URBAN RENEWAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN Monday, March 16, 2020 Street – Jones Building 1000 East 11th Street, Room 400A 6:00 p.m. Current Board Members: Manuel Escobar, Chair Roxanne Evans, Vice Chair Danielle Skidmore Amit Motwani Darrell W. Pierce Nathaniel Bradford Jacqueline Watson PURPOSE: The Board of Commissioners primary responsibility is to oversee the implementation and compliance of approved Urban Renewal Plans that are adopted by the Austin City Council. An Urban Renewal Plan's primary purpose is to eliminate slum and blighting influence within a designated area of the city. CALL TO ORDER – Monday, March 16, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Approval of the February 10, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (Speakers signed up prior to the meeting will be called in order and will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns. This is the opportunity for visitors and guests to address the Urban Renewal Board of the City of Austin (URB) on any issue. The URB may not debate any non- agenda issue, nor may any action be taken on any non-agenda issue at this time however the URB may present any factual response to items brought up by citizens. (Attorney General Opinion – JC-0169) (Limit of three minutes each). 2. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement Concerning Implementation of the East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Plan with the City of Austin, Exhibit A, Statement of Work. b. Presentation, discussion and possible action on the Land Development Code rewrite as it relates to the East 11th and 12th Street Urban Renewal Plan boundaries. c. Discussion and possible action on a recommendation to Austin City Council to support the Joint Sustainability Committee Recommendation 20191218- 3C.b regarding Equity and Land Development Code. 3. OLD BUSINESS P a g e 1 | 2 a. Discussion and possible action on recommended modifications to the East 11th and 12th Street Urban Renewal Plan. b. Discussion and possible action on the recommended modifications to the East 11th Street Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) to parallel the structure of the current East 12th Street NCCD. c. Discussion and possible action of design guidelines for the Urban Renewal Agency-owned properties located in the 900 and 1100 Blocks of East 11th Street (Blocks 16 and 18) Request for Proposal. d. Discussion and possible action of the …
REGULAR MEETING February 10, 2020 URBAN RENEWAL BOARD DRAFT MINUTES The Urban Renewal Board convened the regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 2020, at the Street‐Jones Building, 1000 East 11th Street, Room 400A, Austin TX. Chair Escobar called the Board Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Manuel Escobar, Chair Amit Motwani Danielle Skidmore Jacqueline Watson Darrell Pierce Nathaniel Bradford Board Members Absent: Roxanne Evans, Vice‐Chair Staff in Attendance: Mandy DeMayo Sandra Harkins Mark Walters PURPOSE: The Board of Commissioners primary responsibility is to oversee the implementation and compliance of approved Urban Renewal Plans that are adopted by the Austin City Council. An Urban Renewal Plan's primary purpose is to eliminate slum and blighting influence within a designated area of the city. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Approval of the January 13, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion to approve the January 13, 2020, regular meeting minutes was made by Commissioner Watson seconded by Commissioner Skidmore with Commissioner Pierce abstaining, the item was approved on a 5‐0‐1 vote. Approval of the January 29, 2020, Work Session Minutes. The motion to approve the January 29, 2020, work session minutes was made by Commissioner Watson seconded by Commissioner Skidmore with Commissioner Motwani abstaining, the item was approved on a 5‐0‐1 vote. 1 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (The first 5 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns. This is the opportunity for visitors and guests to address the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Austin (Agency) on any issue. The Agency may not debate any non-agenda issue, nor may any action be taken on any non-agenda issue at this time however the Agency may present any factual response to items brought up by citizens. (Attorney General Opinion – JC-0169) (Limit of three minutes each). None 3. NEW BUSINESS None 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on recommended modifications to the East 11th and 12th Street Urban Renewal Plan. Chair provided a brief review and update of what has occurred to date regarding the changes to the East 11th and 12th Street Urban Renewal Plan (URPlan). NHCD staff provided an overview of the draft URPlan and updates that were requested and/or made from the last meeting. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN b. Discussion and possible action on the recommended modifications to the …
FINAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW MARCH 16, 2020 URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE EAST 11TH AND 12TH STREETS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Boundary Description 2. History 2.1 Accomplishments 3. Vision, Purpose, Authority and Scope 4. Redevelopment Strategy 5. Applicability of NCCD Controls 6. Land Use 7. Relocation of Persons, Businesses (including individuals and families, business concerns, and others displaced by the project) 8. Duration and Modification Procedures of URP Appendices: Appendix A: East 11th and 12th Street Urban Renewal Plan; Amendments Appendix B: East 11th Street and East 12th Street Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCDs); Amendments Abbreviations commonly used in the document: URP – Urban Renewal Plan URA‐Urban Renewal Agency ARA – Austin Revitalization Authority Note: Some of the tables and figures from the original 1999 Urban Renewal Plan have been deleted or modified, as they were no longer accurate or relevant. The original plan is available at this website: http://www.austintexas.gov/department/urban-renewal-plan EAST 11 TH & 12TH STREETS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN (URP) 1 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION The formal boundaries of the East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Area (UR Area) are set forth in Exhibit A and the ordinance approving this URP. In general, the boundaries are: The East 11th Street Corridor, including properties within one‐half block of the north frontage of East 11th Street and south frontage of Juniper Street, from Branch Street on the west to Navasota Street on the east; and properties within one‐half block of the south frontage of East 11th, from San Marcos Street on the west to Navasota Street on the east. The East 12th Street Corridor, including properties within one‐half block of the north frontage of East 12th and between the IH‐35 Northbound Frontage Road on the west to Poquito Street to the east; and properties within one‐half block of the south frontage of East 12th Street, from Branch Street on the west to Poquito Street on the east. 2 HISTORY This East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Plan (“URP" also referred to as the East 11th and 12th Streets Community Redevelopment Plan or “CRP”), is a comprehensive document defining the official public policy guidelines of the City of Austin (City) for driving public and private redevelopment actions of the East 11th and 12th Streets Urban Renewal Area in compliance with Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 374. The URP’s original conceptual approaches and strategies for the entire Central East Austin …
ORDINANCE NO. __________________ WALTERS, MARK 3/10/2020 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 910620‐C, REZONING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP TO AMEND THE EAST 11TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION COMBINING DISTRICT (NCCD) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD OF IH‐35 BETWEEN THE NORTHERN ALLEY OF THE 800‐900 BLOCK OF EAST 7TH STREET AND EAST 12TH STREET; THE WEST SIDE OF THE 800‐1000 BLOCKS OF SAN MARCOS STREET; EAST 11TH STREET FROM IH‐35 TO NAVASOTA STREET; ALONG ROSEWOOD AVENUE FROM 11TH STREET TO APPROXIMATELY ANGELINA STREET; ALONG A SEGMENT OF THE 1200 BLOCK OF NAVASOTA STREET; AND ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF A SEGMENT OF THE 1500 AND 1600 BLOCK OF SAN BERNARD STREET IN THE CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, AND TO MODIFY CERTAIN BASE DISTRICTS IN THE NCCD. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. The zoning map established by Section 25‐2‐191 of the City Code is amended to amend the East 11th Street neighborhood conservation combining district (NCCD), identified in the attached Exhibit "A" incorporated into this ordinance, and to add a NCCD to each base zoning district within the District on the property described in Zoning Case No. C14‐XX‐XXXX, on file at the Planning and Zoning Department, as follows: Approximately XX acres of land consisting of four subdistricts, identified in the attached Exhibit “B” incorporated into this ordinance, lying within the Central East Austin Neighborhood Plan Area, more particularly described as follows, a. Subdistrict 1, sites located along and oriented to East 11th Street between Branch Street and San Marcos Street on the west, and extending to Navasota Street on the east; b. Subdistrict 2, sites oriented to Juniper Street between Branch Street and Lydia Street, and including parcels with frontages on Curve Street and Waller Street; c. Subdistrict 3, sites located along IH‐35 and bounded by Embassy Drive, San Marcos Street, and Branch Street on the east, East 12th Street on the north, the Northbound Frontage Road of IH‐35 on the west and the alley of the 800‐900 block of East 7th street on the south; and d. Subdistrict 4, sites generally oriented toward the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Rosewood Avenue but excluding 1326 and 1319 Rosewood Avenue, the east side of the 1100 block of Navasota Street, the 1100‐1200 blocks of San Bernard Street but excluding 1159, 1161, 1164, and 1165 San Bernard Street. This …
