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
Case: C15-2025-0038 William and Medha Fox 9730 Anchusa Proposal To Modify Inner Sideyard and Rear Setbacks ITEM08/1-PRESENTATION This demonstrates the proposed area w/reduced setbacks and unused area behind our property. Not to scale ITEM08/2-PRESENTATION l . e a c s o t t o N i . a e r a r e t a w d a e h / n a p d o o l f e h t d n a a e r a l l l a r e v o e h t s e t a r t s n o m e d s h T i ITEM08/3-PRESENTATION Currently used area for storage ITEM08/4-PRESENTATION This shows the areas with the current and proposed setbacks. Current on the left and proposed on the right. The box demonstrates the amount of the tree that would have to be removed under current setback. ITEM08/5-PRESENTATION Closer look at the area to be pruned with the proposed setback. ITEM08/6-PRESENTATION To the right of the yellow line is the building area with the proposed setback. Another 10ft would be required with the current setback. That would require the removal of the fig tree. ITEM08/7-PRESENTATION Same and additional views w/tape layout to show proposed building dimensions and flat area for construction. ITEM08/8-PRESENTATION ITEM08/9-PRESENTATION Views of the 8ft fence at the rear of the yard and views over the fence toward the adjoining commercial property. ITEM08/10-PRESENTATION This demonstrates the only other viable option but would require more culling of trees and would require building under the canopy of large live oak, revision of the drainage area as well as adding concrete in the live oak drip line. ITEM08/11-PRESENTATION The area here has only 6ft tall fencing. The HOA would not approve the building due to height and lack of screening from the street/other neighbors. ITEM08/12-PRESENTATION These views give a Look from the rear of the house toward the area showing the large live oaks and the extent of the canopies. Also they somewhat demonstrate the greenery already in place that it is preferred be left alone. One redundant photo bottom right. ITEM08/13-PRESENTATION Lastly, the area down hill from the proposed build site showing the gathering area of the wet weather creek. Due to the topography and purpose, no building should be done in this area. ITEM08/14-PRESENTATION
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0035 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay OWNER: Kateryna Luschchenko ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST APPEAL REQUESTED: The 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 at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25- 1-82 (Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all property within the NCCD-NP. This section does not apply to Waller Creek/Seminary District 7 or District 7A. a. single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block. The maximum setback may not exceed the average setback by more than five feet. Part 7 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 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 including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks and parking location. ITEM09/1-APPELLANT 1. regulations apply. Site Development standards table. Except as otherwise modified in this part, the following site development Footnote **a new principal structure must be at least 10 feet from a principal structure on an adjacent lot. Land Development Code, 25-1-82 Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration This section does not apply to an …
209 E 34th St 7 ITEM09/35-APPELLANT 200 E 34t St 8 ITEM09/36-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St 9 ITEM09/37-APPELLANT 204 E 34th St 10 ITEM09/38-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St 11 ITEM09/39-APPELLANT 208 E 34th St 12 ITEM09/40-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 13 ITEM09/41-APPELLANT A204 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 14 ITEM09/42-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 15 ITEM09/43-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Front Elevation Facing South to Alley 16 ITEM09/44-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Side Elevation Facing West 17 ITEM09/45-APPELLANT July 28th 2025 Carol Journeay 207 E 34th St Austin, Texas 78705 This letter is to notify you of receipt of your communication as an interested party as described by the Land Development Code Title 25-1-131. A residential building permit application was filed for the property located at 205 E 34th St for a new three-unit use. This application was filed on June 12th 2025 by Kate Juschenko. An interested party is a person who has an interest in a matter that is the subject of a public hearing or administrative decision. A person has an interest if the person communicates an interest in a matter and occupies or owns property within 500 feet of the proposed development. A person communicates an interest in a matter that is the subject of an administrative decision by delivering a written statement to the responsible director. The communication must identify the general issues of concern and include the person’s name, telephone number, and mailing address. An administrative decision can be appealed under the Land Development Code Title 25-1-181. A person has standing to appeal an administrative decision if the person is an interested party. An appeal must be initiated and submitted to the responsible director within 20 days of an administrative decision. A notice of appeal must include the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; the name of the applicant, if the applicant is not the appellant; the decision being appealed; the date of the decision; a description of the appellant’s status as an interested party; and the reasons the appellant believes the decision does not comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code. As per Title 25-1-186, if the applicant requests, the responsible director shall schedule a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve the issues raised by an appeal of an administrative decision. The responsible director shall notify all …
