ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET TO: GR-MU-CO-NP (as amended) CASE: C14-2024-0104 (Alpha Seventh-Day Adventist Church) DISTRICT: 1 ADDRESS: 3016 East 51st Street; 3021 and 3039 Pecan Springs Road ZONING FROM: SF-3-NP SITE AREA: approximately 2.285 acres (approximately 99,535 square feet) PROPERTY OWNER: Southwest Region Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists & Southwest Region Conference of Seventh Day Adventists AGENT: Armbrust & Brown, PLLC (Michael J. Whellan) CASE MANAGER: Jonathan Tomko (512) 974-1057, jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov STAFF RECOMMEDATION: Staff does not recommend granting community commercial-mixed use-conditional overlay-neighborhood plan (GR-MU-CO-NP) combining district zoning with a conditional overlay (described in September 18, 2024 Applicant Letter, Exhibit D below) that prohibits all uses not allowed in a neighborhood commercial (LR-) base district and prohibits the following six uses: consumer convenience sales, general retail sales (convenience), pedicab storage and dispatch, printing and publishing, service station, drive through facilities as an accessory use to financial services. Staff offers an alternative recommendation granting neighborhood commercial-mixed use-neighborhood plan (LR-MU-NP) combining district zoning. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, please see the basis of recommendation section below. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: October 22, 2024: Case is scheduled to be heard by Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL ACTION: TBD ORDINANCE NUMBER: N/A ISSUES: N/A CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject tract is currently a 11,000 square foot church with approximately 21,000 square foot parking area, an approximately 1,200 square foot single family home (built in approximately 1935), and an approximately 600 square foot manufactured building. To the C14-2024-0104 2 north, is one single family home, to the east, the Grove Condominiums, approximately 52 attached units in two-story cluster buildings. To the south, are two single family homes and to the west, are four single family homes. The subject tract is on the northwest corner of East 51st Street (an ASMP level 3 roadway and an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor) and Pecan Springs Road (an ASMP level 1 roadway). It is approximately ¼ mile east of Manor Road which is also an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor and approximately 1/3 mile west of Springdale Road which is also an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor. The subject tract is approximately ½ mile northeast of the Mueller Imagine Austin Activity Center. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: Zoning should promote the policy of locating retail and more intensive zoning near the intersections of arterial roadways or at the intersections of arterials and major collectors. The applicants request for GR …
City of Austin Planning Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive, Austin, TX 78752 P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-2000 ♦ h ttp s:/ / w w w.a u st in tex a s .g ov / d epa r tm e n t/ plan n in g - de part men t MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Claire Hempel, Chair & Planning Commission Members Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning Division Planning Department October 15, 2024 NPA-2023-0014.04_4302 Nuckols Crossing Southeast Combined (Franklin Park) Neighborhood Planning Area Staff requests a postponement of the above-referenced case from the October 22, 2024 Planning Commission hearing to the December 17, 2024 hearing date to allow additional time for the associated zoning application to be filed. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request.