BLOCKS 16 AND 18 RFP GENERAL COMMENTS Comment and/or Recommendation February 11, 2019 1 Partner Actively with GNDC, Blackshear, Blackand D.C.'S Give them a say in housing 1. Affordable Grocery Store. It's a food desert. 2. Document the history of Robertson Hill that’s being erased. Define the following terms: "priority needs"/"more welcoming"/"impact" Baseline positive “impact” requirements: 1. Compatibility of maximum heights, intensity of uses, light and sound pollution with adjacent residential and cultural uses and historic assets; and 2. Long-term dedication of space for existing and new local businesses at affordable rates, as well as for on-grade programmable public space • Specify “Permanent and temporary jobs.” • Prioritize services not yet present on the corridor that are compatible with all adjacent uses, such as a pharmacy and a pick-up/drop-off drycleaners. • Hew to plain intent and letter of URP; no variances or bonus entitlements-such as to maximum height, FAR, setbacks, protection of heritage trees. Affordable Housing What is the baseline affordable housing requirement from which additional units will be gauged? Per forum-25%. Ownership unis at 60% MFI for 99 year and below should be weighted significantly higher than current proposed criteria (+5 points) Community Parking Prioritize projects with a holistic parking demand management program that includes: Public parking to support existing local businesses Innovative approach to accommodating alternative modes of transportation, bus, bike locks, bike showers, scooters, Vespas, commercial loading zone, etc.; and A mix of uses on-site that balance 24/7 demand of parking Minority and women owned business Theses points should be all-or-nothing based on: 1. Meeting a quantitative baseline % participation; and 2. Executed partnership agreements (MOU’s?) at time of application Please clarify requirements for City projects/state regulations and aim to match them. 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 7 BLOCKS 16 AND 18 RFP GENERAL COMMENTS Comment and/or Recommendation February 11, 2019 Green Building 2 Star/Silver should be a baseline requirement for submission; 5 points for Gold Star Reward incorporation of alternative energy (such as solar) on-site Other Public Benefits Baseline requirement for award consideration: demonstrated timely, substantive engagement with RHNA, OCEAN and Six Square. Demonstrated community support (15 points) – letters of support from all of the following: RHNA, OCEAN and Six Square. We urge the board to set specific, baseline qualifications for proposal consideration that reflect community needs and priorities. Requiring upfront what our community and the city most value should help ensure …
DRAFT SCORING CRITERIA - Block 18 14-Jan-19 Points (80 Point Maximum) 20 20 10 10 10 5 5 Project Creativity and Need Community Benefit Considerations To what extent will the project satisfy priority needs, as identified in the current Urban Renewal and the City Imagine Austin comprehensive plan? Describe the appropriateness of the proposed development for the neighborhood. Please provide: • Impact on making the commercial corridor more welcoming and on increasing the availability of pedestrian oriented retail goods or services. • Impact on other public or private investment in the neighborhood. • Jobs created as a result of the project. Additional Affordable Housing 25% of residential units. Rental = 60% MFI for 40 years; Ownership = 80% MFI for 99 years Community Parking Provide parking in excess of the minimum requirements to support adjacent businesses in the corridor Incorporation of the Historic Victory Grill It is strongly encouraged the proposed project identify synergies with the Historic Victory Grill. Define the approach the proposed project will utilize to successfully create a sustainable synergy with the Historic Victory Grill. How will proposed project design and uses be respectful to this historic structure? Minority and Women Owned Business As part of the implementation of City Council resolution no. 20071108‐127 (see Exhibit B), relating to MBE/WBE compliance (the City of Austin program for Minority‐owned Business Enterprises / Women‐owned Business Enterprises), the Successful Proposer is encouraged to set MBE/WBE participation goals or make a good faith effort to achieve these goals in the design and construction of improvements on the subject Property. Green Building Other Public Benefits The Successful Proposer is encouraged to meet ambitious green building goals. This includes meeting a minimum Austin Energy 2 Star Green Building rating or USGBC LEED Silver rating. Other public benefits proposed will be given additional consideration. Affordable Housing Threshold Requirement: 25% of residential units. Rental = 60% MFI for 40 years; Ownership = 80% MFI for 99 years