BOA RE-CONSIDERATION INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0035 BOA DATE: Monday, October 13th, 2025 ADDRESS: 205 E 34th St COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 APPELLANT: Carol Journeay & PERMIT HOLDER/OWNER: Kateryna Lushchenko Bob Kaler 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 the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025- 072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street. SUMMARY: any proposed development must comply with the provisions of the NCCD ISSUES: application is incomplete, and the plan set does not contain the information necessary to 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 Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Homeless Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Development Review Committee Preservation Austin ITEM09/1-PERMIT HOLDER Introduction and Summary of Grounds for Reconsideration The Applicant respectfully submits this request for reconsideration of the Board of Adjustment’s October 13, 2025 decision in Case No. C15-2025-0035 concerning the property located at 205 East 34th Austin, TX 78705. This request is made pursuant to the Board’s rules governing reconsideration, which allow a decision to be reopened when the request (1) states how the Board erred in its determination, (2) explains why reconsideration is warranted, and (3) presents new or clarified evidence that materially affects the decision. This request is submitted pursuant to Board of Adjustment Reconsideration Rules, which expressly permits reconsideration when procedural error, new evidence, or substantive misunderstanding has occurred. This appeal meets each of those standards. It provides documented evidence that the Board’s ruling was based on incomplete and outdated information, extended beyond its posted scope, and produced consequences far outside the facts of the case. It also presents new, clarified, and corrected evidence— including the accurate, approved permit drawings—that were not reviewed at the hearing and that directly refute key assumptions underlying the decision. Together, these materials create an appropriate and necessary basis for reconsideration. Procedural and Evidentiary Error The first ground for reconsideration is procedural. The official transcript shows that several Board members explicitly sought to issue a narrow decision confined to the case at hand. Nonetheless, at the end of deliberation, new language was introduced redefining attic space with …
To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd, Development Officer, ADS Lyndi Garwood, Principal Planner, ADS Date: October 3, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Staff Interpretation of Site Development Standards in North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NUNA NCCD) The matter before the Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is an administrative appeal challenging staff’s approval of residential building plans submitted for development of a proposed three-unit residential use at 205 E. 34th Street. The issue in the appeal is whether the Austin Development Services (“ADS”) correctly applied site development standards established in the North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (“NUNA-NCCD”) and other adopted zoning regulations. Summary of Issues & ADS’s Position As discussed below, following submission of the appeal, ADS determined that errors were made in the review process that render the approved structure noncompliant with NUNA- NCCD setback requirements. Our intent is to require the permit applicant to submit revised construction plans to fix the setback errors prior to proceeding with construction, so we would ask the Board to take action to modify the plan approval to explicitly require these corrections. We respectfully disagree with appellants, however, that the NUNA-NCCD’s 0.40 limit on floor-to-area ratio (FAR) applies to the proposed three-unit residential use. As discussed below, this NCCD only limits FAR for duplexes and two-family uses within the Residential District; the proposed development, while within the Residential District, is not a duplex or a two-unit use, but rather a three-unit residential use that is not subject to a FAR limit under the NCCD. Additionally, while appellants are correct that not all of the required materials were provided during the plan review process, the permit applicant has submitted revised application materials and stamped surveys that remedy this deficiency and demonstrate ITEM09/1-STAFF REPORT that the proposed corrections will achieve compliance with the NCCD setback requirements. Procedural Requirements for Appeal DSD believes that this appeal is properly before the BOA because it was filed within 20 days of the date the plans were approved1 and because the named appellants, Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay, own property within 200-feet as required by state law to invoke the BOA’s authority to review permitting decisions.2 We encourage the Board to consult legal counsel if you have questions on standing, timeliness, or other issues affecting the legal sufficiency of the appeal under Local Gov’t Code Sec. 211.010 or other authority. In acting on …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment RECONSIDERATION APPEAL Decision Sheet ITEM09 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0035 __N_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __N_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) __-_____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) __-_____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) __-_____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay OWNER: Kateryna Luschchenko ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST APPEAL REQUESTED: The 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 at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25- 1-82 (Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all property within the NCCD-NP. This section does not apply to Waller Creek/Seminary District 7 or District 7A. a. single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block. The maximum setback may not exceed the average setback by more than five feet. Part 7 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 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 including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks and parking location. 1. regulations apply. Site Development standards table. Except as otherwise modified in this part, the following site development Footnote **a new principal structure must be at least 10 feet from a principal structure on an adjacent lot. Land Development Code, 25-1-82 Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration This section does not apply to …
November 3, 2025 Re: Letter Opposing Reconsideration C15-2025-0035 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, We oppose the reconsideration request submitted by the permit holder for Case C15- 2025-0035 (205 E 34th St) and support the Board’s October 13 decision granting the appeal filed by Carol Journeay and Robert Kaler. I respectfully ask that the Board deny the reconsideration request and allow the prior decision to stand. We are the owners of 308 E 34th St, which is within 500 feet of 205 E 34th St, and 310 E. 34th Street. The October 13 decision was unanimous and made after extensive public testimony and hours of deliberation. It correctly determined that the proposed project at 205 E 34th St: • Exceeds the allowed number of units (effectively four units rather than three); • Fails to meet required front and side setbacks under the North University NCCD; and • Exceeds the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) under § 25-2-773. The reconsideration request does not present any new evidence or procedural error. Post- hearing design changes are not valid grounds for reconsideration. The proper next step for the permit holder is to submit a new, compliant application consistent with the Board’s prior ruling—not to overturn a unanimous and well-reasoned decision. Please deny the reconsideration and maintain the Board’s October 13 decision sustaining the appeal and reversing the permit approval for 205 E 34th St. Thank you for your continued service and consideration. Sincerely, Terry McGinty and Leon Barish 308 and 310 E 34th Street Austin, TX 78705 Emails: BOA Case #: C15-2025-0035 Case Address: 205 E 34th St, Austin, TX 78705 Hearing Date: November 10, 2025 ITEM09/1-LATE BACKUP OPP Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, I oppose the reconsideration request submitted by the permit holder for Case C15-2025- 0035 (205 E 34th St) and support the Board’s October 13 decision granting the appeal filed by Carol Journeay and Robert Kaler. I respectfully ask that the Board deny the reconsideration request and allow the prior decision to stand. My wife and I own and live at 209 E 34th St, “two doors down” from 205 E 34th St (and within 500 feet). The October 13 decision was unanimous and made after extensive public testimony and hours of deliberation. It correctly determined that the proposed project at 205 E 34th St: • Exceeds the allowed number of units (effectively four units rather than three); …
ITEM09/1-LATE BACKUP SUPP An inclusive voice for Austin neighborhoods. Felicity Maxwell Zilker President Roger L. Cauvin Downtown Treasurer October 24, 2025 RE: Board of Adjustment Case C15-2025-0035 Board of Adjustment staff, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) supports reconsideration of case C15-2025-0035 to clarify the Board of Adjustment's rationale for its October 13th decision. FAN's membership has called for allowing all forms of neighborhood-scale housing throughout all of Austin's neighborhoods, and FAN supported HOME as a modest step towards legalizing the full diversity of housing types. The initial ruling in case C15-2025-0035 appears to have redefined attic space with more than six feet of height as floor area. Local architects and home builders have expressed concern that counting such attic space towards floor area ratio (FAR) will constrain the very types of housing that HOME was intended to make easier to build. We therefore seek clarification in case C15-2025-0035 that the Board of Adjustment's decision does not modify or reinterpret "gross floor area", and that FAR calculations continue to exclude unconditioned attic volume, regardless of height. Respectfully, Board of Directors of Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) is a coalition of neighborhood associations and residents reclaiming the word “neighborhood” to include the full diversity of voices, moving beyond neighborhood protectionism. ITEM09/2-LATE BACKUP SUPP October 24, 2025 Board of Appeals RE: October 13th Board of Appeals Attic Ruling Dear Board of Appeals, A concern has been raised within the AIA Housing Committee regarding a change to the definition of Floor-to-Area-Ratio. The letter below aims to outline the significant implications of this change carefully. We kindly request that the Board of Appeals review these concerns and consider our constructive solutions. Urgent Request: Rescind or Clarify the October 13 BOA Attic Ruling At its October 13, 2025 hearing, its is our understanding that the Austin Board of Adjustment unintentionally created a new citywide policy redefining attic space as “floor area” whenever the head height exceeds six feet, regardless of whether that area is structural, habitable, or accessible. This reinterpretation, inserted spontaneously into a motion at the end of a long and contentious meeting, rewrites how Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is calculated across Austin. The new rule was not fully analyzed, nor intended. Yet it instantly renders thousands of existing homes technically noncompliant, halts numerous projects in progress, and undermines core city goals around housing a9ordability, density, architectural diversity, and good …
