2. 3. 4. Hear and decide a request for a variance from the requirements of Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), except as otherwise provided by the Code; Hear and decide an appeal of an administration action under Chapter 25-2 (Zoning); Hear and decide on a request for a variance from the requirements of airport zoning regulations under Section 241. 034, Local Government Code; and Perform other duties prescribed by ordinance or state law. ITEM07/15-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM 1 (bedroom count) - Outside the Scope of BOA Authority The approved plans show 5 bedrooms. The original application included 9 bedrooms with full MEP drawings and was reviewed and approved by City technical staff under R-3 Occupancy (Congregate Living Facility). Subsequent zoning and utility constraints-including a 10-ft setback from a non-compliant alley and a 7.5-ft clearance from overhead power lines after pole relocation was canceled - expanded the effective setback from 5 ft to nearly 10 ft. This reduced the building width by over 10 ft, resulting in bedroom widths of approximately 7 ft (with 9-ft ceilings), which are not livable and eliminate rental viability. ITEM 2 (FAR at given NCCD)- Outside the Scope of BOA Authority The NCCD specifies FAR for single-family and duplex uses. The City later introduced two- and three-family dwelling terminology so that the HOME ordinance applies citywide, including within NCCDs. When the NCCD was created, much of the Land Development Code was incorporated into it, with preservation achieved through rezoning only. While the Land Development Code is updated frequently, the NCCD has remained largely unchanged. Consistent with its original structure, the NCCD is intended to follow the base Land Development Code, not ad-hoc or speculative FAR values proposed by appellants. Any change to NCCD FAR requires action by Mayor and Council and is outside the authority of the BOA. ITEM07/16-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM 3 (visitablity path)- Outside the Scope of BOA Authority Desing of visitability routes have been confirmed with several building officials after the appeal emerged. More importantly, most of the code compliance is done in the field as the code requires Under City ordinance and confirmed by City staff, the visitability route may connect to either an alley or a sidewalk. In many approved projects, the City requires construction of a sidewalk even when adjacent properties do not have sidewalks, and allows the visitability route to connect to that sidewalk regardless. Mayra asked that I help you out with your visitability questions. I'll do my best to clarify what's required. Visitability is required for every new dwelling unit, whether it's a main house or an ADU on a property. The exterior path must be 36" wide with a cross slope of no greater than 2% (1 :50) that originates from a garage, driveway, public street, or public sidewalk. This can be an alley as well. The path is required to be solid, firm, and stable but materials can vary as long as they comply. The full explanations of the requirements can be found here: httRs://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/building criteria manual? nodeld=S4RECO 4.4.0RESURE 4.4. 7VI Let me know if that helps or if you have further questions and I'll do my best to help you out. Have a good day, John Bowman � no,,olnnmont Con,i,-..oC'!- non"'3rfmon♦- Residential Plan Review Supervisor ITEM07/17-PRESENTATION OWNERBuilding 1 provides two visitability routes to the sidewalk. Building 2 provides a visitability route to a well-paved alley. The appellants submitted close-up photos of damaged alley pavement located outside the subject lot and likely outside the neighborhood. City staff reviewed the actual site photos of the sidewalk and alley and approved the visitability routes. John Bowman (plan review supervisor): "this can be an alley where a vehicle can drive or be accessible. So the surface of the alley in the photos looks good in this case." ITEM07/18-PRESENTATION OWNERGuy Wire at Building 2: The guy wire cited by the appellants as an obstacle to the visitability route has been approved for removal by Austin Energy and is included as part of the approved utility design. 203 '><:'1 ,,--------­ _,, ,, / 20s , //b - I _,t/1-; �/ ',, ), � .,. / , / REMOVE BOTH AE DOWN GUYS & LEAVE SPAN GUY '1/></ _,,,,-' ,' , I ,' , _., / / /,' ,,,, __ ... { 209( ITEM07/19-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM 4 (Fire Apparatus Access) - Outside the Scope of BOA Authority The survey is the controlling document for determining alley width. The site plan is not required to depict the alley to precise scale. The recorded survey shows the alley is 20 feet wide, which satisfies the minimum width required by the Fire Code. '� �/22�:Jzl�EY £ //JL/1:, , ,_"X.r FOUND --1 nn' 52 ......... IN STONE 3.8' i·- % 1/1/.;,; '//' 1/.7-} ''J·:, lw� �qo ITEM07/20-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM 5 (Stair Winder Tread Safety Requirements) -- Outside the Scope of BOA Authority Winder tread dimensions are typically verified in the field during inspection, not through detailed geometric depiction in architectural drawings. The Code does not require construction documents to graphically model each stair tum; standard drafting software templates were used for the stair layout. Detailed tread measurements and compliance are confirmed by the building inspector during field inspection, with allowable tolerances (typically within ¼ inch). A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued unless the stairs comply with applicable code requirements . 1 "/ I/ I/ // i I i I J/ . --�-;/ �I ' 1 t-- l i , I/ J [ ?]F ., { •-0 •�•�•j. ,, I 12 i �-- - +----i ' I f- - - - -i- - - - ---1 L 11 : ·········�� 10 i 9 - 1 . 8 '----- .. - ! I'-,_ i ---iJ [ II I ------ nr f I j�· , ,\ \\ \0 ,, \\ \\ I --. .. \\ ' ' ii . ',', �. ::- .::.:!"� ,, . r- ' 15 \ -· ___ -: ·"44-= :__::_ t--- ' -·- -- ' \ I \ 6 3/4" tY •. \(' ... y. '°1' " ( :-·.:::::...;::: - _l�L.J_ . [ 13 -� ' 12 f -, -- --'L···---··· L __ - 7 z i i-· 1s "' I 16 I t 1 M O I I �I /.,.( ;/ // - t- �- ·- 11 r····· 10 / // / // // , {. / j . / // / /,,l / / �--, / ;:- ,'/ ;,; • /{ � // ,- ::;�.J:�?' l -f./� _____ J / . -; __ ...:.::--�- -- -- - --· -·- __ -==1 ' '- 1. 6' �= _ , � i 11 ,; /f���j ' · /.,r-. � - �-...;::r- 1 • · · -- ·- / / /1. ' t . ,···-- ' ' ' � --·-�' ', ITEM07/21-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM 6 (negligible omission on the application form) While certain information was not included in the application, the Land Development Code requires only the information necessary for the City to make an informed decision-which it did. The City correctly identified the property as SF-3 and within an NCCD and processed the application accordingly. Applying the same standard, the appellants' application should not be accepted, as it omits multiple required items. ITEM07/22-PRESENTATION OWNERITEM07/23-PRESENTATION OWNER