ITEM08 C15-2026-0005 ADV PACKET APR13 APPELLANT PART1 — original pdf

Backup

BOA RECONSIDERATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2026-0005 BOA DATE: Monday, April 13th, 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 ITEM08/1-APPELLANT CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM07 DATE: Monday March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0005 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ___N____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___N____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___N____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___A____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ABSTAINED ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___N____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___N____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___A____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ABSTAINED ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Peter Journeay-Kaler OWNER: JBD CR HOLDING LLC – Leonid Murashkovskiy ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST VARIANCE REQUESTED: The 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. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit and related construction plans failed to comply with: (1) applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or City Code Chapter 25-2, related to maximum allowable Floor-Area Ratio (FAR); (2) requirements of the International Residential Code (IRC) related to bedroom count, occupancy classification, visitability, and stair tread depth requirements; (3) International Fire Code (IFC) requirements related to minimum required access for fire apparatus; and (4) City Code Section 25-1-82 related to completeness requirements for development applications. ITEM08/2-APPELLANTBOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to uphold staff’s decision and appeal denied; Board member Brian Poteet second on 3-5-2 votes (Chair Jessica Cohen, Board members Bianca Medina-Leal, Yung-ju Kim, Michael Von Ohlen, Jeffery Bowen nay; Board Members Corry Archer-Mcclellan, Haseeb Abdullah abstained); UPHOLD STAFF’S DECISION AND APPEAL DENIED. FINDING: 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: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM08/3-APPELLANT Letter Requesting Reconsideration of BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 (205 E 34th Street) Madam Chair Cohen and Members of the Board of Adjustment: I respectfully request reconsideration of the Board’s action taken at the March 9, 2026 meeting, concerning the appeal in BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 (205 E 34th Street). This request is submitted to allow the Board to address procedural and substantive issues that arose during the hearing and that warrant further consideration. Reconsideration would permit the Board to ensure that its action fully reflects the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the governing ordinances, and the issues presented in the appeal. This request is based on the following principal grounds: 1. Participation of a Disqualified Board Member Who Received Material Information Outside the Hearing Record 2. Lack of Determination Regarding the Applicable NCCD Building-Orientation Requirement 3. Issues concerning the interpretation and application of NCCD floor-area-ratio standards 4. Questions regarding use classification and related zoning determinations Each of these issues is described in greater detail below. 1. Participation of a Disqualified Board Member Who Received Material Information Outside the Hearing Record Reconsideration is warranted to address the participation of Board Member Brian Poteet in the March 9, 2026 hearing after he received material information regarding the case outside the hearing record. A. Receipt of Material Information Outside the Record On February 11, 2026, a North Loop Plan Contact Team Meeting was held at which: • • • • • • The pending BOA appeal was specifically discussed The appellant presented concerns regarding alleged NCCD and code violations related to the 205 E 34th Street project The project was described as an active case scheduled for Board consideration Presentation materials containing substantive information about the appeal were shown Board Member Brian Poteet was present during this discussion and observed the presentation The agenda posted before the meeting identified the appellant by name and stated the presentation would discuss an ongoing project in North University This meeting occurred after the appeal had been filed (January 27) and while the case was pending before the Board. Because the materials and discussion were not part of the official hearing record at that time, Board Member Poteet received substantive information regarding the pending appeal outside the formal process and before that information was made available to the Board through official submissions. Substantially similar ITEM08/4-APPELLANTinformation was later submitted through the formal hearing process in the appeal letter (submitted February 20, 2026) and the presentation materials used at the hearing (submitted February 27, 2026). Documentation of the February 11, 2026 meeting and the information presented is provided in the attached exhibits, including the meeting agenda circulated to participants (Exhibit 1), email correspondence describing the planned presentation concerning the pending appeal (Exhibit 2), and the presentation slides shown at the meeting (Exhibit 3). B. Disqualification Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure The Board’s Rules of Procedure Article Vi. Prohibition on Ex Parte Communications states: Disqualification. A BOA member that receives material information regarding a case that is not made available to other board members is disqualified from participating in the case unless the member publicly discloses the information and its source at the earliest reasonable opportunity. No such disclosure was made on the record at the March 9 hearing. Despite this, Board Member Poteet: • Participated in deliberations • Seconded the motion to deny the appeal • Voted in favor of denying the appeal Reconsideration would allow the Board to determine whether participation under these circumstances complied with its Rules and applicable due-process standards. C. Statutory Requirement That 75 Percent of Members Hear Each Case Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 requires that each case before a Board of Adjustment be heard by at least 75 percent of the Board’s members. For an eleven-member board, this requirement corresponds to participation by at least nine members in the hearing of the case. Prior to deliberations in Case No. C15-2026-0005, Alternate Member Archer-McClellan stated on the record that he would abstain and stepped down from participation in the case, leaving the dais and not taking part in discussion or voting. The Chair subsequently confirmed that the Board would proceed with nine members. Alternate Member Archer-McClellan had previously attended the Hancock Neighborhood Association meeting on January 14th, where details concerning the 205 E 34th Street appeal were presented. If Board Member Poteet was required to disqualify himself, only eight eligible members would have remained to hear the appeal. Under those circumstances, the Board would not have satisfied the statutory participation requirement. Reconsideration would allow the Board to address this issue and ensure compliance with state law governing Board of Adjustment proceedings. ITEM08/5-APPELLANT D. Effect on the Outcome of the Appeal Board Member Poteet’s participation was outcome determinative. The appeal was denied based on three affirmative votes supporting a motion to uphold the staff decision. Board Member Poteet seconded this motion and was one of the three votes in favor of denial. If he had been disqualified: • Only two votes would have supported denial • • The appeal would not have been denied on that basis The motion would not have satisfied the applicable voting threshold Thus, the participation of a potentially disqualified member materially affected both the composition of the decision-making body and the outcome of the case. It also prevented full consideration by the remaining members of the Board, several of whom expressed a desire to further discuss elements of the appeal. E. Need for Reconsideration to Preserve Procedural Integrity Reconsideration would allow the Board to: • Determine whether Board Member Poteet’s participation complied with the Board’s Rules of Procedure • Ensure that the statutory participation requirement was satisfied • Clarify the procedural status of the Board’s action taken on March 9, 2026 ITEM08/6-APPELLANT 2. Lack of Determination Regarding the Applicable NCCD Building-Orientation Requirement Reconsideration is warranted to allow the Board to address a specific adopted ordinance requirement that was raised in the appeal but not analyzed or resolved in the Board’s decision. A. Existence of a Mandatory NCCD Requirement The North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) is an adopted City ordinance (Ordinance No. 040826-58) that establishes binding development requirements for properties located in the North University neighborhood. Part 3 of the NCCD (Definitions) defines front of building as “the side of a building that includes the main entrance.” Part 6 of the NCCD (General Provisions) defines requirements that apply to all property within the NCCD-NP. Part 6, Section 2 (Front of Building and Lot) states that “a building must front on the short side of the lot.” Together, Parts 3 and 6 require that a building’s main entrance face the street frontage. This requirement is reinforced by Part 7 of the NCCD (Residential