PUBLIC HEARING INFOHi\lATIO~ Although applicants and or their .,~cnt(,) ,nc c,pc~lcti tn attend a public hearing. you are not required to att ~nd I I,,\\ c, 1..·1. if~ nu do attend, you \l, \ 1 '- '- r the proposed have the opportunit) :1 neighborhood or development or change. environmental organization in an th,tl h,\\ application affecting your nc1g.hb,,, lw, ,d ,pc;1k 'i l)tl ma~ \. 'I''\. ,1..·,I an .11,,, u,111.h. l interest I< m. ,,, to During a public hearing, the board ,,, " '.in,ssion may postpone or continue an application's hearing lt1 ., l,ll1.. d,1ll.: ur rc\.ommcnd approval or denial of the application. 11 the b, ,.11 d or commission announces a specific date and time for a postr'llmcmcnt or continuation that is not later than 60 days from the announccml!nt. no further notice is required. A board or commission's decision ma~ be appcall!d by a pcrson with standing to appeal, or an mtcrcslnl part) th,H i:, 1dcntdicd as a pc1 son who can appeal the decision The b0d~ holding a public hearing on an appeal will determine whether a person ha:-. standm~ to appeal the decision. An interested part) is dcfinl.'d a, ,1 person ,, ho i, the .1pplicant or record owner of the subject propt:rt>. 01 \\ ho conmrnnicatcs an interest to a board or commiss1on h~ : • delivering a wri tten :-.t.itc.:1111.·111 to the board or commission before or during the public he~111ng th.11 generally identities the issues of concern (;r 1110_1 ht dt·/11 l'I'< ii,,, the contact person listed 011 a notice); or appearing am1 sp1.·;1h.in:! h.,r tl11.· record at the public hearing; • and: • occupies a pn111,1r~ 1r::-1tk1i...1.· that is\\ ith in 500 feet of the subject Written comments must be submitted to the contact person listed on the notice before 9 a.m. the day of the public hearing to be added to the Late Back-up and viewed by the Board the night of the meeting. Your comments should include the name of the board or commission, or Council; the scheduled date of the public hearing; the Case Number. and the contact person listed on the notice. All comments received will become part of the public record of this case. Case Number: CIS-2025-0035 Contact: Elaine Ramirez; clainc.ramirez@austintexas.gov I Public Hearing: Board of AdB:!_stment; October 13th , 2025 Oav,·d :Joy Your Name (please print) S'»eeJwa1,1 Avenu-e 14oq Your address(e's} affectedhy this application …
Board of Adjustment – City of Austin c/o Elaine Ramirez (elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov) Re: Support for Appeal – C15-2025-0035 Dear Board of Adjustment, I am writing to express my support for appeal C15-2025-0035. I am a utility account holder at 203 ½ E 34th St (Unit B, an ADU) and a resident of the North University neighborhood. I respectfully ask the Board to sustain the appeal, reverse the administrative approval of Permit 2025-072930 PR, and deny the plan set and application in full. Any future submittal should be treated as a new application that must demonstrate full compliance with the SF-3- NCCD-NP standards and the Land Development Code. Reasons I Support the Appeal 1. The NCCD’s purpose and neighborhood pattern. The North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD-NP) was adopted by City Council to preserve the traditional residential form of our neighborhood. Part 7 specifically states: “New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks, and parking location.” The proposed project violates these principles, disregarding the block’s historic porch line, modest scale, and single-family residential character. This exact charm is what attracted me to the neighborhood in the first place; This home has been the perfect spot for my Ph.D. studies. 2. Use / type concerns (functionally four units, apartment-style). The project’s design and marketing materials indicate an apartment-style, communal-living use rather than family-oriented residential. It includes ~20 bedrooms, shared kitchens, dual stairways, fire-rated walls, and “wet-bar” layouts that effectively divide the rear building into two units. This configuration functions as four units, inconsistent with the ≤ 3 units allowed under SF-3 zoning and contrary to the family-residential context intended by the NCCD. 3. Incomplete / inaccurate application documentation. The submitted plan set does not demonstrate compliance with several key NCCD standards, including: • Front setback averaging (maintains the porch line and street rhythm) • • FAR limits (0.40 max, proposal exceeds at ~0.64) 10-foot separation between principal structures (fire safety, light, air, privacy) Additionally, overlays have been misidentified or omitted, making the review process unclear and incomplete. This plan should not have been administratively approved. ITEM09/1-SUPPORT Why These Standards Matter • Side setbacks & 10-ft separation – These ensure fire safety, access for firefighters, daylight, ventilation, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of homes. Ignoring them erodes neighborhood livability. • Front setback averaging – Preserves the street’s visual harmony, pedestrian comfort, and tree space. Without it, a new structure …
