Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment - Hybrid meeting: Some board members may be participating by videoconference-http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live
ITEM07/202 - APPELLANT ITEM07/203 - APPELLANT ITEM07/204 - APPELLANT 20' ALLEY 0.3' 1/2" IRF N 60° 00' 00" W 52.00' UTILITY POLE GUY ANCHOR T N E C A J D A I G N D L I U B 12.6' 12.5' 0.3' 0.2029 AC. 8,840 SQ. FT. LOT 5 LOT 4 T N E C A J D A E C N E D S E R I ADJACENT RESIDENCE ' 0 0 . 0 7 1 W " 0 0 ' 0 0 ° 0 3 S 4.3' 0.9' 3.3' 2.0' 2.0' 3.1' VACANT LOT 205 E. 34TH STREET LOT 3, BLOCK 19 GROOMS ADDITION 0.9' "X" FOUND IN STONE 3.8' T N E C A J D A I G N D L I U B 3.9' 3.4' ' 0 0 . 8.4' 0 7 1 E " 0 0 ' 0 0 ° 0 3 N 9.0' LOT 2 LOT 1 ADJACENT RESIDENCE T N E C A J D A E C N E D S E R I RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 5 - 26.1' FROM E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 4 - 26.4' FROM E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 2 - 25.5' FROM E. 34TH STREET RESIDENCE SETBACK ON LOT 1 - 19.6' FROM E. 34TH STREET CM 1/2" IRF N.E. COR. LOT 4 S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' 5/8" IRF S 60° 00' 00" E 52.00' (ASSUMED REF. BEARING) 1/2" IPF CM 1/2" IRF N.W. COR. LOT 1 N 60° 00' 00" W 52.00' "X" FOUND N 60° 00' 00" W 52.00' WATER METER W UTILITY POLE E. 34TH STREET (60' R.O.W.) LEGEND: BARBWIRE FENCE CHAINLINK FENCE METAL FENCE WOOD FENCE VINYL FENCE ELECTRIC LINE ASPHALT = CONCRETE = GRAVEL = TILE = WOOD = GM = GAS METER EM = ELECTRIC METER IPF = IRON PIPE FOUND IRS = IRON ROD SET WITH "PREMIER" CAP IRF = IRON ROD FOUND CM = CONTROLLING MONUMENT (WOOD) RAILROAD TIE = STONE = BRICK = NOTES: BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED. AVERAGE SETBACKS OF ADJOINING RESIDENCES = 24.4'. 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"= 20' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BEING LOT 3, BLOCK 19, GROOMS ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 276, PAGE 235, DEED RECORDS, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS. TECH FIELD MSP JT SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: THIS IS TO DECLARE THAT ON THIS DATE A …
ITEM07/1-LATE BACKUP OPP ITEM07/2-LATE BACKUP OPP accommodate the space they want, in order to meet Austin's impervious cover requirement for their property. By increasing impervious cover, you restore balance between the FAR & IC provisions. This is key: obtain the density improvement that Austin critically needs without driving it upward. Please, DO NOT touch the HOME FAR provisions. Please, DO NOT count attics toward FAR...unless you're a huge fan of flat & low slope roofs, and the cartoonishly ugly McMansion roofs and dormers. Please DO NOT allow these 2 proposed measures to become "uncoupled". Understand them as a packaged deal, a matching set. Be conscientious of horizontal vs vertical area. Keep them balanced. Thank you very much for your time & attention. TRAVIS LUCY, RA PRINCIPAL LLVLL A follow up "in the weeds" note about impervious cover: I heard 2nd hand that during the HOME workshops to draft the ordinance, it was Watershed that shot down any suggestion of impervious cover increase, declaring it a non-starter for stormwater management / safety reasons. I hope that this is negotiable, but if not, there are other, more subtle ways to alleviate the IC pinch: 1. Direct DSD to modify their definition of impervious cover as follows: - Pervious pavements & concretes count as pervious, period, INCLUDING driveways. - Wood decks do not count toward impervious cover: rainwater either evaporates or drops through to the ground below, thus, these have no bearing on flood risk. (Applies to similar open-jointed, perforated assemblies) - Horizontal solid surfaces narrower than 1'-0" width (with +1'-0" uncovered ground on either side) do not count toward impervious cover. (Pool copings, tops of walls, etc.) Similar reasoning to wood decks: these items have a negligible impact on stormwater infiltration, but pose a significant burden on site IC calculations. DSD's current interpretations on these items are unusual and overly conservative, and are contributing to the "upward pressure" we all want to avoid. Simply by defining "impervious" more pragmatically, we'd free up a good amount of 'low' space for housing density. 2. Direct Watershed to design a "rainwater collection incentive" that translates to an impervious cover reduction. They should design a reasonable, acheivable rainwater storage volume -to- impervious area trade, that will incentivize designers, builders and homeowners to start capturing rainwater for irrigation. This is a no- ITEM07/3-LATE BACKUP OPP ITEM07/4-LATE BACKUP OPP ITEM07/5-LATE BACKUP OPP ITEM07/6-LATE BACKUP OPP ITEM07/7-LATE BACKUP OPP …