BLOCK 18 RFP COMMENTS February 11, 2019 1 Resolve existing egress enchroachment and underground utility issues for Historic Victory Grill and Comment and/or Recommendation ensure its preservation. 2 Reserve and enhance Kenny's Backyard *Is it possible to keep an outdoor music venue? We really enjoy the music from Kenny Dorham's Backyard. • The Block 18/Kenny Dorham’s space should be allowed to remain in operation until the property has been sold and the timeline dictates that site prep needs to begin. • Going forward, if not specially Kenny Dorham’s Backyard, some facility based on this model should be incorporated into whatever development plan is accepted for Block 18 • Make Block 18 an intentional and specific destination for arts, culture, music, cultural preservation, and creative industries for the District • Though commercial in nature, Block 18 development should intentionally incorporate the Victory Grill Building (and the historic legacy of the venues and businesses that once populated these blocks) into a plan for this block to function as a Cultural Hub that pays homage to what once was the center of the Central East Austin Entertainment District 3 4 5 6 7
DRAFT SCORING CRITERIA - Block 16 14-Jan-19 Points (80 Point Maximum) 20 20 10 10 5 5 Project Creativity and Need Community Benefit Considerations To what extent will the project satisfy priority needs, as identified in the current Urban Renewal and the City Imagine Austin comprehensive plan? Describe the appropriateness of the proposed development for the neighborhood. Please provide: • Impact on making the commercial corridor more welcoming and on increasing the availability of pedestrian oriented retail goods or services. • Impact on other public or private investment in the neighborhood. • Jobs created as a result of the project. Additional Affordable Housing 25% of residential units. Rental = 60% MFI for 40 years; Ownership = 80% MFI for 99 years Community Parking Provide parking in excess of the minimum requirements to support adjacent businesses in the corridor. Incorporation of the African American Cultural & Heritage Facility It is strongly encouraged the proposed project identify synergies with the African American Cultural and Heritage Facility (AAC&HF). Define the approach the proposed project will utilize to successfully create a sustainable synergy with the African American Cultural and Heritage Facility by providing for example; active space for community, educational and cultural uses. How will proposed project design and uses be respectful to the adjacent AAC&HF Dedrick-Hamilton house a historic structure? As part of the implementation of City Council resolution no. 20071108‐127 (see Exhibit B), relating to MBE/WBE compliance (the City of Austin program for Minority‐owned Business Enterprises / Women‐owned Business Enterprises), the Successful Proposer is encouraged to set MBE/WBE participation goals or make a good faith effort to achieve these goals in the design and construction of improvements on the subject Property. Green Building The Successful Proposer is encouraged to meet ambitious green building goals. This includes meeting a minimum Austin Energy 2 Star Green Building rating or USGBC LEED Silver rating. (Please refer to information and links provided at www.austintexas.gov/realestate) Other Public Benefits Other public benefits proposed will be given additional consideration. Affordable Housing Threshold Requirement: 25% of residential units. Rental = 60% MFI for 40 years; Ownership = 80% MFI for 99 years 10 Minority and Women Owned Business
Music Commission Special Called Meeting - Monday, March 16, 2020, 6:30pm Austin City Hall – Council Chambers Room 1001 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin TX 78701 CURRENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chair – Rick Carney, Vice-chair – Jonathan “Chaka” Mahone, Secretary - Anne-Charlotte Patterson, Parliamentarian - Oren Rosenthal, Al Duarte, Gavin Garcia, Doug Leveton, Patrice Pike, Paul Pinon, Graham Reynolds, Stuart Sullivan AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. CHAIR’S REPORT 3. NEW BUSINESS The first 10 speakers signed up prior 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. Approval of Minutes from Regularly Scheduled Meeting on March 2, 2020. a. Chair Carney addresses the SXSW cancellation and the impact on the music community. a. Discussion of and Possible Action on the cancellation of SXSW and its impact on the community, including but not limited to a resolution requesting that the City Council create a Music Disaster Relief Fund to assist Musicians and related service professionals and workers affected by the cancellation of SXSW. 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Kim McCarson 512-974-7963, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Music Commission please contact Kim McCarson at Kimberly.McCarson@austintexas.gov, 512-974- 7963.
SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD DRAFT MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 18, 2020 AT 6:00 PM The South Central Waterfront Advisory Board convened in a regular meeting on February 18, 2020 at One Texas Center, 3rd floor conference room located at 505 Barton Springs Road, Austin, Texas. Chair Samuel Franco called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Board Members in attendance: Chair Samuel Franco (Design Commission) Vice Chair Lynn Kurth (Mayor & District 9 Appointee) Linda Guerrero (Environmental Commission) Francoise Luca (Parks & Recreation Board) Karen Paup (Affordable Housing Rep) Wendy Price Todd (S. River City NA) Alfred Godfrey (Trail Foundation) 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL a. No citizen communication. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ACTION Ex Officios: Nazlie Saeedi (ATD) Molly Alexander (DAA) City of Austin Planning & Zoning Staff: Alan Holt, Executive Liaison Jodi Lane, PAZ Staff a. Board Member Wendy Price Todd made a motion, seconded by Board Member Linda Guerrero, to approve the draft January 21, 2020 SCWAB meeting minutes. The motion to approve passed with 7 yes and 2 absent (includes absentees Greg Anderson and Cory Walton) votes. 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION a. Draft 1 – 2020 Update Report on SCW Physical Framework Costs – Executive Liaison Alan Holt, Public Works Department staff Kevin Sweat, and Jodi Lane, PAZ Staff, presented an update on the SCW Physical Framework Costs. The Board discussed this but no action was taken. b. EDD process with Consultant for Development Corporation Entity - An update was provided by Executive Liaison Alan Holt. The Board agreed with the suggestion from EDD staff to potentially call a Special Called Meeting to provide feedback to the Consultant prior to his report being sent to Council. The Board anticipates taking action once further information is available from EDD. No action was taken. c. Council Resolution on February 20 on SCW Implementation - The Board discussed the Council Resolution brought forth by Executive Liaison Alan Holt but no action was taken. The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days before the meeting date. For information, please contact Alan Holt in the Planning and Zoning Department at alan.holt@austintexas.gov or (512) 974-2716. TTY users route through …
South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting March 16, 2020 Agenda Item 2.a. - 2020 Update Report on SCW Plan’s Physical Framework & Project Costs South Central Waterfront Agenda Item 2.a. 2020 Update Report on SCW Physical Framework & Project Costs Updated: March 12, 2020 CONTENTS WHAT’S NEW 2.a. Staff Note - Update on 2016 SCW Plan’s Physical Framework: Map & Project Costs New memo explaining updates to 2016 SCW Plan 2.a.i. 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map New consolidated map 2.a.ii. 2020 SCW Physical Framework Project Updated Open Space costs Costs B. C. A. Streets and Utilities COA Cost Data Streets including Public and Private Indirect Costs 2020 SCW Physical Framework Project Costs & Funding Sources D. Open Space COA Cost Data No change from DRAFT 1 presented at SCWAB February 2020 Meeting No change from DRAFT 1 presented at SCWAB February 2020 Meeting Reflects a recalculation of Open Space direct costs. Please see following ‘Staff Note 2.a.’ for details No change from DRAFT 1 presented at SCWAB February 2020 Meeting DRAFT South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting March 16, 2020 Agenda Item 2.a. - 2020 Update Report on SCW Plan’s Physical Framework & Project Costs South Central Waterfront 2.a. Staff Note - Update on 2016 SCW Plan’s Physical Framework: Map & Project Costs Updated: March 12, 2020 This packet contains two items, 2.a.i. & 2.a.ii.: 2.a.i. Draft 1: 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map. Key Map showing 2016 SCW Plan’s Street Classification, Project Costs, and Buildout for Financial Analysis. The 2016 SCW Plan contained four separate key maps, one each for (1) Property Ownership; (2) Street Classification; (3) District Project Costs; and (4) Property Buildout Scenarios. All of these factors are interrelated, and the multiple key map system created confusion and mistakes with linking information from one set of data (e.g., the cost of a street segment) to another set of data (e.g., associated cost of a street segment to a particular buildout scenario). The 2020 Update of the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map attached herein combines reference keys to all the above factors and applies a consistent identification system. This new map is especially important to the overall 2020 update, allowing for linkage between the spreadsheets/databases associated with SCW Physical Framework Project Costs and the SCW Financial Framework spreadsheets/databases under development. 2.a.ii. Draft 2: 2020 SCW Physical Framework Project Costs: Draft 1 of this spreadsheet was released and reviewed at …