C14-2024-0129 1 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET DISTRICT: 7 CASE: C14-2024-00129 (Burnet and Rutland) ADDRESS: 9901 and 10025 Burnet Road and 2416, 2500, 2500 1/2, 2502, 2510 and 2522 1/2 Rutland Drive ZONING FROM: NBG-CMU-NP, NBG-WMU-NP TO: NBG-CMU(Gateway Zone)-NP SITE AREA: 5.80 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Marquardt Family LP, Burnet Road Properties LLC, Get Investments LLC et al, Sanford Gottesman & Thomas D Simmons, Jr., Crow-Gottsman-Shafer #2 AGENT: Drenner Group, PC (Amanda Swor) CASE MANAGER: Sherri Sirwaitis (512-974-3057, sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends NBG-CMU(Gateway)-NP, North Burnet/Gateway-Commercial Mixed Use-Gateway Zone-Neighborhood Plan, district zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: 2 C14-2024-0129 ISSUES: N/A CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The property in question consists of 5.80 acres that make up of six lots developed with restaurant (Turnstile Coffee Beer Cocktails and Burgers), commercial warehouse (The Steam Team), retail and office (formerly High-Tech Flooring & Design), billboard, and office/ warehouse (Capital Scientific, Inc. Lab Supplies) uses and a surface parking lot located at the northeast intersection of Burnet Road and Rutland Drive. The lots to the north are developed with office/warehouse uses (McKalla Business Park) zoned NBG-CMU-NP. To the south, across Rutland Drive, there is a restaurant, a retail center and a multi-tenant office/warehouse use (Rutland 9 Office Center) zoned NBG-CMU-NP. The lot to the east is multi-tenant office building (Epoch Building) zoned NBG-CMU(Gateway)-NP. Across Burnet Road to the west, there is a research and development use (University of Texas JJ Pickle Research Campus) zoned P. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from NBG-NP (CMU Subdistrict) to NBG- NP (CMU-Gateway Zone Subdistrict) to allow for the development of a residential project with associated ground floor uses (please see Applicant’s Request Letter-Exhibit C). The CMU subdistrict allows an FAR of 3:1 and a maximum building height of up to 180 feet, with development bonuses. However, the CMU-Gateway Zone subdistrict allows for an FAR of 8:1 and a maximum building height of up of 308 feet, with development bonuses (please see North Burnet Gateway - CMU subdistrict General Site Development Standards-Exhibit D). Therefore, the proposed CMU-Gateway Zone subdistrict will allow for higher height and density development on this property adjacent to the Austin FC Soccer Stadium to the east. The staff is recommending the applicant’s request of North Burnet Gateway-Neighborhood Plan (CMU-Gateway Zone Subdistrict) zoning because the proposed zoning is compatible and consistent with the surrounding zoning and uses in …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET DISTRICT: 3 TO: GR-MU-V-DB90 CASE: C14-2023-0134 – 2201 Willow Creek ADDRESS: 2201 Willow Creek ZONING FROM: MF-3 SITE AREA: 7.085 acres PROPERTY OWNER: 2201 Willow RFOF V Etal; 2201 Willow LLC; 2201 Willow 123 LLC; JL Sofia LLC; TH 2201 Willow LLC; 2201 Willow Partners LLC (Kostas Koutsothanasis) AGENT: Drenner Group, PC (Leah Bojo) CASE MANAGER: Nancy Estrada (512-974-7617, nancy.estrada@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMEDATION: The Staff recommendation is to grant community commercial – mixed use – vertical mixed use building – density bonus 90 (GR-MU-V-DB90) combining district zoning. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, please see pages 2 - 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: October 22, 2024: October 8, 2024: APPROVED A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF TO OCTOBER 22, 2024 [A. AZHAR; F. MAXWELL – 2nd] (12-0) A. PHILLIPS – ABSENT August 27, 2024: APPROVED A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF TO OCTOBER 8, 2024 [A. AZHAR; N. BARRERA-RAMIREZ – 2nd] (10-0) A. WOODS, P. HOWARD, A. PHILLIPS – ABSENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: C14-2023-0134 Page 2 ISSUES: The developer will comply with the Tenant Notification and Relocation Assistance requirements in the City of Austin Land Development Code. [LDC 25-1-712]. The applicant has provided the following information as proposed Tenant Protection items: • The property manager will not terminate leases before the end of the lease term (including month-to-month tenancies), unless for just cause. • Once the new project is completed, tenants will have the right to return with priority access to the new units. • The owner must provide tenants with at least 48 hours’ notice before entering their units, except in cases of emergency. • Tenants will receive a minimum of 180 days' notice before any demolition of the existing property begins. • Upon receiving demolition notice, tenants may break their leases without penalty. • A minimum of 90 days' move-out notice will be given to remaining tenants before the planned demolition date. • Upon moving out, tenants who remain after receiving a move-out notice will receive a full refund of their security and pet deposits. • On-site services will be available to assist tenants in finding new housing or other qualifying programs after the move-out notice is issued. • A $3,000 moving allowance will be provided to tenants who remain after • The last three months of rent will be waived for tenants who remain after receiving a move-out notice. receiving …
SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEET P.C. DATE: 10/22/2024 CASE NO.: C8S-78-331VAC SUBDIVISION NAME: Mike Johnson Addition (Plat Vacation) AREA: 30 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: HS USCP HOWARD LANE JV, LLC (Brad Maples) AGENT: HR Green (Mark Denn) ADDRESS OF SUBDIVISION: 2500 E HOWARD LANE GRIDS: P33 WATERSHED: Gilleland Creek COUNTY: Travis LOT(S): 1 JURISDICTION: 2-Mile ETJ MUD: N/A EXISTING ZONING: N/A PROPOSED LAND USE: Multi Family, Joint Use Access Easement, Drainage ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS: N/A VARIANCES: None SIDEWALKS: Sidewalks will be provided on Howard Lane. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The request is for approval of the total plat vacation of Mike Johnson Addition consisting of 1 lot on 30 acres. The land will be replatted under the 2500 Howard subdivision currently in review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of this total plat vacation. This vacation meets all applicable County, State and City of Austin LDC requirements. ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION ACTION: CASE MANAGER: Sarah Sumner Email address: sarah.sumner@traviscountytx.gov PHONE: 512-854-7687 1 n n e d . k r a m , l M P 7 0 : 4 , 4 2 0 2 , 6 1 y u J , 2 t u o y a L , g w d . p a m n o i t a c o l e t i s d r a w o H 0 0 5 2 \ s t i b h x E \ 1 - H P D R A W O H D A C A _ 3 0 \ \ i e n a L d r a w o H 0 0 4 2 - 3 1 0 . 2 0 3 4 1 2 \ s 0 0 0 1 2 \ : Q l b t c . l a b o G v e D d n a L : e y t S l l t o P # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # : e t a p m e T l 2500 HOWARD LANE SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT AUSTIN , TRAVIS, TEXAS 7/16/2024 A L C O N N D D E V GN N I SU L T 0 1500 3000 SCALE: 1" = 1500' SITE LOCATION 4201 WEST PARMER LANE BUILDING C, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78727 512.872.6696 HRGREEN.COM ® TBPE NO: 16384 TBPLS NO: 10194101 D E V E L O P M …
MEMORANDUM TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Sara Groff, Planning Department – Jurisdictional Matters DATE: October 15, 2024 RE: Proposed release of approximately 146.920 acres of Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) to the City of Manor CETJ-2024-0001 The City of Manor, at the behest of a property owner, has requested the release of approximately 146.920 acres of Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to be included in Manor ETJ and subsequently annexed in Manor city limits. The property in question, known locally as Manor Downs is located in northeastern Travis County on Hill Lane just east of SH 130, outside Council District 1. Along with the request, the City of Manor has agreed to enter into an Inter-local Agreement (ILA) which will address Austin Water and Watershed Protection Division’s concerns. In 2023, the State Legislature passed S.B. 2038, which allows property owners to seek a release of their property in an administrative manner. The S.B. 2038 route bypasses any staff evaluation, Commission review, and Council vote. Since S.B. 2038 is being challenged in the courts, the landowner and City of Manor approached the City of Austin about utilizing the City’s pre S.B. 2038 ETJ Release Policy to protect the released property from any future court rulings. If the landowner(s) use S.B. 2038 to release, the City of Austin stands to lose some, if not all, of the requests covered in the ILA. This request was distributed to the following staff: Planning, Austin Water, Watershed Protection Division, and Transportation and asked to review based on Austin’s 2007 ETJ Release Policy. In accordance with the 2007 City Council adopted policy regarding ETJ adjustments, requests for ETJ release are typically reviewed by staff from several city departments and evaluated in terms of: Annexation potential Environmental impacts Impact on infrastructure investments Long-term effects of cumulative ETJ releases • • • • • Hardship or extenuating circumstances 1 Annexation of this tract by the City of Austin is not feasible in the long-term given its location of about 1 mile from the full purpose jurisdiction. However, annexation by the City of Manor is possible due to adjacency of city limits and would be a benefit to Manor and the long-term disposition of the property. Manor Downs also holds historical significance to the City of Manor. Generally, Austin City Council looks for equivalent environmental protection to be provided on land released from the City’s jurisdiction. Staff …