BOA Case No. C15-2026-0005 – Appeal of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR (205 E. 34th Street) Dear Chair and Members of the Board of Adjustment: On Monday, February 16, the Heritage Neighborhood Steering Committee met and voted unanimously to support the BOA appeal C15-2026-0005, concerning Permit 2025-140201 PR for a proposed project at 205 E. 34th Street in the North University Neighborhood. The North University Neighborhood Association (NUNA) general membership voted on February 2 to officially support the appeal. The Heritage Neighborhood Association shares concerns regarding adherence to the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) and enforcement of City Code. The Heritage Neighborhood Steering Committee has the following concerns: 1) North University NCCD Floor Area Ratio limitations The proposed permit was approved for a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.65, despite the NCCD’s 0.4 FAR limitation applicable to SF-zoned properties. The North University NCCD was adopted in 2004, at a time when 3-unit residential use on SF zoning did not exist and could not have been anticipated. The absence of an explicit FAR entry in the NCCD for that use does not indicate an intent to permit greater building scale. The Heritage Neighborhood Association supports the interpretation that the NCCD’s 0.4 FAR limitation continues to apply to SF-zoned lots, including those now permitted to contain 3-unit residential uses. This is a narrow, district-specific application of adopted NCCD scale controls and would not have broader citywide implications. 2) Building Design and Review The proposed permit reflects a design that was modified from a previously rejected plan by removing walls and renaming rooms without materially changing the living space. Those walls could readily be restored after issuance of a certificate of occupancy and therefore warrant evaluation under an R-3 congregate living classification. Appropriate classification and review are essential to ensuring safe living conditions for group living arrangements, which are common in neighborhoods near the University of Texas, including both North University and Heritage. 3) Additional City Code and NCCD compliance concerns The appeal identifies several additional compliance issues, including deficiencies in application materials, stair safety, fire access, and required building orientation and visitable route standards. These concerns support the conclusion that the approved plans fail to demonstrate compliance with applicable City Code and NCCD requirements. Accordingly, the Heritage Neighborhood Association requests that the Board of Adjustment reverse the administrative decision and deny issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR, and further requests that …
205 E 34th St Board of Adjustment Appeal Case C15-2026-0005 1 ITEM07/1-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Basis for Appeal and Requested Action • The approved application and plan set do not demonstrate compliance with multiple adopted code requirements • The approved plan set does not comply with the North University NCCD, including the applicable 0.4 FAR limit for SF-zoned lots • The approved application omits required information and contains plan conflicts that cannot be enforced as approved Accordingly, we ask the Board of Adjustment to: • Reverse issuance of Permit No. 2025-140201 PR, based on failure to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NCCD FAR standard and other adopted code requirements 2 ITEM07/2-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Review Path and Enforceability of Approved Plans (Building 2) 1) Staff Review Comment Requiring IBC Review of Building 2 2) Staff Review Comment Approving Building 2 Subject to Five-Bedroom Limitation 3 ITEM07/3-PRESENTATION APPELLANT First Floor (Building 2) : Bedrooms Reduced Through Relabeling and Minor Modifications 12 Bedroom Configuration: Requires IBC Review Approved Configuration: Relabeling and Partition Removal Partition Removed Steps Up Required to Access Bedroom Suite Rooms Relabeled 4 ITEM07/4-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Second Floor (Building 2): Bedrooms Reduced Through Relabeling and Partition Removal 12 Bedroom Configuration: Requires IBC Review Approved Configuration: Relabeling and Partition Removal Partitions Removed Partitions Removed Closets relabeled as Chases 5 ITEM07/5-PRESENTATION APPELLANT North University NCCD Regulates Building Scale Through FAR • The NCCD is a Council-adopted ordinance governing development within North University • Floor Area Ration (FAR) is the NCCD’s primary quantitative control on building