South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting March 16, 2020 Agenda Item 2.b. - Consultant’s Report & Review of 305 S Congress PUD Application Infrastructure Costs Consultant’s Report & Review of 305 S Congress PUD South Central Waterfront Agenda Item 2.b. Application Infrastructure Costs Updated: March 12, 2020 CONTENTS WHAT’S NEW 2.b.i. Cost Estimates Packet for Site Improvements from Endeavor Real Estate Group Applicant provided cost estimates for the PUD-proposed site improvements 1: Infrastructure Improvements (DRAFT) - Key Map (prepared by Endeavor consultant team) 2: Waterfront Park Concept Map 3: Waterfront Park Cost Estimates Table (prepared by Endeavor consultant: CMG Landscape Architecture) (prepared by Endeavor consultant: CMG Landscape Architecture) 4: Site Infrastructure - Program Cost Metrics Spreadsheet (prepared by Endeavor consultant: DPR Construction) 5: Below-Grade Parking Cost Spreadsheet (prepared by Endeavor consultant: DPR Construction) 2.b.ii. City Of Austin Review & Adjustments Of Cost Consultant review of item 2.b.i. Estimates For Site Improvements As Submitted By Endeavor Real Estate Group 1: MEMO: Review of Cost Estimates submitted by Applicant for 305 S. Congress PUD (prepared by Project Cost Resources, consultants to CoA/PAZ) 2: Adjusted Direct Costs for 305 S. Congress PUD (prepared by CoA/PAZ staff, based on Project Cost Resources memo) DRAFT COST ESTIMATES PACKET FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS FROM ENDEAVOR REAL ESTATE GROUP At the request of the City of Austin, Planning & Zoning Department, the Endeavor Real Estate Group, the development partner of the Applicant team for the 305 S. Congress Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment submission, provided cost estimates for the PUD-proposed Site Improvements, including Waterfront Park, Plazas, Streets and Streetscapes (improvements to existing and newly proposed), and Underground Parking, as well as Site Preparation and Utilities Infrastructure. The purpose of the City request was twofold: (1) better understand the proposed Site Improvements in terms schematic design and the quantity and qualities of building materials; and (2) conduct an independent review of the submitted cost estimates with City-hired consultants as part of the ongoing South Central Waterfront planning update. The Endeavor Real Estate Group submitted the following documents, prepared by their consultants, in support of their cost estimates: Attachment 1: Infrastructure Improvements (DRAFT) - Key Map (prepared by Endeavor consultant team) Attachment 2: Waterfront Park Concept Map (prepared by Endeavor consultant: CMG Landscape Architecture) Attachment 3: Waterfront Park Cost Estimates Table (prepared by Endeavor consultant: CMG Landscape Architecture) Attachment 4: Site Infrastructure - Program Cost Metrics Spreadsheet (prepared by Endeavor …
DRAFT South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting March 16, 2020 Agenda Item 2.c. - 2020 Update Report on SCW Plan’s Modified Physical Framework & Project Costs South Central Waterfront 2.c. Staff Note - 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework: Map & Project Costs Updated: March 12, 2020 This packet contains two items, 2.c.i. & 2.c.ii.: 2.c.i. DRAFT 1: 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework Map. The 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework Map is identical to the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map, EXCEPT for the layout of streets, parks and open spaces on the two largest properties in the district: the “Statesman” (property owner 22, @ nearly 19 acres) and the “Crockett” (property owner 23, @ approximately 12 acres). ○ Here are the differences between the two