City of Austin Policy for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Adjustments 10/02/07 Purpose The extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the unincorporated land within five miles of Austin’s full purpose city limit that is not within the city limits or ETJ of another city. It is the territory where Austin alone is authorized to annex land. The ETJ represents a city’s potential growth boundary, both with respect to its future tax base and municipal service area. The ETJ further ensures a city’s ability to capture its fair share of regional growth. The ETJ also enables the City to extend regulations to adjacent land where development can affect quality of life within the city. ETJ regulations help to ensure that subdivisions that may be annexed by Austin in the future meet minimum standards for road access, water quality, and other factors. It is for all of these purposes that the ETJ should be valued and promoted as a general public resource. However, there may be times when two cities mutually agree to an adjustment of ETJ boundaries to achieve more logical boundaries. The release of ETJ is a discretionary act on the part of cities. Before granting the request for an adjustment or release, the City of Austin seeks to ensure that the release will not negatively impact Austin’s interests. Although the City of Austin has not acquired any substantive area through mutual transfer of ETJ, exchanges of ETJ are more likely to receive positive recommendations than requests for unilateral releases. Requests for release of ETJ should establish a clear justification for release by meeting the standards that would help identify critical issues and potential negative impacts associated with a release. This ETJ release policy is intended to: • encourage orderly development • protect the City’s future tax base • • • provide a mechanism for assessing the appropriateness of future requests. curtail the amount of jurisdiction that is being yielded annually create equity between competing jurisdictions, and Adoption of the ETJ release policy would standardize the release process by providing a mechanism for measuring a request based on its individual merit. Standardization should make the release process more equitable for all jurisdictions and effectively reduce the amount of ETJ that is voluntarily released annually. The adoption of this policy is not intended to limit the authority of the City Council to consider or approve any particular release or exchange of ETJ. Guiding Principles 1. …
WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 (LAND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (PDA2) ZONING AND ENDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF ZONING AND REZONING APPLICATIONS TO COMBINE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) COMBINING DISTRICT WITH CERTAIN BASE ZONES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. Subsection (F) of City Code Section 25-2-32 (Zoning Districts and Map Codes) is amended to add new combining districts to read: (F) Combining districts and map codes are as follows: (25) planned development area 2….PDA2 PART 2. Division 6, Article 2, Subchapter A of City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning) is amended to add a new Section 25-2-183 to read: § 25-2-183 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (PDA2) COMBINING DISTRICT PURPOSE AND BOUNDARIES. The purpose of a planned development area 2 (PDA2) combining district is to provide for certain industrial and commercial uses in industrial base districts. PART 3. Division 5, Article 3, Subchapter C of City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning) is amended to add a new Section 25-2-655 to read: § 25-2-655 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (PDA2) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. (A) A planned development area 2 (PDA2) combining district may be combined with the following base districts: (1) industrial park (IP); (2) limited industrial services (LI); (3) major industry (MI); and (4) research and development (R&D). PDA2 draft ordinance Page 1 of 3 COA Law Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE (B) Regulations established by a PDA combining district may modify: (1) (2) (3) except for residential uses, permitted or conditional uses authorized in the base district; except for Subchapter C, Article 10 (Compatibility Standards), the site development regulations applicable in the base district; or off-street parking design or loading regulations, sign regulations, or landscaping or screening regulations applicable in the base district. (C) Modifications to the base district regulations must be identified in the ordinance zoning or rezoning property as a PDA2 combining district. (D) Planned development area 2 (PDA2) combining districts must comply with the standards …