District), which sets the site development standards for the area of North University where 205 E 34th Street is located. Part 7 states that “new residential development should respect traditional patterns, including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” This confirms that building orientation is a core requirement of the NCCD and applies to new residential projects, including development at 205 E 34th Street. B. Evidence of Noncompliance Presented to the Board The appeal materials, supporting letter, and presentation to the Board explained that: • The approved plans for 205 E 34th Street place the primary entrance of Building 2 facing the alley rather than the street frontage • Compliance would require a substantive redesign Relevant plan excerpts and diagrams were included in the appeal materials (see Exhibit 4) and discussed during the hearing. C. Absence of Analysis or Determination Despite the issue being squarely raised: The staff report did not address the NCCD building-orientation requirement The permit holder’s materials did not address the requirement • • • No argument was presented explaining why the requirement would not apply • The Board did not discuss the issue during deliberations By upholding the staff decision, the Board effectively allowed the project to proceed without any stated determination regarding compliance with this ordinance requirement. ITEM08/7-APPELLANT D. Resulting Uncertainty Regarding Enforcement of the NCCD Because the NCCD is a duly adopted City ordinance that can be amended only by the City Council, the absence of any determination leaves unclear: • Whether the requirement was deemed inapplicable • Whether compliance was assumed • Whether it was inadvertently overlooked • Whether it was implicitly treated as superseded This uncertainty has implications beyond the individual project, as it affects how the ordinance is understood and applied to future development within the district. E. Reconsideration Needed to Clarify Applicability and Compliance Reconsideration would allow the Board to: • Determine whether the NCCD building-orientation requirement applies to the proposed project • Evaluate whether the approved plans comply with that requirement • Clarify the relationship between the NCCD and other applicable regulations • Provide a clear administrative record explaining the basis for the Board’s decision This request does not ask the Board to reach any particular outcome, but rather to ensure that all applicable ordinance provisions raised in the appeal are expressly addressed. ITEM08/8-APPELLANT 3. Interpretation of NCCD Floor-Area-Ratio Standards Reconsideration is warranted to allow the Board to address whether the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) establishes applicable floor-area-ratio (FAR) standards for the proposed three-unit development at 205 E 34th Street, and whether the Board’s decision properly evaluated those standards. The decision reflected in the three affirmative votes to uphold staff is based on an improper reading of Part 5, which governs land uses, not site development standards. A. Structure of the NCCD Distinguishes Uses from Development Standards The NCCD organizes regulatory provisions into distinct parts addressing different topics. Part 5 governs permitted and conditional land uses, identifying what types of development may occur within the area. It states, “Except as provided in this section, the permitted and conditional uses for the residential base zoning districts apply in accordance with the Code.” The emphasis here is that the uses for each of the base zoning districts apply except as modified by the table contained within Part 5. In contrast, Part 7 governs site development standards for the Residential District in North University where 205 E 34th Street is located, including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location. Part 7 does not include the same language giving deference to the Code. Rather, it sets specific standards “intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood that were established for residential use.” The appeal raised concerns regarding floor area ratio (FAR), which is expressly regulated by Part 7 (site development standards) of the NCCD and is not addressed in Part 5 (permitted uses). Accordingly, determining the applicability of FAR standards requires analysis of Part 7 rather than reliance on provisions governing permitted uses. B. Part 7 Applies to New Residential Development Part 7 establishes standards applicable to residential development within the area of North University where the subject property is located. The ordinance states: “new residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” This language applies to all new residential development, including development consisting of three dwelling units. Scale refers to the overall size of a building relative to the lot, which is quantitatively regulated through FAR. Part 7 therefore addresses how residential development is physically built, regardless of the number of dwelling units. ITEM08/9-APPELLANT C. Part 7 Applies the 0.4 FAR Standard to a SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot with Three-Units Ordinance No. 20120802-103 amended NCCD Part 7 to establish a maximum FAR of 0.4 for a lot zoned SF-3- NCCD-NP and containing three dwelling units: 201 E 34th Street and 3307 Helms Street (Lot 1, Block 19, Grooms Addition Subdivision), see Exhibit 5. These characteristics correspond directly to the regulatory context of 205 E 34th Street (Lot 3, Block 19, Grooms Addition Subdivision), which is governed by the site development standards of Part 7 of the NCCD, is zoned SF-3-NCCD-NP, and is proposed for new residential development consisting of three dwelling units. Ordinance No. 20120802-103 therefore establishes that the NCCD contains an explicit FAR standard applicable to SF-3-NCCD-NP residential development with three dwelling units. Accordingly, the NCCD is not silent regarding the application of the 0.4 FAR limit to the proposed project at 205 E 34th Street. D. The Part 7 FAR Table Does Not Restrict Applicability to Other Residential Uses The FAR table within Part 7 lists a maximum FAR of 0.4:1 for duplex development. However, the ordinance does not state that this standard applies exclusively to duplex use or that other residential uses within the same zoning category are exempt from FAR limitations. Subsequent amendments to the NCCD demonstrate that the 0.4 FAR standard is not confined to uses expressly listed in the table. Ordinance No. 20110804-040 applied the 0.4 FAR limitation to two-family residential development, and Ordinance No. 20120802-103 applied the same 0.4 FAR standard to residential development consisting of three dwelling units on SF-3-NCCD-NP property. These amendments show that the NCCD treats the FAR limitation as a site-development standard applicable to residential development on property zoned SF-3-NCCD-NP, rather than as a restriction tied solely to a specific use identified in the table. Accordingly, the presence of “duplex” in the FAR table does not establish that other residential uses are exempt from FAR controls. Notably, no other residential zoning category within the NCCD allows a FAR of greater than 0.5 FAR, even up to hundred-unit apartment complexes under MF-6, the highest density residential category. When read together with the structure of Part 7 and the subsequent amendments, the NCCD does not support the conclusion that FAR limitations are inapplicable to three-unit residential development on SF-zoned property within the NCCD. E. Reliance on Part 5 to Conclude Silence, Without Analysis of Part 7 The appeal materials specifically asserted that the 0.4 FAR standard in Part 7 of the NCCD applies to the proposed development. The staff report states that the NCCD is silent regarding FAR limitations for three-unit residential development and therefore that the 0.65 FAR standard under the HOME ordinance applies. This position relied on Part 5 of the NCCD, specifically language stating that permitted uses follow the base zoning unless otherwise provided. ITEM08/10-APPELLANT Part 5, however, addresses land uses, not site development standards. For the proposed project, FAR is regulated in Part 7 of the NCCD, which governs site development standards within the Residential District. During deliberations, one of the prevailing yes votes quoted the language from Part 5 to support the motion. These comments focused on whether the NCCD addressed three-unit uses under Part 5 and whether, in the absence of such use language, the base code should apply. The record does not reflect analysis of Part 7 as the section of the NCCD governing FAR, or analysis of Ordinance No. 20120802-103 as a Part 7 amendment establishing a 0.4 FAR standard for SF-3-NCCD-NP residential development with three dwelling units. By taking action on the appeal without addressing Part 7 and the 2012 amendment, the Board left unresolved whether the assertion of silence was supported by the section of the ordinance that regulates development standards. F. Reconsideration Needed to Clarify Applicability and Compliance Reconsideration would allow the Board to: • Determine whether the NCCD Part 7 FAR provisions apply to the proposed development • Evaluate whether the approved plans comply with those provisions • Clarify the relationship between the NCCD and other applicable regulations • Provide a clear administrative record explaining the basis for the Board’s interpretation This request does not ask the Board to reach any particular outcome, but rather to ensure that the ordinance provisions raised in the appeal are expressly addressed. ITEM08/11-APPELLANT 4. Bedroom Count, Use Classification, and Administrative Review A. Staff Review History and Classification