C15-2025-0035 / 205 E 34th St Presentation on Behalf of Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Please DENY Request for Reconsideration ● Unanimous decision. ● Significant deliberation. ● Significant public testimony. ● Correctly decided. 1 ITEM09/1-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Board Decision: 1) The number of units shown in the design should be interpreted as greater than three (3). - Correctly decided. - Duplex duplicated on site (Buildings 1 and 2, identical footprint) - Nearly identical floorplans (each bldg has 10 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 3rd floor with additional room). - Four main entrances. - 1-foot drop off between units. - Wall Plan shows enclosed, separate units. - Post-hearing modifications not a valid reason for reconsideration. 2 ITEM09/2-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Approved Wall Plan Showing Enclosed, Separate Units in Building 2 3 ITEM09/3-PRESENTATION APPELLANT ~1 ft. elevation drop between floors First Floors 4 ITEM09/4-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Identical. Second Floors 5 ITEM09/5-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Board Decision: 2) The average front yard setback should have been calculated from the four (4) adjacent properties on the same side of the street. The average side yard separation should be calculated per the nccd. - Correctly decided. - City staff in agreement that setbacks not compliant with NCCD zoning ordinance: - - “The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block.” Part 6, Section 3.a. of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD). “A new principal structure must be at least 10’ from a principal structure on an adjacent lot.” Part 7, Section 1 of Ordinance No. 040826-58 (NCCD). - Post-hearing modifications not a valid reason for reconsideration. 6 ITEM09/6-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Approved plans showing incorrect setbacks 7 ITEM09/7-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Board Decision: 3) The approved plans should meet the criteria for FAR requirements under the gross floor area definition of attic in 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b). The definition of floor in 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b) is not limited to whether the floor is load-bearing or not . - Correctly decided. - BOA decision consistent with staff explanation (next slide). - “GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of more than six feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls, except as provided in this subsection.” LDC 25-2-773 (E)(1)(b). 8 ITEM09/8-PRESENTATION APPELLANT 9 ITEM09/9-PRESENTATION APPELLANT 18” structural depth for 3rd Floor 10 ITEM09/10-PRESENTATION APPELLANT Egress window for 3rd Floor 11 …
205 E 34th Street • Summary of the Request • 1. Accept new and clarified evidence showing that the decision was based on outdated and incorrect drawings and on misapplied code interpretations. • 2. Acknowledge procedural and substantive error in the addition of new motion language not publicly deliberated. • 3. Reconsider and amend the October 13 2025 decision to remove the attic-space clause “is not limited to whether the floor is load bearing or not” and to clarify that non-habitable attic volume remains excluded as gross floor area until Council acts otherwise. ITEM09/1-PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER Gross Floor Area (25-1-21) Definition in the Land Development Code GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of more than six feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls. HOME Ordinance: This subsection applies to the area established in Subsection 1.2.1 of (E) Chapter 252, Subchapter F (Residential Design and Compatibility Standards). •(1) •(a) •(i) •(ii) 2023. In this subsection, EXISTING DWELLING UNIT means a dwelling unit that is: legally permitted and occupied before December 7, 2023; or described in an application for a residential permit that was submitted on or before December 7, GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of •(b) more than six feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls, except as provided in this subsection. Gross Floor Area Exclusions. For a property that includes an existing dwelling unit that was constructed on or before December •(2) •(a) 31, 1960, the property owner may exclude the preserved square footage from the gross floor area if the requirements in Subsection (F) are met. •(b) For a property that includes an existing dwelling unit that was constructed on or after January 1, 1961, and is at least 20 years old, the property owner may exclude the preserved square footage from the gross floor area if the requirements in Subsection (F) are met. ITEM09/2-PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER Attic Area with load bearing framing- both trussed and conventional framing ITEM09/3-PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER Attic area with Mechanical Systems ITEM09/4-PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER Examples of Historic structures in the Neighborhood ITEM09/5-PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER • These new structures become non-complying based on the BOA Ruling for GFA 10.13.25 with an attic. If the ceilings are vaulted then the GFA doesn’t count but yet …