maps: i. ii. i. On the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map, the street/block configuration on the Statesman & Crockett properties has the East Barton Springs Road located partially on the Statesman site (approximately 40% of the new road) and partially on the Crockett site (approximately 60%), with a rational street/block structure branching off from that “spine” street to the south on Crockett and to the north on Statesman. On the 2020 SCW Modified Physical Framework Map, the East Barton Springs road is shown wholly on the Statesman property (except for the southern sidewalk, which would be built on the Crockett property at some point). The corresponding street/block structures that build off that “spine” street to the Statesman north of East Barton Springs and Crockett south of East Barton Springs are reconfigured from how they’re shown on the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map, to respond to the new location of East Barton Springs. ○ Intention of the SCW Plan: Collectively, these two properties now form a 30-acre superblock of mostly surface parking. Together, they offer an opportunity to introduce a new, connected street grid and connected open space system that can transform the character of the district with a walkable, transit-friendly, human-scaled public realm framework. To best set this framework in place, the 2016 SCW Physical Framework Plan envisioned that the key community-contributing east-west street, East Barton Springs, would be built across two properties (Statesman and Crockett), from South Congress Avenue to the properties’ eastern boundary (approximately 1,000 feet long). The eastern end of East Barton Spring would then join a new connector, Moton Lane, which would link to the intersection on East Riverside Drive. Moton Lane …
South Central Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting March 16, 2020 Agenda Item 2.d. - 2020 SCW Buildouts for Financial Analysis South Central Waterfront Agenda Item 2.d. 2020 SCW Buildouts for Financial Analysis Updated: March 12, 2020 CONTENTS WHAT’S NEW 2.d.i. Building Key – Endeavor Plan with SCW Building Heights 2.d.ii SCW Buildout Scenarios PUD proposal with notation showing the revised building heights, based on the 2016 SCW Plan Document outlining the uses and square footages associated with three scenarios DRAFT DRAFT RELEASE: March 12, 2020 Draft 1: 2020 Buildout Scenarios for Financial Analysis This packet contains two items: 1) Building Key – Endeavor Plan with SCW Building Heights a. Within the physical framework of blocks and green infrastructure, the SCW Plan modeled potential building developments on development parcels. This exercise involves creating site-specific schematic building designs to create Buildout Scenarios. Each Buildout Scenario models a building height, massing and program of uses (square feet of Office, Retail, Residential, Hotel), as well as calculate the required parking and accommodating the parking demand in the schematic design (i.e., schematic design of parking structures, in podium and below grade). i. The 2016 SCW Financial Framework Plan modeled schematic Buildout Scenarios on the “tipping parcels.” The Updated 2016 SCW Physical Framework Map keys in these individual Buildout Scenarios, which are identified on the map on top of the schematic building plans. As part of the work underway with CoA consultants (ECONorthwest), the 2016 Buildout Scenario is being updated with revised inputs (Physical Framework Costs, Development Assumptions, etc). ii. In addition to updating the proforma analysis of the 2016 Buildout Scenarios, the CoA consultants are also running an analysis of the Buildout Scenario as proposed by the PUD proposal. Simply, the PUD proposal differs from the 2016 Plan in three ways: 1. 90% of the parking is put in underground parking structures, as opposed to the 2016 SCW Plan which put approximately 25% parking underground, with 75% parking in podiums approximately 60’ high. Placing 90% of parking underground provides for superior urban design, but it is much more expensive than the more typical practice of using a combination of podium parking with some underground parking. 2. The PUD proposal takes their building heights above those as modeled in the SCW Plan. 3. The PUD proposal increases the uses to 3.5 M square feet, as opposed to 2.1 M square feet as modeled in the 2016 SCW …