Concerns Early plan review comments required that Building 2 be processed as an R-3 occupancy under the International Building Code, noting that the structure contained twelve bedrooms and would function as a congregate living facility. Staff instructed the applicant to submit a commercial application and stamped drawings appropriate for that occupancy classification. Subsequent revisions relabeled several rooms as pantry, office, or study, after which staff accepted the project as a residential configuration subject to standard review. No substantive redesign of the building footprint or layout is reflected in the publicly available record. This sequence indicates that staff initially questioned whether the project constituted a standard residential use but later accepted revised labeling without a documented analysis of the functional layout. B. Relevance to Zoning and BOA Jurisdiction This issue does not ask the Board to enforce building or fire codes. Rather, it concerns whether a building originally designed for 12 bedrooms (changing labels on the plans to get to “5” bedrooms) should properly be classified as a three-unit residential use. The administrative approval rests on a correct determination of land use and project classification under the Land Development Code. Administrative appeals to the Board commonly include review of staff interpretations, determinations, or classifications that affect how a project is reviewed and permitted. If the project was evaluated under an incorrect use category, the resulting approval may not reflect compliance with applicable zoning requirements. C. Evidence of Design Intent and Functional Use Public statements in the record indicate that maximizing bedroom count was a central design objective. The prior applicant stated that “the designers’ task was to maximize bedroom count,” suggesting that the number and arrangement of sleeping rooms was a primary programmatic driver rather than incidental to a conventional dwelling layout. Where labeling changes occur without corresponding architectural changes, questions may arise as to whether the revised plans accurately represent the intended use of the structure. D. Board Consideration of Future or Functional Use During deliberations, Board members noted that the Board may consider potential future use or functional characteristics when evaluating an appeal, particularly where design features could enable uses inconsistent with the approved classification. Such considerations are relevant to determining whether the administrative approval is based on a reliable understanding of how the building will function once constructed. ITEM08/12-APPELLANT E. Need for Clarification on Review Path and Use Determination The staff report indicates that bedroom count and occupancy classification were treated as issues outside the Board’s scope. However, the record also reflects that these factors influenced the project’s review path and approval. Reconsideration would allow the Board to clarify: • Whether staff made a use or classification determination affecting zoning compliance • Whether the revised plans accurately reflect the functional residential use represented in the application • Whether the approval process properly addressed the implications of the project’s layout and program F. Purpose of Reconsideration This request does not ask the Board to apply building-code provisions or to make technical occupancy determinations. It seeks clarification that the administrative approval rests on a sound and documented understanding of the project’s use under the Land Development Code. Addressing this issue would ensure that the approval is based on accurate project characterization and that the administrative record clearly explains the basis for staff’s determination. For the reasons described above, I respectfully request that the Board reconsider its action in BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 (205 E 34th Street). Respectfully submitted, Peter Journeay-Kaler Appellant, BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 207 E 34th Street Austin, Texas 78705 ITEM08/13-APPELLANT Exhibit 1: Agenda of the North Loop Plan Contact Team February 11, 2026 Meeting that was circulated to participants ITEM08/14-APPELLANT Exhibit 2: Email correspondence regarding the North Loop Plan Contact Team Meeting on February 11, 2026, which note that the presentation by the appellant will discuss the pending March 9 BOA appeal. ITEM08/15-APPELLANT Exhibit 3: Presentation slides shown by the appellant at the North Loop Plan Contact Team Meeting on February 11, 2026 containing material information directly related to the pending appeal and seen by Board Member Poteet. The North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District was adopted to protect the established scale and development patterns of the North University neighborhood. Part 7 of the ordinance clearly states that the intention of the Residential District. Floor Area Ratio is the primary quantitative mechanism used throughout the ordinance to regulate scale. Within Part 7, the NCCD establishes a maximum FAR of 0.4 for duplex residential use on SF-2 and SF-3 lots. At the time of adoption, duplex development represented the most intense residential use permitted on SF-zoned lots within the district. The FAR limitation therefore functioned as a cap on the maximum building scale that could be introduced on those properties while remaining consistent with neighborhood character. The NCCD is not silent on three-unit use, this is clearly limited to 0.5 FAR under all MF zoning. The Council has been clear that HOME does not supersede NCCDs. So the NCCD FAR is the controlling regulation. ITEM08/16-APPELLANT Bedroom Count and Occupancy Classification – 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. Staff later reversed this determination and 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. Because exceeding five bedrooms would require review under a different occupancy classification and code framework, the permit was issued without adequate demonstration that Building 2 qualifies for approval as a one-family dwelling under the IRC. The approval therefore rests on an unenforced and unenforceable assumption regarding bedroom count, and should be reversed. ITEM08/17-APPELLANT First Floor of Building 2 original 12 bedroom configuration and approved configuration 12 Bedroom configuration Approved configuration Partition remove d Steps up Rooms relabeled ITEM08/18-APPELLANT Second Floor of Building 2 original 12 bedroom configuration and approved configuration 12 Bedroom configuration Approved configuration Partitions removed Partitions removed ITEM08/19-APPELLANT Building 2 Exterior Visitable Route with invalid origin that requires access through alley and Visitable Dwelling Entrance with invalid step up No valid origin point per R320.8 Per R320.7 no step allowed where were visitable route arrives ITEM08/20-APPELLANT Photos showing alley parking prohibition, slope, poor quality paving and grading, and utility pole guy wires blocking origin point of Exterior Visitable Route for Building 2. Approximate location for the start of the exterior visitable route. Not a valid origin point per IRC R320.8 & blocked by utility guy wires ITEM08/21-APPELLANT Building 1 Exterior Visitable Route no access from street to visitable route origin, plans show invalid step up and excluded needed grading and retention wall. No valid origin point per IRC R320.8 for either visitable route. No curb cut Step up not allowed No grading / retention wall shown to allow access for visitable route ITEM08/22-APPELLANT Building 2 beyond 150’ Fire Apparatus Access required under IFC 503 Alley does not meet IFC 503 requirements 150’ from street ITEM08/23-APPELLANTStair Winder Tread Safety Requirements not met, stair come to sharp point Treads do not meet clearly labeled IRC requirements ITEM08/24-APPELLANT No viable construction access to site Narrow alley does not allow and is not labeled for construction access No labeled or valid construction access from front of site to BLDG 2 No curb cut for access from 205 E 34th St ITEM08/25-APPELLANT Exhibit 4: Attachment G from the appeal letter included in the BOA Advanced Packet for the March 9 Hearing showing: NCCD Front of Building and Lot Requirement, Approved Plans Showing Building 2 Main Entrance Facing the Alley Visitability path from Alley to Building 2 Main Entrance Building 2 Main Entrance (Alley Facing ) ITEM08/26-APPELLANT Exhibit 5: Attachment C from the appeal letter included in the BOA Advanced Packet for the March 9 Hearing showing: 201 E 34th Street, 3307 & 3309 Helms Street (Lot 1, Block 19, Grooms Addition Subdivision), Three Residential Units on SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot (FAR = 0.36) sq ft Unit 2: Upstairs Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross Floor Area: Unit 2 Gross Floor Area: Unit 3 Gross Floor Area: Total Gross Site Area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,898 440 798 3,136 8,803 0.36 Unit 1: Single Family House Unit 3: Single Family House Gross Floor Area is based on Travis County Appraisal District (TCAD) “Main Area” square footage and Gross Site Area is based on TCAD land area. These values provide a reasonable approximation for calculating FAR consistent with City Code. ITEM08/27-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: 512 827 9573 Appellant Email: molten.42.cope@icloud.com 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 ITEM08/28-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. ITEM08/29-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 ITEM08/30-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. ITEM08/31-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 