C20-2024-017 PDA2 & Density Bonus for Commercial Highway & Industrial Zones (DB240) PLANNING PRESENTATION Alan Pani, Planner Principal Oct. 22, 2024 Background 1966 City Council first adopted the Planned Development Area land use with the following purpose: “to provide suitable and conducive environment for the development of modern administrative facilities, research establishments, specialized manufacturing plants, and similar enterprises plus retail and other customer service facilities… and not intrude upon nearby existing or future residential and associated development.” (page 21) adopted 2014-2024 Staff analysis of PDA zoning ordinances over the past decade shows an increase in cases where residential uses have been permitted. Since 2014, there have been 45 zoning ordinances which permitted residential uses, with 31 of those cases since 2020. 2024 City Council initiated Resolution No. 20240718-091, which directed the City Manager to: “create a new density bonus program that will apply to the PDA zoning district and allow increased heights for residential uses in exchange for income-restricted units or a fee-in-lieu.” Resolution No. 20240718-091 2 PDA Current PDA2 Proposed DB240 Proposed Allows: • Residential uses to be added • Commercial uses to be added • Modified site development standards • Modified heights • Modified FAR Allows: • Commercial uses to be added • Modified site development standards • Modified heights • Modified FAR Does not allow: • Residential uses to be added Base zones that can use PDA: • Commercial Highway (CH) Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) Base zones that can use PDA2: Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) Increased height to max. 240 feet Allows: • • Unlimited FAR Adds: • Residential uses • Specific commercial uses Amends: • Certain site development standards Requires: • Set-aside affordable housing units Base zones that can use density bonus: • Commercial Highway (CH) Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) 3 PDA2 – Purpose ▪ The purpose of a Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) is to: – Allow for additional uses & revision of site development standards in: – Industrial Park (IP) – Major Industry (MI) – Light Industrial (LI) – Research & Development (RD) – CH cannot use new PDA2 – Cannot add residential uses – New applications for PDA not accepted after PDA2 is adopted …
C20-2024-017 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2024-017 Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) & C20-2024-022 Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) Description: Amend City Code Title 25 (Land Development) to create a Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) combining district and a Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district. The PDA2 combining district is proposed to allow for modification of use and site development standards in certain commercial and industrial base districts. Under the proposal, additional residential uses would not be allowed under the PDA2 combining district. The Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district is proposed to allow additional residential uses and modification of certain site development standards for residential uses in certain commercial and industrial base districts through a voluntary density bonus program. Under the proposal, PDA2 could be added to the IP, MI, LI, and R&D base zoning districts and DB240 could be added to the CH, IP, MI, LI, and R&D base districts. Moving forward, sites would no longer be able to rezone into PDA, but would need to request either PDA2 or the DB240. Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution No. 20240718-091. Planned Development Areas (PDA) were first added to the land development code in 1966 (19660616, City Council Meeting Minutes (austintexas.gov)) for the following purpose: “to provide suitable and conducive environment for the development of modern administrative facilities, research establishments, specialized manufacturing plants, and similar enterprises plus retail and other customer service facilities… and not intrude upon nearby existing or future residential and associated development.” (page 21) The use of a PDA allows for modifications to site development standards, including maximum height and floor-to-area ratio (FAR), as well as modifications to allowed and prohibited uses within a zoning district. On May 23rd, 2023, via Resolution No. 20230323-085, the City Council initiated an amendment to Land Development Code Section 25-2-582 (Commercial Highway (CH) District Regulations) to eliminate all the regulations found in 25-2-582(C) and clarify that a zoning ordinance establishing a CH-PDA controls over any conflicting CH regulations. This allowed for wider use of PDA zoning for Commercial Highway (CH) districts. Based on staff analysis of PDA zoning ordinances over the last ten years, there has been an increase in the number of cases where residential uses have been permitted: since 2014, 45 PDA zoning ordinances have permitted residential uses, with 31 of those cases since …