BOA Monthly Report July 2025-June 2026 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 of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street Postponed 4 1. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the front yard setback 2. 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area and (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area 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 0 Discussion Items 1 Oct 2025 Interpretations Oct 2025 BAAP 1 new inquiries 0 (Added Oct 13# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 4 9 0 0 5 Board members absent: Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) (1 vacant alternate position) September 8, 2025 Granted 1 1. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum rear yard setback and 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback and 25-2-551 (Lake Austin (LA) District Regulations) (C) (3) (a) from impervious coverage requirements to increase Postponed 3 5. 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area and (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area 6. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length 7. 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length Withdrawn Denied 0 0 Discussion Items 1 Sept 2025 Interpretations Sept 2025 BAAP 1 new inquiries 0 (Added Sept 8# 2025) The deposition of the case items: Granted Postponed Withdrawn Denied Discussion Items 3 5 0 0 4 Board members absent: Niccolo A Sacco, Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) (1 vacant alternate position) August 11, 2025 Granted 1 1. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum interior side yard setback Postponed 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 …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 8, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:37 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Jeffery Bowen, Yung-ju Kim, Brian Poteet, Bianca A. Medina-Leal, Maggie Shahrestani, Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Thomas Ates, Sameer S Birring Board Members absent: Niccolo A Sacco, Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings on August 11, 2025. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for August 11, 2025 The minutes from the meeting on August 11, 2025, were approved on Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne, Board member Corry L. Archer-Mcclellan second, on 9-0-1 Vote (Board member Maggie Shahrestani abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. New Sign cases: 2. C16-2025-0005 Jonathan Perlstein for Elizabeth McFarland 4700 Weidemar Lane On-Line Link: ITEM02 ADV PACKET PART1, PART2, PART3, PRESENTATION The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO- NP”, Multi-Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the lesser of: 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or 35 square feet. Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) (1) (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28-17. The public hearing was …
Response to Appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the Owners of 205 E 34th (Advanced Package) The owners, who are also the applicants for the permit, respectfully submit that the City possessed all required documentation necessary to render a correct determination on the permits. After reviewing the appellants’ claims, the owners find that each concern was adequately addressed during the review process, which resulted in the permits being properly approved. Specifically, City representatives had the fully completed application form in their possession. The version accessible on the ABC website is a corrupted file and does not reflect the application submitted, which appears to have caused confusion for the appellants. Furthermore, the City had on file the topography and tree map, which includes the required measurements of the four adjacent houses relative to the property boundaries. Accordingly, the owners request that the Board of Adjustment proceed with the scheduled hearing, decline to postpone to a later date, and avoid any further delay in finalizing permit approval. We also respectfully request that the Board vote separately on each item of the appeal. Responses to Specific Appeal Items 1. “Plan does not demonstrate the front setback.” Response: The survey was in the possession of the City of Austin (COA). To our knowledge, COA is not required to release surveys for public access, and we are not aware of any precedent where such surveys have been posted online. For reference, the survey is provided here as Attachment D. The site plan in the City’s possession contains all information necessary to determine property averaging and front setback. This is included as Attachment A (screenshot from the COA website). The City requested a correction to the setback, which was made, and the plans were updated accordingly. COA then made the proper determination regarding both setbacks and permits. ITEM02/1-PERMIT HOLDER 2. “The plan set does not comply with FAR.” Response: The plan set complies fully with the HOME Initiative, a recent and significant amendment to the COA building code permitting increased density for new residential construction. Under HOME, a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of up to 65% is authorized and was appropriately applied in this case. The citation provided by the appellants is inapplicable to three-unit dwellings. 3. “The application is not complete on page 4.” Response: The application submitted to the City was complete. The file appearing in the ABC system is corrupted and does not …