scale • The NCCD states “New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks and parking location” • The NCCD applies FAR limits by zoning category, not by listed residential use • The NCCD sets a FAR limit of 0.4 for SF-zoned lots 6 ITEM07/6-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Council Applied 0.4 FAR Limit to New Residential Uses Not Listed in the NCCD 2011 Amendment: Council permitted a new residential use not expressly listed in the NCCD and required compliance with the 0.4 FAR limit for SF-zoned lots 2012 Amendment: Council applied the NCCD 0.4 FAR limit to an SF-zoned lot with three residential units, confirming FAR applies at the lot level regardless of use configuration These amendments demonstrate that modifications to the NCCD occur through Council-adopted ordinances 7 ITEM07/7-PRESENTATION APPELLANT NCCD 0.4 FAR Limit Allows Three Residential Units on SF-zoned Lots 201 E 34th Street & 3307–3309 Helms Street Lot …
PRESENTATION C15-2026-0005 Permit No. 2025-140201 PR Address: 205 East 34th Street Owner or Permit Holder: Leonid Murashkovskiy ITEM07/1-PRESENTATION OWNER ATTACHMENT LIST (EXHIBITS) Exhibit A: Permit Decision & Master Comment Report • Description: A copy of Permit No. 2025-14020 I PR and the final City of Austin Master Comment Report. • Purpose: Establishes the "Appealed Decision" and proves that City staff explicitly reviewed and approved the project as a 5-bedroom single-family dwelling under the IRC, not a 12-bedroom congregate living facility. It also refutes the claim of an "incomplete application" by showing the City deemed it sufficient for review. Exhibit B: Official Recorded Survey • Description: The stamped and recorded land survey of 205 East 34th Street. • Purpose: This is the controlling legal document for the site. It definitively refutes the Appellant's claim that the alley is only 12 feet wide by documenting the full 20-foot Right-of-Way (ROW). This directly disproves the Fire Code violation claim. Exhibit C: Correspondence from Residential Plan Review Supervisor • Description: Email correspondence from John Bowman, Residential Plan Review Supervisor, regarding visitability. • Purpose: Provides the Board with the City's official interpretation that a visitability route may originate from an alley "where a vehicle can drive". This negates the Appellant's argument that the alley origin is non-compliant. Exhibit D: Austin Energy Approval for Guy Wire Removal • Description: Documentation or approved utility plan from Austin Energy authorizing the removal of the down guy wires. • Purpose: Proves that the "obstruction" cited by the Appellant is already slated for removal as part of the approved utility design. Exhibit E: Site Photographs of Alley Conditions • Description: Current photographs of the alley surface behind the property. • Purpose: Demonstrates that the alley surface is paved and stable, supporting the City's determination that it is accessible for visitability and emergency vehicles, contrary to the Appellant's claims of it being "poorly paved". Exhibit F: Excerpts from Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure • Description: Article I(A) regarding ''Legal Authority & Jurisdiction" and Article IV(A) regarding "Administrative Appeals." ITEM07/2-PRESENTATION OWNER • Purpose: Provides the Board with the black-letter law limiting their jurisdiction to zoning matters only, explicitly excluding the Building and Fire Code issues raised by the Appellant. Exhibit G: Excerpts from North University NCCD (Ordinance No. 040826-58) • Description: Part 7 (Residential District) of the NCCD ordinance. • Purpose: Highlights the text showing FAR limits for "Single Family" and …
To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent Lloyd Development Officer Austin Development Services Dept. Date: March 2, 2026 Subject: Case No. C15-2026-0005 | Appeal of Administrative Decision Approving Construction of Three-Unit Use at 205 East 34th St. (PR No. 2025-140201) On January 26, 2026, Peter Journeay-Kaler filed an appeal with the Board of Adjustment (BOA) challenging a decision by Austin Development Services (ADS) approving construction of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street. As explained below, ADS recommends that the Board uphold staff’s determination and dismiss the appeal. Summary of Appeal Issues Appellant argues that the approved plans fail to comply with four categories of regulation, which are summarized here along with ADS’s response: Regulation Appellant’s Position ADS’s Position North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) Three-unit uses are subject to NCCD FAR limit of 0.40 or, alternatively, 0.50 Three-unit uses are subject to 0.65 FAR limit