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 (LAND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM 240 (DB240) ZONING AND ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. Subsection (F) of City Code Section 25-2-32 (Zoning Districts and Map Codes) is amended to add new combining districts to read: (F) Combining districts and map codes are as follows: (26) density bonus 240 ….DB240 PART 2. City Code Section 25-2-181 (Density Bonus Combining District Purpose) is amended to add a new Subsection (E) to read: § 25-2-181 DENSITY BONUS COMBINING DISTRICT PURPOSE. (E) DB240 combining district allows residential uses on sites with commercial highway and industrial base zoning districts, modifies site development regulations, and grants additional height in exchange for community benefits including income-restricted housing. PART 3. Division 5, Article 3, Subchapter C of City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning) is amended to add a new Section 25-2-656 to read: § 25-2-656 DENSITY BONUS 240 (DB240) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. (A) This section establishes the applicable regulations for DB240 zoning. (B) This section governs over a conflicting provision of this title or other ordinance. (C) Pre-Requisites. (1) To utilize the regulations described in Subsection (G), a property must include DB240 zoning and an applicant must comply with Subsections (E) and (F). (2) To preserve reserved dwelling units and existing non-residential spaces, an applicant must comply with Article 2 (Density Bonus and Incentive DB240 draft ordinance Page 1 of 9 COA Law Department WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Programs) of Chapter 4-18 before applying for a building permit or site plan that relies on the regulations described in Subsections (G). (D) A DB240 combining district may only be combined with the following base districts: (1) industrial park (IP); (2) limited industrial services (LI); (3) major industry (MI); (4) research and development (R&D); and (5) commercial highway services (CH). (E) Affordability Requirements – Dwelling Units. (1) In this subsection, BONUS HEIGHT means the amount of height that exceeds the height allowed by the base zoning district. (2) Affordability Minimums - Ownership Units. If an applicant develops dwelling units for sale, this subdivision applies. (a) To utilize 30 feet in bonus …
C20-2024-017 PDA2 & Density Bonus for Commercial Highway & Industrial Zones (DB240) PLANNING PRESENTATION Alan Pani, Planner Principal Oct. 22, 2024 Background 1966 City Council first adopted the Planned Development Area land use with the following purpose: “to provide suitable and conducive environment for the development of modern administrative facilities, research establishments, specialized manufacturing plants, and similar enterprises plus retail and other customer service facilities… and not intrude upon nearby existing or future residential and associated development.” (page 21) adopted 2014-2024 Staff analysis of PDA zoning ordinances over the past decade shows an increase in cases where residential uses have been permitted. Since 2014, there have been 45 zoning ordinances which permitted residential uses, with 31 of those cases since 2020. 2024 City Council initiated Resolution No. 20240718-091, which directed the City Manager to: “create a new density bonus program that will apply to the PDA zoning district and allow increased heights for residential uses in exchange for income-restricted units or a fee-in-lieu.” Resolution No. 20240718-091 2 PDA Current PDA2 Proposed DB240 Proposed Allows: • Residential uses to be added • Commercial uses to be added • Modified site development standards • Modified heights • Modified FAR Allows: • Commercial uses to be added • Modified site development standards • Modified heights • Modified FAR Does not allow: • Residential uses to be added Base zones that can use PDA: • Commercial Highway (CH) Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) Base zones that can use PDA2: Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) Increased height to max. 240 feet Allows: • • Unlimited FAR Adds: • Residential uses • Specific commercial uses Amends: • Certain site development standards Requires: • Set-aside affordable housing units Base zones that can use density bonus: • Commercial Highway (CH) Industrial Park (IP) • • Major Industry (MI) Light Industrial (LI) • • Research & Development (R&D) 3 PDA2 – Purpose ▪ The purpose of a Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) is to: – Allow for additional uses & revision of site development standards in: – Industrial Park (IP) – Major Industry (MI) – Light Industrial (LI) – Research & Development (RD) – CH cannot use new PDA2 – Cannot add residential uses – New applications for PDA not accepted after PDA2 is adopted …