ITEM08/32-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. ITEM08/33-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). ITEM08/34-APPELLANT Figure 4: ORDINANCE NO. 20110804-040 applying the NCCD maximum 0.4 FAR to a newly permitted residential use on SF-zoned lots The Planning Commission materials supporting this amendment show that the request to expand permitted residential use originated with the North University Neighborhood Association and was intended to encourage additional density and infill, and that the amendment was structured to retain the NCCD’s existing 0.4 FAR-based scale controls when expanding permitted residential use on SF-zoned lots. See Zoning Change Review Sheet C14-04-0022.01. Although two-family residential use is a distinct use category and is not listed in the NCCD site development standards tables, Council required that such development meet all NCCD requirements and imposed a maximum FAR of 0.4 as a condition of permitting that use on SF-zoned lots. In doing so, Council applied the existing NCCD FAR limit applicable to SF- zoned lots to a newly permitted residential use that was not enumerated in the site development standards tables. This amendment confirms that the 0.4 FAR is the controlling FAR limit for SF-zoned lots within the NCCD, rather than a use-exclusive provision that applies only when a listed use label appears in a table. Council has applied this same approach in subsequent NCCD amendments, continuing to apply the NCCD 0.4 FAR limit as a lot-based site development standard when regulating SF- zoned lots with residential uses not expressly listed in the NCCD. For example, in ORDINANCE NO. 20120802-103, Council applied a maximum FAR of 0.4 to an SF-zoned lot containing three residential dwelling units, including two principal residential units and one accessory dwelling unit (see Attachment C for property details). In doing so, the amendment applied FAR at the lot level, regulating overall building scale regardless of the specific residential uses present on the lot. ITEM08/35-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 ITEM08/36-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 ITEM08/37-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. ITEM08/38-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 ITEM08/39-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. ITEM08/40-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 ITEM08/41-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). ITEM08/42-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. ITEM08/43-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. ITEM08/44-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 ITEM08/45-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 ITEM08/46-APPELLANT Attachment A: First Floor of Building 2, Original 12 Bedroom Configuration and Approved Configuration 12 Bedroom Configuration Approved Configuration Partition Removed Steps Up Required to Access Bedroom Suite Rooms Relabeled ITEM08/47-APPELLANT Attachment B: Second Floor of Building 2, Original 12 Bedroom Configuration and Approved Configuration 12 Bedroom Configuration Approved Configuration Partitions Removed Partitions Removed ITEM08/48-APPELLANT Attachment C: 201 E 34th Street, 3307 & 3309 Helms Street (Lot 1, Block 19, Grooms Addition Subdivision), Three Residential Units on SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot (FAR = 0.36) sq ft Unit 2: Upstairs Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross Floor Area: Unit 2 Gross Floor Area: Unit 3 Gross Floor Area: Total Gross Site Area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,898 440 798 3,136 8,803 0.36 Unit 1: Single Family House Unit 3: Single Family House Gross Floor Area is based on Travis County Appraisal District (TCAD) “Main Area” square footage and Gross Site Area is based on TCAD land area. These values provide a reasonable approximation for calculating FAR consistent with City Code. ITEM08/49-APPELLANT Attachment D: 206 E 34th Street, Three Residential Units on SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot (FAR = 0.30) sq ft Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross Floor Area: Unit 2 Gross Floor Area: Unit 3 Gross Floor Area: Total Gross Site Area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,123 532 532 2,187 7,285 0.30 Unit 1: Single Family House Unit 2: Downstairs, Unit 3: Upstairs ITEM08/50-APPELLANT Attachment E: 203 E 34th Street, Three Residential Units on SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot (FAR = 0.33) sq ft Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross Floor Area: Unit 2 Gross Floor Area: Unit 3 Gross Floor Area: Total Gross Site Area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,958 480 480 2,918 8,957 0.33 Unit 1: Single Family House Unit 2: Downstairs, Unit 3: Upstairs ITEM08/51-APPELLANT Attachment F: 204 E 34th St, Three Residential Units on SF-3-NCCD-NP Lot (FAR = 0.28) sq ft Gross Floor Area: Unit 1 Gross Floor Area: Unit 2 Gross Floor Area: Unit 3 Gross Floor Area: Total Gross Site Area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 644 644 400 1,688 6,011 0.28 Units 1 & 2: Duplex Unit 3: Upstairs ITEM08/52-APPELLANT Attachment G: NCCD Front of Building and Lot Requirement, Approved Plans Showing Building 2 Main Entrance Facing the Alley Visitability path from Alley to Building 2 Main Entrance Building 2 Main Entrance (Alley Facing ) ITEM08/53-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 ITEM08/54-APPELLANTAttachment I: Building 2 Exterior Visitable Route Showing Origin at Alley and Visitable Dwelling Entrance with Step Visitable Route Origin Shown at Alley Visitable Dwelling Entrance Showing Step at Route Termination ITEM08/55-APPELLANT Attachment J: Photos Showing Alley Parking Prohibition, Slope, Poor Paving and Grading, and Utility Pole Guy Wires at the Exterior Visitable Route Origin Area for Building 2 Approximate Location of Exterior Visitable Route Origin Shown at Alley, with Utility Pole Guy Wires Present and Parking Prohibition ITEM08/56-APPELLANT Attachment K: Building 1 Exterior Visitable Route Shown Without Street Access, with Step at Route Termination and No Grading or Retaining Wall Details Provided Visitable Route Origins Shown Without Curb Cut or Street Access for Either Route Vertical Step Shown at Visitable Route Termination No Grading or Retaining Wall Details Shown to Connect Visitable Route to Building Entrance ITEM08/57-APPELLANT Attachment L: Scaled Site Plan Showing Portions of Building 2 Located More Than 150 Feet from Identified Fire Apparatus Access Alley with Limited Width and Fixed Obstructions 150’ from street ITEM08/58-APPELLANTAttachment M: Stair Winder Tread Safety Requirements – Building 1 Winder treads shown tapering to a sharp point, with minimal tread depth at the narrow end ITEM08/59-APPELLANT Attachment N: Construction Access and Site Access Conditions Narrow Alley Shown Adjacent to Rear of Site with Limited Clear Width No Construction Access Route Shown from Front of Site to Building 2 No Curb Cut Along E 34th Street Frontage ITEM08/60-APPELLANT N NOTES GENERAL NOTES 1. THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL CITY AMENDMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL CODES, ORDINANCES, AND DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO REQUIRE ALL SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 2. BUILDER ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHECKING PLANS TO ASSURE CONFORMITY TO CURRENT LOCAL BUILDING CODES. SHOULD ANY CHANGES BE MADE TO THESE PLANS BY THE BUILDER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT CONTACTING THE BUILDING DESIGNER, THE BUILDER WILL ACCEPT FULL LIABILITY FOR AMENDED PLANS. 3. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT SPECIFY ACTUAL PRODUCTS OR MATERIAL SELECTIONS. BUILDER ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROPRIATE AND PROPER DETAILING FOR AND BETWEEN ALL ACTUAL PRODUCTS/MATERIALS SELECTED WHEN INSTALLED. ALL COMPONENTS, MATERIALS, ASSEMBLIES, AND FINISHES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND REGULATED BUILDING PRACTICES. 4. ARCHITECT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MEANS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL WATER AND DAMP PROOFING, LOAD CONNECTIONS, AND MECHANIC, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS. 5. ALL MATERIALS AND LABOR TO BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT, IN ADDITION TO ALL WARRANTIES THAT ARE STANDARD TO THE INDUSTRY. BUILDER TO PROVIDE (SUPPLY AND INSTALL) ALL EQUIPMENT, LABOR SERVICES, AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETE APPROVED INSTALLATION OF THE SYSTEMS CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS. 6. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING, MAINTAINING, AND SUPERVISING ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF WORK. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TO THE STRUCTURAL FACE OF THE WALL AND DO NOT INCLUDE WALL FINISHES OR FURRING. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. BUILDER TO REPORT ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES, ERRORS, OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK AND/OR ORDERING MATERIALS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL ANY DIMENSION BE SCALED FROM THESE DRAWINGS. ANY THE CRUCIAL DIMENSION NOT GIVEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BUILDING DESIGNER. 8. THE BUILDER IS TO FILE FOR AND SECURE ALL APPROVALS, PERMITS, TESTS, INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE AS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSURING THAT ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO LEGALLY PERFORM THE WORK HAVE BEEN OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 9. BUILDER SHALL CLEAN UP CONSTRUCTION AREAS AFFECTED BY DAILY WORK AND MAINTAIN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY WORK AREA AT ALL TIMES. REMOVE MATERIALS TO APPROVED DUMPSITES ONLY. 10. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY PLACE THE BUILDING(S) ON-SITE IN WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE PLAN. 11. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SITE DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT PRIOR TO ANY FORM OF CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE BUILDING DESIGNER. 12. LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE, AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION WHEN EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING ON THE SITE TO AVOID INTERCEPTING EXISTING PIPING OR CONDUITS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, WHETHER SHOWN HEREON OR NOT, AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM DAMAGE. THE BUILDING DESIGNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN OR DETAILED AND INSTALLED BY ANY OTHER CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE BUILDING DESIGNER SHOULD ANY UNIDENTIFIED CONDITIONS BE DISCOVERED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR THE EXPENSE OF REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY DAMAGED BY OPERATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 13. PENETRATIONS TO FIRE-RATED MATERIALS (IF ANY) OR ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL RATING OR ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS 14. CONFINE ALL OPERATIONS ON THE SITE TO AREAS PERMITTED BY THE OWNER. THE WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, LOCAL ORDINANCES, PERMITS, AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE JOB SITE IS TO BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN, ORDERLY CONDITION FREE FROM DEBRIS AND LITTER AND SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLY ENCUMBERED WITH ANY MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT. EACH SUBCONTRACTOR IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF HIS WORK SHALL REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS. 15. ALL MATERIAL STORED ON THE SITE SHALL BE PROPERLY STACKED AND PROTECTED TO PREVENT DAMAGE AND DETERIORATION UNTIL USED. FAILURE TO PROTECT MATERIALS MAY BE CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF WORK. 16. ALL CUTTING FITTING OR PATCHING THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SEVERAL PARTS FIT TOGETHER PROPERLY SHALL BE DONE SO AS NOT TO ENDANGER ANY OTHER WORK BY CUTTING, EXCAVATING, OR OTHERWISE ALTERING THE TOTAL WORK OR ANY PART OF IT. ALL PATCHING, REPAIRING, AND REPLACING OF MATERIALS AND SURFACES, CUT OR DAMAGED, IN EXECUTION OF WORK SHALL BE DONE WITH APPLICABLE MATERIALS SO THAT SURFACES REPLACED WILL, UPON COMPLETION, MATCH SURROUNDING SIMILAR SURFACES. 17. PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY OPENINGS THROUGH FLOORS AND WALLS, BLOCKING, BACKING, ROUGH BUCKS, FURRING, CURBS, ANCHORS, INSERTS, EQUIPMENT BASES, AND FRAMING FOR LIGHT FIXTURES, ELECTRIC UNITS, A/C EQUIPMENT, AND ALL OTHER ITEMS REQUIRING IT TO ENSURE A COMPLETE AND PROPER INSTALLATION OF SURFACE-MOUNTED AND RECESSED ITEMS. 18. WHERE LARGER STUDS OR FURRING IS REQUIRED TO COVER STRUCTURE, DUCTS, PIPING OR CONDUIT, THE LARGER STUD SIZE FURRING SHALL EXTEND THE FULL SURFACE OF THE WALL WIDTH AND LENGTH WHERE THE FURRING OCCURS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19. VENT ALL BATHROOM AND KITCHEN FANS TO THE OUTSIDE ATMOSPHERE. BATHROOM & KITCHEN FANS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIRED AIR CHANGES PER HOUR PROJECT SCOPE PROJECT INFORMATION E W LEGEND: ELECTRICAL WIRE WATER MATER PROPOSED PATHS SPRINKLER RISER FIRE NOTE: A FULL RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED, INSTALLED AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2025 NFPA 13D OR THE 2024 IRC P2904 STANDARDS WILL BE INSTALLED IN THIS PROPERTY. THE PLANS FOR THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A TEXAS LICENSED SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR FOR NFPA 13D SYSTEMS OR A TEXAS LICENSED PLUMBER WITH THE MULTIPURPOSE RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SPECIALIST (MRFPSS) ENDORSEMENT. THE SPRINKLER PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, APPROVED, TESTED AND INSPECTED BY AFD PRIOR TO COVERING THE WALLS AND CEILINGS. A FLOW TEST OF THE MOST DEMANDING AREA WILL BE REQUIRED. VISITABILITY PATH NOTE: THE VISITABLE ENTRANCE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE USING AN EXTERIOR VISITABLE ROUTE WHOSE SURFACE SHALL BE STABLE, FIRM, AND SLIP RESISTANT. PAVERS USED AS AN EXTERIOR VISITABLE ROUTE SHALL BE LEVEL WITH GAPS NO MORE THAN 1/2 IN. THE GAPS SHALL BE FILLED WITH A MATERIAL THAT IS STABLE AND FIRM AND LEVEL WITH THE PAVERS. THE ROUTE ALSO SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36" WITH A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, ORIGINATING AT THE GARAGE, DRIVEWAY, PUBLIC STREET OR PUBLIC SIDEWALK. RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2024 IRC R318.8. HANDRAILS ARE REQUIRED FOR RAMPS WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 1:12. PROVIDE DETAILS FOR RAMPS BUILT OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN CONCRETE. LANDINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH END OF A RAMP. LANDING AT THE VISITABLE ENTRANCE SHALL COMPLY WITH 2024 IRC. 12' ALLEY " 0 - ' 2 1 W PROP. LINE E " 0 - ' 0 1 E 586' - 8 1/16" W 3306 GROOMS ST " 0 - 583' - 5 11/16" ' 3 8 5 " 6 - ' 3 8 5 1/2' IRF 1/2" IPF BEARS S 41° 37' 59" w 0.87' W E " 0 - ' 4 8 5 " 6 - ' 4 8 5 OAK 27' 7' - 6" 12' - 6" 9' - 0" PRINCIPAL HOUSE 3306 GROOMS ST " 6 - 3' 8 5 AC Concrete Wall FENCE Side LOT 4 " 4' - 0 8 5 4' - 6" 8 5 5' - 0" 8 5 585' - 6" 9' - 9" ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 W 0 0 ° 0 3 S ' E N I L . P O R P K C A B T E S ' 5 " 0 - 5' PEAR SETBACK 5' 8 5 " 6 - ' 5 8 5 " 4 - ' 5 1 BLDG 2 AGG 585' - 7" IN WALL SPRINKLER RISER 586' - 0" LOT 3 586' - 6" BLOCK 19 8840.00 Sq. Ft. 587' - 0" ELM 18' FENCE 587' - 6" " 7 - ' 3 4 5 8 8 ' - 0 " 5 8 6 ' - 0 " " 6 - 6' 8 5 "X" SET IN STONE 1/2" IRF BEARS S 09° 16' 26" W 0.61' " 0 - 7' 8 5 6' - 4" 3' - 9" 10' - 1" AC Wall (Rock) LOT 2 K C A B T E S ' 5 E N I L . P O R P ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 E ' 0 0 ° 0 3 N " 6 - ' 8 8 5 " 0 - ' 9 8 5 " 6 - ' 9 8 5 CHIMNEY PRINCIPAL HOUSE 207 E 34 2' - 0" 8' - 1" 10' - 1" AC 14' - 0" 5' - 0" 9' - 0" PRINCIPAL HOUSE 203 E 34 BLDG 1 UNIT A&B AGG 589' - 1" FFE= 589' - 6" FFE= 590' - 6" UNIT A UNIT B AC BLDG 207 E. 34TH STREET ' 1 . 6 2 209 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 5 - 26.1' FROM E. 34TH STREET ' . 4 6 2 Concrete Wall " 0 - ' 8 8 5 " 6 - 8' 8 5 CM 1/2" IRF N.W. COR. LOT 4 207 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 4 26.4' FROM E. 34TH STREET TBM 5/8" IRF ELEV. 587.86'- S 60° 00' E 52.00' 588' - 1 25/32" 24.4' FRONT SETBACK 9' - 0" 8 5 9' - 6" 8 5 WATER MATER 0' - 0" 9 5 0' - 6" 9 5 FRONT YARD W PROP. LINE 203 E. 34TH STREET BLDG ' . 5 5 2 1' - 0" 9 5 5 9 1 ' - 6 " 5 9 2 ' - 0 " 5 9 2 ' - 6 " 203 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 2 - 25.5' FROM E. 34TH STREET 201 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 1 - 19.6' FROM E. 34TH STREET 1/2" IPH 592' - 5 25/32" "X" FOUND N 60° 00' 00" W 52.00' ' . 6 9 1 CM 1/2" IRF N.W. COR. LOT 1 N 60° 00' 00" W 52.00' VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) E E E E UTILITY POLE E E 1 Site Plan 1" = 10'-0" 205 E. 34TH STREET (60' R.O.W.) S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' (ASSUMED REF. BEARING) REFEREMCED CODES & CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: 2024 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE FOR ONE AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS (IRC) 2024 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (IECC) 2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (NEC) 2024 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (IFC) 2024 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC) 2024 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPC) 2024 INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE CODE (IWUIC) T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Site Plan 22" X 34" SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A1.0 ITEM08/61-APPELLANT BLDG 1 UNIT A&B A G 2 1 : 7 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) WF 60" x 25" WF 60" x 25" METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) " 0 - ' 8 WF 48" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 1 East 3/8" = 1'-0" (BLDT1) BUILDING HEIGHT 614' - 0" (A) ROOF 609' - 8" (A) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 609' - 0" (A) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 600' - 0" (A) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 598' - 6" " 1 1 - ' 4 2 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (A) PRIMARY F.F.E. 589' - 6" A.G.G. 589' - 1" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: East Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A(cid:25) ITEM08/62-APPELLANT BLDG 1 UNIT A&B AGG (cid:32) 589'-1" (cid:32) (cid:11)591'-9" (cid:14) 586'-11"(cid:12) / 2 (BLDT1) BUILDING HEIGHT 614' - 0" (B) ROOF 610' - 8" (B) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 610' - 0" (B) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 601' - 0" (B) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 599' - 6" (B) PRIMARY F.F.E. 590' - 6" 5 616' - 10 1/2" 4 7:12 7:12 3 Fire Rated Wall 2 1 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 7:12 7:12 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 WC2 60" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) WF 30" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" ED 42" x 90" WC2 60" x 60" WF 30" x 60" ED 42" x 90" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) " 6 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 7 2 South 3/8" = 1'-0" FIRED RATED WALL 2 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGN NUMBER UL U373 TO BE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2024 IRC R303.3.2 2 HR FIRED RATED WALL 1/2" GYP. BD. 2" USG H STUD 24" O C, 1/2" GYP. BD. 3" FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION 2X4 FRAMING 24" O. C. " 2 " 4 / 3 P A G R A I " 4 / 3 P A G R A I TWO LAYERS OF 1" GYP. TYPE X BD. LINEAR PANELS (BLDT1) BUILDING HEIGHT 614' - 0" (A) ROOF 609' - 8" (A) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 609' - 0" " 1 1 - ' 4 2 (A) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 600' - 0" (A) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 598' - 6" " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 586' - 11" LOWEST (A) PRIMARY F.F.E. 589' - 6" A.G.G. 589' - 1" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Sout(cid:75) Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A7 ITEM08/63-APPELLANT BLDG 1 UNIT A&B H B 2 1 : 7 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) WF 60" x 25" WF 60" x 25" METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) " 0 - ' 8 WF 48" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 2 West 3/8" = 1'-0" (BLDT1) BUILDING HEIGHT 614' - 0" (B) ROOF 610' - 8" (B) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 610' - 0" " 1 1 - ' 4 2 (B) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 601' - 0" (B) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 599' - 6" " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (B) PRIMARY F.F.E. 590' - 6" A.G.G. 589' - 1" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: West Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A(cid:27) ITEM08/64-APPELLANT 1 3 5 615' - 10 1/2" CONTINUOUS 2 HOUR. FIRE SEPARATION WALL BELOW 7:12 614' - 5" ROOF CONSTRUCTION (cid:177) SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 7:12 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 FIRE BLOCKING WITH GYPSUM PANEL OR MINERAL FIBER ALUMINIUM CLIPS 3/4" MINIMUM AIR SPACE ALUMINIUM CLIPS 616' - 10 1/2" 7:12 7:12 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 BEDROOM 10(cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor BEDROOM 103 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor 600' - 0" LIVING ROOM 2(cid:25)(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor 589' - 6" 2X4 FRAMING STUDS 24" O. C. FIRE BLOCKING WITH GYPSUM PANEL OR MINERAL FIBER SLAB CONSTRUCTION (cid:177) SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 1/2" GYP. BD. 3/4" MINIMUM AIR SPACE 2X4 FRAMING STUDS 24" O. C. 2X4 FRAMING PLATE 24" O. C. FIRE BLOCKING FLEXIBLE SEALANT (OPTIONAL) 1/2" GYP. BD. 3" FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION BEDROOM 103 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor TWO LAYERS OF 1" GYP. TYPE X BD. LINEAR PANELS (cid:14) 2" USG H STUD 24" O C, DOUBLE C-SHAPED BEDROOM 10(cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor 601' - 0" LIVING ROOM 2(cid:25)(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t (cid:28)' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor ALUMINIUM CLIPS TWO LAYERS OF 1" GYP. TYPE X BD. LINEAR PANELS (cid:14) 2" USG H STUD 24" O C, 3" FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION FLEXIBLE SEALANT (OPTIONAL) 590' - 6" 2" C-TRACK FOUNDATION (cid:177) SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS " 2 / 1 2 - ' 6 " 8 - ' 0 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (B) ROOF 610' - 8" (B) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 610' - 0" (B) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 601' - 0" (B) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 599' - 6" (B) PRIMARY F.F.E. 590' - 6" " 2 / 1 2 - ' 6 " 8 - ' 0 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (A) ROOF 609' - 8" (A) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 609' - 0" (A) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 600' - 0" (A) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 598' - 6" (A) PRIMARY F.F.E. 589' - 6" NOTE: THE FIRE-RATED SEPARATION WALL (cid:11)UL U373(cid:12) EXTENDING FROM THE FOUNDATION SLAB TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHEATHING 1 SECTION - FIRE RATED WALL 1/2" = 1'-0" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Section - Fire Rated Wall 22" X 34" SCALE: 1(cid:18)2" = 1'-0" 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A(cid:28) ITEM08/65-APPELLANT " 0 - ' 9 " 0 - ' 4 " 8 - ' 0 3 BLDG 2 Unit C SD SMOKE DETECTOR * PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTOR - HARD WIRED, INTERCONNECTED, BATTERY BACKUP, AT EACH SLEEPING ROOM AND VICINITY, IF APPLICABLE AS WELL ON EACH ADDITIONAL STORY WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT INCLUDING BASEMENTS AND ATTIC (IRC SEC. R314). " 7 - ' 0 " 1 - ' 3 A B A6 1 " 6 - ' 2 4 " 4 - ' 6 3 C D " 1 - ' 3 1 First Floor Plan 3/8" = 1'-0" 0' - 10 1/2" 8' - 1" 4' - 0" 1' - 0" 3' - 6" 0' - 6" 2' - 0 1/2" 3' - 6" 4' - 8" 5' - 0" 1' - 9 1/2" 0' - 10 1/2" A5 1 ENTER 0' - 10 1/2" 586' - 9" BICYCLE PARKING WF 48" x 60" ED 42" x 90" WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" PWDR 2(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 585' - 9" " 0 3 30" 34" x 80" 32" 7' - 9 1/2" " 2 / 1 0 1 - ' 3 F W " 0 6 x " 8 4 VISITABLE BATHROOM ROUTE Stair Handrail Note: Stair Handrail Height to be between 34 inches and 38 inches per IRC R320(cid:17)2 (cid:11)Height(cid:12) and handrail to be continuous per R320(cid:17)5 (cid:11)Continuity(cid:12)(cid:17) LIVING ROOM 2(cid:27)0 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 17' - 5 1/2" SD MASTER BEDROOM 1(cid:27)1 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t " 3 - ' 1 1 UP Stair Riser/Tread Note: maximum 7 (cid:244)” riser dimension and minimum 10” tread dimension per IRC R318(cid:17)7(cid:17)5(cid:17)1 (cid:11)Risers(cid:12) and R318(cid:17)7(cid:17)5(cid:17)2 (cid:11)Treads(cid:12)(cid:17) ID 30" x 90" D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 MASTER BATHROOM 4(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t ID 30" x 90" ID 30" x 90" " 8 - ' 5 WALK IN CLOSET 33 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t SD " 8 - ' 5 UP MASTER SUITE (cid:27)3 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t " 0 9 x " 4 3 LAUNDRY 32 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 6' - 0" ID 30" x 90" ID 30" x 90" " 2 / 1 0 1 - ' 8 " 2 / 1 0 - ' 3 " 0 - ' 5 W " 8 - ' 5 R D " 2 / 1 9 - ' 2 1 SD E G D R F I KITCHEN & DINING ROOM 30(cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 17' - 6 1/2" PANTRY (cid:28)(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t " 2 / 1 9 - ' 2 1 SD O(cid:41)(cid:41)ICE(cid:18)STUDY 113 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 7' - 11" 0' - 4 1/2" 9' - 2" ED 42" x 90" WF 48" x 60" 585' - 9" WF 48" x 60" WC 42" x 60" 586' - 9" WC2 60" x 60" 0' - 10 1/2" 1' - 6" 3' - 6" 0' - 11" 4' - 0" 0' - 9" 4' - 0" 2' - 5" 2' - 0 1/2" 3' - 6" 4' - 8" 5' - 0" 1' - 9 1/2" 0' - 10 1/2" 0' - 10 1/2" 1 36' - 6" 3 1 A7 5 VISITABILITY NOTES: REFER TO ORDINANCE NO. 20140130-021 - SECTION R320 AND BUILDING CRITERIA MANUAL SECTION 4.4.7 FOR ADDITIONAL RE(cid:52)UIREMENTS VISITABLE BATHROOMS (R320.3) A visita(cid:69)le d(cid:90)elling must (cid:75)ave at least one (cid:69)at(cid:75)room group or a (cid:75)al(cid:73) (cid:69)at(cid:75) on t(cid:75)e (cid:73)irst (cid:73)loor t(cid:75)at must (cid:75)ave t(cid:75)e (cid:73)ollo(cid:90)ing: 1. A minimum clear opening o(cid:73) 32". 2. Door s(cid:75)all not impede 30" (cid:91) 30" clear (cid:73)loor space. 3. Lateral 2(cid:91)(cid:25) or larger (cid:90)ood (cid:69)loc(cid:78)ing must (cid:69)e installed (cid:73)lus(cid:75) (cid:90)it(cid:75) t(cid:75)e stud edges o(cid:73) (cid:69)at(cid:75)room (cid:90)alls. 4. T(cid:75)e (cid:69)loc(cid:78)ing must (cid:75)ave a centerline 34" (cid:73)rom and parallel to t(cid:75)e interior (cid:73)loor level(cid:15) e(cid:91)cept (cid:73)or t(cid:75)e portion o(cid:73) t(cid:75)e (cid:90)all located directl(cid:92) (cid:69)e(cid:75)ind t(cid:75)e lavator(cid:92). VISITABLE LIGHT SWITCHES, RECEPTACLES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS (R320.4) T(cid:75)e (cid:73)irst (cid:73)loor o(cid:73) a visita(cid:69)le d(cid:90)elling must (cid:75)ave t(cid:75)e (cid:73)ollo(cid:90)ing: 1. Lig(cid:75)t s(cid:90)itc(cid:75)es and environmental controls must (cid:69)e installed no greater t(cid:75)an 4(cid:27) inc(cid:75)es a(cid:69)ove t(cid:75)e (cid:73)inis(cid:75) (cid:73)loor level. 2. Outlets and receptacles must (cid:69)e installed no less t(cid:75)an 15 inc(cid:75)es a(cid:69)ove t(cid:75)e (cid:73)inis(cid:75) (cid:73)loor level(cid:15) e(cid:91)cept (cid:73)or (cid:73)loor outlets and receptacles. A. VISITABILITY BATHROOM ROUTE (R320.5) A (cid:69)at(cid:75)room group or (cid:75)al(cid:73) (cid:69)at(cid:75) designated (cid:73)or visita(cid:69)ilit(cid:92) on t(cid:75)e (cid:73)irst (cid:73)loor must (cid:69)e accessi(cid:69)le (cid:69)(cid:92) a route (cid:90)it(cid:75) a minimum clear pat(cid:75)(cid:90)a(cid:92) o(cid:73) 32" (cid:69)eginning at t(cid:75)e visita(cid:69)le entrance and continuing t(cid:75)roug(cid:75) t(cid:75)e living room(cid:15) dining room(cid:15) and (cid:78)itc(cid:75)en. B. VISITABLE DWELLING ENTRANCE (R320.6) A d(cid:90)elling must (cid:69)e accessi(cid:69)le (cid:69)(cid:92) at least one no-step entrance and a door (cid:90)it(cid:75) a minimum clear opening o(cid:73) 3(cid:25)". T(cid:75)e entrance ma(cid:92) (cid:69)e located at t(cid:75)e (cid:73)ront(cid:15) rear(cid:15) or side(cid:15) or in t(cid:75)e garage or carport o(cid:73) t(cid:75)e d(cid:90)elling. C. EXTERIOR VISITABLE ROUTE (R320.7) An entrance t(cid:75)at complies (cid:90)it(cid:75) R320.