per the “HOME” ordinance (Sec. 25-2-773) International Residential Code (IRC) Bedroom count exceeds limit for IRC review, so project is subject to International Building Code (IBC) Plans fail to meet Visitability requirements Stairs lack required tread depth Staff correctly applied IRC, IFC, and completeness requirements. None of these requirements are zoning regulations, so they are outside the BOA’s scope of review International Fire Code (IFC) Insufficient emergency access Application Completeness Permit application incomplete ITEM07/1-STAFF REPORT Case No. C15-2026-0005 BOA Appeal re: 205 East 34th Street Staff Report ADS Response to Appeal 1. FAR Issues In approving plans for this project (PR No. 2025-140201), ADS applied the 0.65 FAR limit applicable to three-unit residential uses under the “HOME” ordinance codified in Sec. 25- 2-773(E)(4)(a) of the Land Development Code. Appellant asks the Board to reverse this determination and instead find that three-unit uses are subject to the NUNA-NCCD’s 0.40 FAR limit for duplexes and two-unit uses or, alternatively, the 0.50 FAR limit that applies to most multi-family (MF) zoned lots within the NCCD. ADS recommends that the Board uphold staff’s determination that the 0.65 FAR limit applies to this project for the following reasons: • The NUNA-NCCD Ordinance says to apply the Land Development Code unless it conflicts with the NCCD. The NUNA-NCCD is silent on three-unit uses. Per direction in the original ordinance adopting the NCCD, this means that three-unit uses are subject to applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. See Ordinance No. 040826-58, Part 5, Sec. 1.a …
BOA Monthly Report July 2025-June 2026 February 9, 2026 Meeting cancelled due to notification error January 12, 2026 Meeting cancelled due to technology upgrades in Council Chambers December 8, 2025 Granted Postponed 0 2 1. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length 2. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length Withdrawn Denied 0 1 1. Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022-0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) Discussion Items 2 Dec 2025 Interpretations Dec 2025 BAAP 1 new inquiries 0 (Added Dec 8# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 8 14 0 2 (recon) 8 Board members absent: None (1 vacant alternate position) November 10, 2025 Granted 4 1. 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area 2. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the front yard setback 3. 25-10-124 (Scenic Roadway Sign District Regulations), (B) to allow more freestanding signs 4. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback and setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback Postponed 3 2. Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022-0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) 3. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length 4. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length Withdrawn Denied 0 1 1. Reconsideration request: Appellant has filed an appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use Discussion Items 1 Nov 2025 Interpretations Nov 2025 BAAP 0 new inquiries 0 (Added Nov 10# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 8 12 0 1 (recon) 6 Board members absent: Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (alternate) (1 vacant alternate position) October 13, 2025 Granted 1 (Appeal) 1. appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___N____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___N____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. December 8, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne’s motion to postpone to February 9, 2026; Board member Maggie Shahrestani second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO February 9, 2026. Feb 9, 2026 Cancelled meeting, March 9, 2026; Applicant is requesting postponement to April 13, 2026; Board member Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to deny postponement request; Board member Jeffery Bowen second on 7-3 votes (Chair Jessica Cohen, Board …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: Monday March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___N____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___N____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS, November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. December 8, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to postpone to February 9, 2026; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11- 0 votes; POSTPONED TO February 9, 2026. Feb 9, 2026 Cancelled meeting, March 9, 2026 Applicant is requesting postponement to April 13, 2026; Board member Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to deny postponement request; Board member Jeffery Bowen second on 7-3 votes (Chair Jessica Cohen, Board members Sameer …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C16-2026-0002 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___N____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Richard T Suttle, Jr. OWNER: RHP Block 21, LLC ADDRESS: 310, 306, 310 ½, 314 & 320 W 2nd Street; 301, 311, & 317 W 3rd Street; and 200, 210, & 212 Lavaca Street (F) (2) (a) maximum sign area for a freestanding sign from 0.5 square feet for each VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-129 (Downtown Sign District Regulations): linear foot of street frontage (maximum allowed) to 250 square feet (requested) and (G) (1) to exceed sign height for a freestanding sign of six feet (6 ft) (maximum allowed) to thirty feet (30 ft) (requested) to allow for a LED Pylon freestanding sign, in order to erect signage for ACL Live Events in a “CBD-CURE-CO”, Central Business – Central Urban Redevelopment – Conditional Overlay zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-129 Downtown Sign District Regulations (A) This section applies to a downtown sign district. (B) One freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. Additional freestanding signs may be permitted under Section 25-10-131 (Additional Freestanding Signs Permitted). (C) Wall signs are permitted. (D) A wall sign may be a projecting sign if the sign complies with this subsection. (1) One projecting sign for each building façade is permitted. (2) The sign area of a projecting sign may not exceed 35 square feet. (3) A sign may extend from the building façade not more than the lesser of: (a) (b) a distance equal to two-thirds the width of the abutting sidewalk. (4) For a sign that projects over state right-of-way, the state must approve the sign. six feet; or (E) One flag for each curb cut is permitted. A flag may be suspended over public right-of-way. (F) This subsection prescribes the maximum sign area. (1) For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed 20 percent of the façade area of the first 15 feet of the building. (a) 0.5 square feet for …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0003 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___-____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Luke Caraway OWNER: Yair Cohen Hoshen ADDRESS: 8506 and 8507 Walhill Cove VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the interior yard setback from five feet (5 ft) (required) to one foot (1ft) (requested) in order to complete two residential structures in a “SF-3”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postponed to April 13, 2026; Board member Corry Archer- Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO APRIL 13, 2026. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday March 9, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0006 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __-_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) __Y_____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) __-_____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) __-_____VACANT (Alternate) (M) OWNER/APPLICANT: Cole Stewart ADDRESS: 4301 Manzanillo Drive VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from six feet (6 ft) (maximum allowed) to eight feet (8 ft.) (requested) along rear property line (southeast) and street side yard property line (northeast), in order to erect a fence in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid material to open space of not more than one to four; and (2) a solid fence is a fence other than an ornamental fence. (C) The height restrictions of this section do not apply to an ornamental fence. (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed a height of six feet measured from the natural grade up. (E) If there is a change in grade of at least one foot measured along any run of a solid fence along a property line, then the portion of the fence where the grade change occurs may be constructed to a maximum height of seven feet. (F) a solid fence along a property line may be constructed to a maximum height of eight feet if each owner of property that adjoins a section of the fence that exceeds a height of six feet files written consent to the construction of the fence with the building official; and (1) there is a change in grade of at least two feet within 50 feet of the boundary between adjoining properties; or (2) a structure, including a telephone junction box, exists that is reasonably likely to enable a child …
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. 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 for