BOA INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0035 BOA DATE: Monday, October 13th, 2025 ADDRESS: 205 E 34th St COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 APPELLANT: Carol Journeay & PERMIT HOLDER/OWNER: Kateryna Lushchenko Bob Kaler 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 the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025- 072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street. SUMMARY: any proposed development must comply with the provisions of the NCCD ISSUES: application is incomplete, and the plan set does not contain the information necessary to 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 Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Homeless Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Association North University Neighborhood Development Review Committee Preservation Austin ITEM02/1-APPELLANT September 25, 2025 Carol Journeay 205 E 34th St Austin TX, 78705 Property Description: LOT 3 BLK 19 DIV D HARRIS SIDON RESUB OF GROOMS ADDN Re: C15-2025-0035 Dear Carol Journeay, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance request from LDC, Section 25-1-182 at 205 E 34th St Ln. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, provided that any proposed or existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s Clearance & Safety Criteria, the National Electric Safety Code, and OSHA requirements. Any removal or relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner’s/applicant’s expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1.10.0CL SARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Ashley Robinson, Project Assistant Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050 ITEM02/2-APPELLANT ITEM02/3-APPELLANT Development Services Department interpretation is: That the application No. 2025-072930 set for Permit for Permit No. 2025-072930 compliance PR was complete, that with all relevant the plan set for Permit and that the plan regulations, PR demonstrated No. 2025-072930 PR complies with all relevant regulations. I feel the correct interpretation is: That the application No. 2025-072930 the plan set for Permit No. 2025-072930 …
209 E 34th St 7 ITEM02/27-APPELLANT 200 E 34t St 8 ITEM02/28-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St 9 ITEM02/29-APPELLANT 204 E 34th St 10 ITEM02/30-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St 11 ITEM02/31-APPELLANT 208 E 34th St 12 ITEM02/32-APPELLANT 202 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 13 ITEM02/33-APPELLANT A204 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 14 ITEM02/34-APPELLANT 206 E 34th St: ADU Facing Alley 15 ITEM02/35-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Front Elevation Facing South to Alley 16 ITEM02/36-APPELLANT 205 E 34th St: Building 2 Side Elevation Facing West 17 ITEM02/37-APPELLANT July 28th 2025 Carol Journeay 207 E 34th St Austin, Texas 78705 This letter is to notify you of receipt of your communication as an interested party as described by the Land Development Code Title 25-1-131. A residential building permit application was filed for the property located at 205 E 34th St for a new three-unit use. This application was filed on June 12th 2025 by Kate Juschenko. An interested party is a person who has an interest in a matter that is the subject of a public hearing or administrative decision. A person has an interest if the person communicates an interest in a matter and occupies or owns property within 500 feet of the proposed development. A person communicates an interest in a matter that is the subject of an administrative decision by delivering a written statement to the responsible director. The communication must identify the general issues of concern and include the person’s name, telephone number, and mailing address. An administrative decision can be appealed under the Land Development Code Title 25-1-181. A person has standing to appeal an administrative decision if the person is an interested party. An appeal must be initiated and submitted to the responsible director within 20 days of an administrative decision. A notice of appeal must include the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; the name of the applicant, if the applicant is not the appellant; the decision being appealed; the date of the decision; a description of the appellant’s status as an interested party; and the reasons the appellant believes the decision does not comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code. As per Title 25-1-186, if the applicant requests, the responsible director shall schedule a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve the issues raised by an appeal of an administrative decision. The responsible director shall notify all …
BOA GENERAL REVIEW COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0036 BOA DATE: Monday, October 13th, 2025 ADDRESS: 12302 Split Rail Pkwy OWNER: Joshua Myers COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 AGENT: N/A ZONING: SF-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VILLAGE 2 AT ANDERSON MILL, BLOCK M, LOT 1 VARIANCE REQUEST: LDC, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the front yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. SUMMARY: maintain a Carport ISSUES: corner lot & layout of home ZONING LAND USES Site North South East West SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 SF-2 Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Anderson Mill Neighborhood Association Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Long Canyon Homeowners Assn. Mountain Neighborhood Association (MNA) ITEM03/1 September 25, 2025 Josh Myers 12302 Split Rail Pkwy Austin TX, 78750 Property Description: VILLAGE 2 AT ANDERSON MILL, BLOCK M, LOT 1 Re: C15-2025-0036 Dear Josh Myers, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance request from LDC, Section 25-2- 492 at 12302 Split Rail Pkwy. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, the property is outside of our service area. If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Ashley Robinson, Project Assistant Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050 ITEM03/2 ITEM03/3 ITEM03/4 ITEM03/5 ITEM03/6 ITEM03/7 ITEM03/8 Area Properties with Carports in Front Setback Area 1. 10803 Rustic Manor Ln 2. 11002 Rustic Manor Ln 3. 12301 Burlywood Trail 4. 10601 Double Tree Cv 5. 12315 Wipple Tree Cv ITEM03/9 ITEM03/10 ITEM03/11 ITEM03/12 ITEM03/13