(cid:25) (Visita(cid:69)le D(cid:90)elling Entrance) must (cid:69)e accessi(cid:69)le using a route (cid:90)it(cid:75) a cross slope o(cid:73) no greater t(cid:75)an t(cid:90)o percent (1:50) t(cid:75)at originates (cid:73)rom a garage(cid:15) drive(cid:90)a(cid:92)(cid:15) pu(cid:69)lic street(cid:15) or pu(cid:69)lic side(cid:90)al(cid:78). An e(cid:91)terior route t(cid:75)at includes a ramp must compl(cid:92) (cid:90)it(cid:75) t(cid:75)e Residential Code. 1 A8 T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: First Floor Plan 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 N REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE SHEET NUMBER: A2 ITEM08/66-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C SD SMOKE DETECTOR * PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTOR - HARD WIRED, INTERCONNECTED, BATTERY BACKUP, AT EACH SLEEPING ROOM AND VICINITY, IF APPLICABLE AS WELL ON EACH ADDITIONAL STORY WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT INCLUDING BASEMENTS AND ATTIC (IRC SEC. R314). A B A6 1 " 6 - ' 2 4 C D 1 Second Floor Plan 3/8" = 1'-0" " 7 - ' 0 " 2 / 1 7 - ' 4 " 6 - ' 3 " 2 / 1 4 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 5 " 2 / 1 4 - ' 0 " 0 - ' 5 " 2 / 1 1 1 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 3 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 " 7 - ' 0 0' - 10 1/2" 2' - 9" 3' - 6" 3' - 7" 5' - 0" 5' - 2" 3' - 6" 4' - 8" 5' - 0" 1' - 9 1/2" 0' - 10 1/2" A5 1 WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" 17' - 8 1/2" 17' - 7 1/2" C W " 0 6 x " 2 4 BEDROOM 21(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t BEDROOM 22(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t " 2 / 1 1 - ' 2 1 C W " 0 6 x " 2 4 3' - 1" 3' - 0" 3' - 6" 3' - 2 1/2" 4' - 11" 4' - 11" 6' - 3" 3' - 4 1/2" 3' - 1" SD CHASE 3' - 0" " 2 / 1 4 - ' 3 D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 ID 34" x 90" CLOSET (cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t ID 34" x 90" CLOSET (cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t SD ID 30" x 90" " 2 / 1 4 - ' 2 3' - 0" CHASE BATHROOM 3(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 F W " 5 2 x " 0 6 " 0 - ' 5 F W " 5 2 x " 0 6 " 0 - ' 5 BATHROOM 3(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 SD " 2 / 1 1 1 - ' 0 1 HALL 142 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 7' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor 597' - 6" 3' - 0" " 2 / 1 5 - ' 3 D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 DOWN SD Stair Handrail Note: Stair Handrail Height to be between 34 inches and 38 inches per IRC R320(cid:17)2 (cid:11)Height(cid:12) and handrail to be continuous per R320(cid:17)5 (cid:11)Continuity(cid:12)(cid:17) D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 BATHROOM 3(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t SD HALL 124 SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t 7' (cid:18) Wooden (cid:73)loor 597' - 6" " 2 / 1 8 - ' 1 1 Stair Riser/Tread Note: maximum 7 (cid:244)” riser dimension and minimum 10” tread dimension per IRC R318(cid:17)7(cid:17)5(cid:17)1 (cid:11)Risers(cid:12) and R318(cid:17)7(cid:17)5(cid:17)2 (cid:11)Treads(cid:12)(cid:17) BATHROOM 3(cid:27) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t D I " 0 9 x " 0 3 " 0 - ' 5 " 0 - ' 5 F W " 5 2 x " 0 6 F W " 5 2 x " 0 6 CLOSET (cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t ID 34" x 90" CLOSET (cid:28) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t ID 34" x 90" ID 30" x 90" SD 3' - 0" " 2 / 1 4 - ' 2 2' - 8 1/2" 3' - 4 1/2" 3' - 6" 3' - 2 1/2" 4' - 11" 4' - 11" 6' - 3" 3' - 9" 2' - 8 1/2" " 7 - ' 0 " 2 / 1 7 - ' 4 " 6 - ' 3 " 2 / 1 4 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 5 " 2 / 1 4 - ' 0 " 0 - ' 5 " 2 / 1 1 1 - ' 7 1 A8 C W " 0 6 x " 2 4 BEDROOM 24(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t BEDROOM 25(cid:25) SF s(cid:84)(cid:73)t " 2 / 1 3 - ' 3 1 17' - 8 1/2" 17' - 7 1/2" C W " 0 6 x " 2 4 " 6 - ' 3 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 5 " 7 - ' 0 WC2 60" x 60" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Second Floor Plan 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 0' - 10 1/2" 2' - 5 1/2" 5' - 0" 3' - 1 1/2" 3' - 6" 5' - 11" WC2 60" x 60" WC 42" x 60" WC 42" x 60" 3' - 6" 4' - 8" 5' - 0" 1' - 9 1/2" 0' - 10 1/2" 1 1 A7 3 5 1/8/2026 N REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE SHEET NUMBER: A3 ITEM08/67-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C A5 1 36' - 8" 607' - 2" A A6 1 " 6 - ' 2 4 " 0 1 - ' 1 2 " 0 1 - ' 1 2 2 1 : 3 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 612' - 7 1/2" 1 A8 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 2 1 : 3 D 607' - 2" 1 Roof Plan 3/8" = 1'-0" 1 36' - 6" 3 1 A7 5 T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Roo(cid:73) Plan 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: N1/8/2026 REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE SHEET NUMBER: A4 ITEM08/68-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C AGG (cid:32) HIGHEST AND LOWEST GRADES 585'-10" (cid:32) (cid:11)587'-7 1/2" (cid:14) 584'-0 1/2"(cid:12) / 2 (BLDG2) BUILDING HEIGHT 609' - 9" (C) ROOF 607' - 2" (C) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 606' - 6" (C) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 597' - 6" (C) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 596' - 0" (C(cid:14)) PRIMARY F.F.E. 587' - 0" AGG 585' - 10" 5 3 1 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 2 1 : 3 WC2 60" x 60" WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" WC 42" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) WC2 60" x 60" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) WC 42" x 60" ED 42" x 90" WF 48" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) " 6 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 7 1 South 3/8" = 1'-0" (BLDG2) BUILDING HEIGHT 609' - 9" (C) ROOF 607' - 2" (C) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 606' - 6" " 1 1 - ' 3 2 (C) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 597' - 6" (C) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 596' - 0" " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 0 1 584' - 0 1/2" LOWEST (C) PRIMARY F.F.E. 586' - 0" AGG 585' - 10" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Sout(cid:75) Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A5 ITEM08/69-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C A D METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 3:12 3:12 " 2 / 1 6 - ' 4 WF 60" x 25" WF 60" x 25" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) " 0 - ' 8 WC 42" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 WC 42" x 60" WF 48" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 1 East 3/8" = 1'-0" (BLDG2) BUILDING HEIGHT 609' - 9" (C) ROOF 607' - 2" (C) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 606' - 6" " 1 1 - ' 3 2 (C) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 597' - 6" (C) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 596' - 0" " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 0 1 (C) PRIMARY F.F.E. 586' - 0" AGG 585' - 10" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: East Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A(cid:25) ITEM08/70-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C AGG (cid:32) HIGHEST AND LOWEST GRADES 585'-10" (cid:32) (cid:11)587'-7 1/2" (cid:14) 584'-0 1/2"(cid:12) / 2 1 3 5 METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 2 1 : 3 WC2 60" x 60" WC 42" x 60" WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 7 HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) WF 48" x 60" WF 48" x 60" ED 42" x 90" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) WC 42" x 60" WC2 60" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 " 6 - ' 7 HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (GREY) 587' - 11" HIGHEST 1 North 3/8" = 1'-0" (BLDG2) BUILDING HEIGHT 609' - 9" (C) ROOF 607' - 2" (C) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 606' - 6" " 1 1 - ' 3 2 (C) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 597' - 6" (C) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 596' - 0" " 8 - ' 0 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (C(cid:14)) PRIMARY F.F.E. 587' - 0" AGG 585' - 10" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Nort(cid:75) Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A7 ITEM08/71-APPELLANT LEGEND: FRONT YARD = 1274 SF (100 %) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (FRONT YARD) = 158.3 SF (12,43 %) less than 40 % of front yard VISITABILITY PATH NOTE: THE VISITABLE ENTRANCE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE USING AN EXTERIOR VISITABLE ROUTE WHOSE SURFACE SHALL BE STABLE, FIRM, AND SLIP RESISTANT. PAVERS USED AS AN EXTERIOR VISITABLE ROUTE SHALL BE LEVEL WITH GAPS NO MORE THAN 1/2 IN. THE GAPS SHALL BE FILLED WITH A MATERIAL THAT IS STABLE AND FIRM AND LEVEL WITH THE PAVERS. THE ROUTE ALSO SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36" WITH A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, ORIGINATING AT THE GARAGE, DRIVEWAY, PUBLIC STREET OR PUBLIC SIDEWALK. RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2024 IRC R318.8. HANDRAILS ARE REQUIRED FOR RAMPS WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 1:12. PROVIDE DETAILS FOR RAMPS BUILT OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN CONCRETE. LANDINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH END OF A RAMP. LANDING AT THE VISITABLE ENTRANCE SHALL COMPLY WITH 2024 IRC. 1 Site Plan - Impervious Coverage 1" = 10'-0" W 3306 GROOMS ST W E " 0 - ' 4 8 5 " 0 - ' 3 8 5 " 6 - ' 3 8 5 1/2' IRF 1/2" IPF BEARS S 41° 37' 59" w 0.87' OAK 27' PRINCIPAL HOUSE 3306 GROOMS ST " 6 - 3' 8 5 AC 12' ALLEY W " 6 - ' 4 8 5 E " 0 - 5' 8 5 PROP. LINE E 5 8 6 ' - 0 " " 6 - ' 5 8 5 "X" SET IN STONE 1/2" IRF BEARS S 09° 16' 26" W 0.61' " 0 - 7' 8 5 " 6 - 6' 8 5 VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) BLDG 2 AGG 585' - 7" AC " 4' - 0 8 5 Concrete Wall FENCE LOT 4 ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 W 0 0 ° 0 3 S ' E N I L . P O R P 4' - 6" 8 5 5' - 0" 8 5 585' - 6" 9' - 9" 586' - 0" LOT 3 586' - 6" BLOCK 19 8840.00 Sq. Ft. 587' - 0" ELM 18' 587' - 6" 5 8 8 ' - 0 " " 6 - ' 8 8 5 " 0 - ' 9 8 5 " 6 - ' 9 8 5 LOT 2 E N I L . P O R P ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 E ' 0 0 ° 0 3 N PRINCIPAL HOUSE 207 E 34 207 E. 34TH STREET BLDG 1 UNIT A&B AGG 589' - 1" FFE= 589' - 6" FFE= 590' - 6" AC UNIT A UNIT B AC PRINCIPAL HOUSE 203 E 34 203 E. 34TH STREET 207 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 4 26.4' FROM E. 34TH STREET Concrete Wall TBM 5/8" IRF ELEV. 587.86'- S 60° 00' E 52.00' " 0 - ' 8 8 5 " 6 - 8' 8 5 24.4' FRONT SETBACK 9' - 0" 8 5 9' - 6" 8 5 WATER MATER 0' - 0" 9 5 0' - 6" 9 5 FRONT YARD W PROP. LINE 1' - 0" 9 5 5 9 1 ' - 6 " 5 9 2 ' - 0 " 5 9 2 ' - 6 " 1/2" IPH 203 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 2 - 25.5' FROM E. 34TH STREET VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) E E E E E E UTILITY POLE 205 E. 34TH STREET (60' R.O.W.) S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' (ASSUMED REF. BEARING) T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Site Plan - Impervious Coverage 22" X 34" SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: SHEET NUMBER: A1.1 1/8/2026 N REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE ITEM08/72-APPELLANT BLDG 2 Unit C (BLDG2) BUILDING HEIGHT 609' - 9" (C) ROOF 607' - 2" (C) TOP PLATE (SECOND FLOOR) 606' - 6" (C) 2 ND FL F.F.E. 597' - 6" (C) TOP PLATE (FIRST FLOOR) 596' - 0" " 1 1 - ' 3 2 " 0 - ' 9 " 6 - ' 1 " 0 - ' 9 (C(cid:14)) PRIMARY F.F.E. 587' - 0" AGG 585' - 10" D C B A METAL ROOF (VERIFY WITH OWNER) 3:12 3:12 " 2 / 1 6 - ' 4 WF 60" x 25" WF 60" x 25" HORIZONTAL WOOD CLADDING (WHITE) WC 42" x 60" WC 42" x 60" " 6 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 8 1 West 3/8" = 1'-0" T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: West Elevation 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A(cid:27) ITEM08/73-APPELLANT W 3306 GROOMS ST W E " 0 - ' 4 8 5 " 0 - ' 3 8 5 " 6 - ' 3 8 5 1/2' IRF 1/2" IPF BEARS S 41° 37' 59" w 0.87' OAK 27' 12' ALLEY " 6 - ' 4 8 5 E " 0 - 5' 8 5 PROP. LINE E 5 8 6 ' - 0 " " 6 - ' 5 8 5 PRINCIPAL HOUSE 3306 GROOMS ST " 6 - 3' 8 5 AC BLDG 2 AGG 585' - 7" "X" SET IN STONE 1/2" IRF BEARS S 09° 16' 26" W 0.61' " 0 - 7' 8 5 W " 6 - 6' 8 5 AC " 4' - 0 8 5 Concrete Wall FENCE Side LOT 4 ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 W 0 0 ° 0 3 S ' E N I L . P O R P 4' - 6" 8 5 5' - 0" 8 5 585' - 6" 586' - 0" LOT 3 586' - 6" BLOCK 19 8840.00 Sq. Ft. 587' - 0" ELM 18' 587' - 6" 5 8 8 ' - 0 " " 6 - ' 8 8 5 " 0 - ' 9 8 5 " 6 - ' 9 8 5 Wall (Rock) LOT 2 E N I L . P O R P ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 E ' 0 0 ° 0 3 N PRINCIPAL HOUSE 207 E 34 207 E. 34TH STREET BLDG 1 UNIT A&B AGG 589' - 1" FFE= 589' - 6" FFE= 590' - 6" AC UNIT A UNIT B AC PRINCIPAL HOUSE 203 E 34 203 E. 34TH STREET 207 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 4 26.4' FROM E. 34TH STREET S 60° 00' E 52.00' Concrete Wall TBM 5/8" IRF ELEV. 587.86'- D E S O P O R P I N O T C U R T S N O C I L A R E T A M I G N G A T S VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE PROPOSED DUMPSTER LOC. W PROP. LINE PROP. CONC. WASH-OUT 203 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 2 - 25.5' FROM E. 34TH STREET PROP. PORT. TOILET 1/2" IPH T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Site Plan - Construction Material Location 22" X 34" SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: 1 Site Plan - Construction Material Location 1" = 10'-0" E E E E E E 205 E. 34TH STREET (60' R.O.W.) S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' (ASSUMED REF. BEARING) 1/8/2026 SHEET NUMBER: REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE A1.2 ITEM08/74-APPELLANT LEGEND: TREE PROTECTION FENCING TREE ZONE 3/4 ” PLYWOOD OVER 2X4 LUMBER OVER 12” LAYER OF MULCH TREE TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED W 3306 GROOMS ST 14,2% 325 sf FULL CRZ 20,5% 470 sf 1/2 CRZ " 0 - ' 3 8 5 R 27' - 0" 1/2' IRF 1/2" IPF BEARS S 41° 37' 59" w 0.87' R 13' - 6" " 6 1/4 CRZ - ' 3 8 5 R 6' - 9" W E " 0 - ' 4 8 5 12' ALLEY PROP. LINE E " 6 - ' 4 8 5 " 0 - 5' 3/4 ” plywood over 2x4 8 5 lumber over 12” layer of mulch " 6 - ' 5 8 5 OAK 27' 2,8% 64 sf 0,5% 10 sf 6% 149.75 sf 3/4 ” PLYWOOD OVER 2X4 LUMBER OVER 12” LAYER OF MULCH W " 6 - 6' 8 5 E 5 8 6 ' - 0 " "X" SET IN STONE 1/2" IRF BEARS S 09° 16' 26" W 0.61' " 0 - 7' 8 5 PRINCIPAL HOUSE 3306 GROOMS ST " 6 - 3' 8 5 AC BLDG 2 AGG 585' - 7" AC " 4' - 0 8 5 FENCE LOT 4 ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 W 0 0 ° 0 3 S ' E N I L . P O R P PRINCIPAL HOUSE 207 E 34 207 E. 34TH STREET 4' - 6" 8 5 5' - 0" 8 5 585' - 6" 586' - 0" LOT 3 586' - 6" BLOCK 19 8840.00 Sq. Ft. 587' - 0" ELM 18' FENCE 587' - 6" 5 8 8 ' - 0 " " 6 - ' 8 8 5 " 0 - ' 9 8 5 " 6 - ' 9 8 5 BLDG 1 UNIT A&B AGG 589' - 1" FFE= 589' - 6" FFE= 590' - 6" AC UNIT A UNIT B AC LOT 2 E N I L . P O R P ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 E ' 0 0 ° 0 3 N PRINCIPAL HOUSE 203 E 34 203 E. 34TH STREET STANDARD NOTES - TREE AND NATURAL AREA PROTECTION In order to assure that the remaining root zones are adequately preserved, tree protection fencing is required for all trees within the limits of construction. Fencing should be indicated to protect the entire Critical Root Zone (CRZ) area or as much of the CRZ as is practical. Fencing is required to be chain-link mesh at a minimum height of five feet. When the tree protection fencing cannot incorporate the entire full Critical Root Zone, an 8” layer of mulch within the entire available root zone area is required for all trees which have any disturbance indicated within any portion of the Critical Root Zone. Foot traffic is considered a root zone disturbance, as well. We require 2x4 or greater size planks (6' tall minimum) to be strapped securely around protected trees trunks and root flares when protective fencing does not incorporate the entire CRZ for any reason at any time in the project. All trees and natural areas shown on plan to be preserved shall be protected during construction with temporary fencing. Protective fences shall be erected as detailed for the tree protection, the fences shall consist of 5 ft. tall chain link fencing material and non-movable posts installed at 8 ft. intervals or less. Protective fences shall be installed prior to the start of any preparation work (clearing, grubbing, and grading), and shall be maintained throughout all phases of the project. Erosion and sedimentation control barriers shall be installed or maintained in a manner which does not result in soil build-up within tree drip lines. Protective fences shall completely surround the trees or group of trees and will be located at the outermost limit of branches (drip line). Signs in English and Spanish, visible from all directions, shall be placed on the fence to inform workers of the purpose of the boundary. For natural areas, protective fences shall follow the limit of the construction line, in order to prevent the following: A. B. C. D. E. Soil compaction in the Root Zone area resulting from vehicular traffic or storage of equipment or materials; Root Zone disturbances due to grade changes (greater than 6 inches cut or fill) or trenching not indicated on plans; Wounds to exposed roots, trunk, or limbs by mechanical equipment; Other activities detrimental to trees such as chemical storage, cement truck cleaning, and fire. If foot traffic is required within the ½ CRZ or ¼ CRZ, provide 3/4 ” plywood over 2x4 lumber over 12” layer of mulch to bridge over the roots and prevent soil/root compaction. If construction access is required within the CRZ for heavy equipment, temporary ground construction mats (for example: the TuffTrak AlturnaMat Ground Protection Mat) placed on top of an 8” layer of mulch is required to be in place for the duration of construction. Notes: AOK 27' Full CRZ = 2 289 sqft CRZ impact = 1017 sqft = 43,70% < 50% When mulch is used as alternative protection within the Half or Quarter Critical Root Zone, it shall be topped by decking to provide additional protection against compaction. The decking shall consist of ¾ ” plywood over 2x6 lumber over 8” of mulch. Since cut or fill is limited to 4 ” within the Half CRZ, no batter board or foundation formwork stakes are allowed within the Half CRZ of a protected size tree. Use a strongback design with maximum size 5/8 ” smooth form pin or #5 rebar w/pointed tip. 1 Site Plan - Tree Plan 1" = 10'-0" " 0 - ' 8 8 5 " 6 - 8' 8 5 24.4' FRONT SETBACK 9' - 0" 8 5 9' - 6" 8 5 WATER MATER 0' - 0" 9 5 0' - 6" 9 5 FRONT YARD W PROP. LINE 207 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 4 26.4' FROM E. 34TH STREET S 60° 00' E 52.00' TBM 5/8" IRF ELEV. 587.86'- 1' - 0" 9 5 5 9 1 ' - 6 " 5 9 2 ' - 0 " 5 9 2 ' - 6 " 1/2" IPH 203 E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 2 - 25.5' FROM E. 34TH STREET VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) VISITABILITY ROAD (CONCRETE) E E E E E E UTILITY POLE 205 E. 34TH STREET (60' R.O.W.) S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' (ASSUMED REF. BEARING) 1/8/2026 N REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE T E E R T S H T 4 3 . E - 3 T O - L H T 4 3 E 5 0 2 N O I T A M R O F N I T C E J O R P CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DRAWING TITLE: Site Plan - Tree Plan 22" X 34" SCALE: As indicated 11" X 17" SCALE: HALF SCALE ISSUES DATE: DRAWN BY: SHEET NUMBER: A1.3 ITEM08/75-APPELLANT