C20-2024-017 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2024-017 Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) & C20-2024-022 Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) Description: Amend City Code Title 25 (Land Development) to create a Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) combining district and a Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district. The PDA2 combining district is proposed to allow for modification of use and site development standards in certain commercial and industrial base districts. Under the proposal, additional residential uses would not be allowed under the PDA2 combining district. The Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district is proposed to allow additional residential uses and modification of certain site development standards for residential uses in certain commercial and industrial base districts through a voluntary density bonus program. Under the proposal, PDA2 could be added to the IP, MI, LI, and R&D base zoning districts and DB240 could be added to the CH, IP, MI, LI, and R&D base districts. Moving forward, sites would no longer be able to rezone into PDA, but would need to request either PDA2 or the DB240. Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution No. 20240718-091. Planned Development Areas (PDA) were first added to the land development code in 1966 (19660616, City Council Meeting Minutes (austintexas.gov)) for the following purpose: “to provide suitable and conducive environment for the development of modern administrative facilities, research establishments, specialized manufacturing plants, and similar enterprises plus retail and other customer service facilities… and not intrude upon nearby existing or future residential and associated development.” (page 21) The use of a PDA allows for modifications to site development standards, including maximum height and floor-to-area ratio (FAR), as well as modifications to allowed and prohibited uses within a zoning district. On May 23rd, 2023, via Resolution No. 20230323-085, the City Council initiated an amendment to Land Development Code Section 25-2-582 (Commercial Highway (CH) District Regulations) to eliminate all the regulations found in 25-2-582(C) and clarify that a zoning ordinance establishing a CH-PDA controls over any conflicting CH regulations. This allowed for wider use of PDA zoning for Commercial Highway (CH) districts. Based on staff analysis of PDA zoning ordinances over the last ten years, there has been an increase in the number of cases where residential uses have been permitted: since 2014, 45 PDA zoning ordinances have permitted residential uses, with 31 of those cases since …
Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite: Update on Staff Proposal Planning Commission| Oct. 22, 2024 Changes to Staff Proposal Since 08/27/2024 Commission Meeting Change Effect Revise Sec. 25-7-67 to increase site area for “no drainage review” tier for resubdivisions from 0.25 acres to 11,500 square feet. Facilitates re-subdivision into two HOME-1 lots and provides greater flexibility for re-subdividing into HOME-2 lots. TPW to implement a policy providing automatic relief from right-of-way dedication for infill projects on Level 1 streets that meet a few simple criteria. By eliminating requirement to obtain a waiver, this policy will help reduce review times and streamline the permitting process for infill projects. PARD to streamline process for approving payment of fee in-lieu for residential infill projects. Reduce review times and streamline the permitting process for infill projects. Recap of Staff Proposal: Infill Plats Example “Greenfield” Subdivision For scale: A ¼-acre area, eligible for streamlined resub per “Infill Plat” proposal Summary of Infill Plat Proposal: Drainage Code Amendments Lot Size Proposed Requirements for Resubdivision Additional Info. Up to 11.500 sq. ft. No drainage studies or onsite detention ponds Same as 1-4 units on a single lot No drainage studies or onsite detention ponds are required if these requirements are met: More than required for 1-4 units on a single lot, but less than a standard subdivision or site plan >11,500 sq. ft. to 1.0 acres Lot drains to street right-of- way (ROW) or storm drain without grading: Just a drainage map depicting direction of water flow No engineering or fee payment Grading is required to drain lot to ROW or storm drain: Compliance with Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP) Engineering & RSMP fee, as well as grading inspection >11,500 sq. ft. If the above requirements are not met, compliance with all applicable drainage regulations (Land Development Code & Drainage Criteria Manual) is required Required today for all re- subdivisions 6 Infill Plat Scenario 1: Lot no greater than 11,500 square feet HOME-1 Project (building permit) HOME-2 Project (subdivision with lots lines) No drainage studies or on- site detention ponds Same max. footprint as building permit/HOME-1 No difference in drainage requirements from surrounding 1-4 unit housing on single lots 7 Infill Plat Scenario 2: 11.5K sq. ft. to 1-acre lot with natural surface flows to road/drainage system Drainage map depicting direction of water flow No stormwater engineering, detention pond, or RSMP payment …
Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: October 22, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2023-045 | Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats Amendment Introduction: This staff report discusses amendments to the Land Development Code (“LDC”) proposed in response to two separate council initiatives intended to facilitate construction of infill housing: Resolution No. 20221201-048 (“Site Plan Lite”) and Resolution No. 20230504-023 (“Infill Plats”). These amendments, which will be included in a single ordinance, seek to better calibrate non-zoning regulations and review procedures to the scale of “missing middle” housing. The report also describes changes initiated or under consideration by individual departments to address non-LDC related challenges to development of missing middle housing, including amendments to administrative criteria manuals and improvements to existing review procedures. Revisions to Original Proposal: Following the Planning Commission’s public hearing on August 27, 2024, staff continued to meet with stakeholders to discuss ways of improving the proposal to better address their concerns. As a result, staff’s proposal includes the following changes: • Under the revised proposal, residential re-subdivisions of up to 11,500 square feet are exempt from drainage review. This will provide greater flexibility than the originally proposed cap of a quarter-acre (10,890 square feet). • The Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW) is instituting a streamlined process for approving relief from right-of-way dedication requirements, which will make the process easier and quicker for most infill projects. • The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has committed to streamlining the process for approving payment of a fee-in-lieu of parkland dedication for infill projects that meet certain criteria, with the goal of greater predictability and a quicker review process. These changes are discussed in more detail throughout this report and, for easy reference, are flagged as “[UPDATED] or “[NEW].” {intentionally left blank} Case No. C20-2023-045 | Page - 1 Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: October 22, 2024 Amendment Background: — Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 On December 1, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 20221201-048 initiating LDC amendments to better scale site plan review for residential projects of three to sixteen units located on a single lot. For Phase 1, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20230720-158 on July 20, 2023, creating a site plan exemption for projects of four or fewer residential units. This change, coupled with subsequent passage of the “HOME-1” ordinance, has enabled staff to conform the review process for three to four-unit residential projects more …
To: From: Chair Hempel Vice Chair Azhar Planning Commission Members Brent Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department Date: October 18, 2024 Subject: Case No. C20-2023-045 |Response to Questions re: Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Pt. 2 To assist the Planning Commission in considering the above-referenced item, this memo provides staff responses to questions sent to us by a commissioner earlier this week. (Each question, quoted from the commissioner’s email, is followed by a staff response.) An interdepartmental staff team will be available to address additional questions at the Planning Commission’s October 22, 2024 meeting. “You mentioned previously, the current draft language is a result of ‘a lot of input Question 1. and discussion from stakeholders that have occurred over the last several months.’ Please let me know which stakeholders have agreed to this draft, specifically which environmental groups or any specifically focused on flood controls?” Response: of the proposal. In general: Staff cannot speak to which stakeholder groups support or oppose the latest version Stakeholders associated with environmental groups have expressed concerns regarding flooding impacts, particularly with respect to the “Site Plan Lite” portion of the proposal. Staff from the Watershed Protect Department have addressed these concerns on several occasions, including at two stakeholder engagement sessions, two Environmental Commission meetings, and a meeting of the Housing & Planning Committee. Stakeholders associated with the infill development community have expressed concerns that the proposal does not sufficiently relax regulations. While differences remain, staff has made numerous changes to address practical concerns raised by these stakeholders. As discussed in the staff report, these changes will help to increase flexibility and reduce costs for residential infill projects while maintaining existing floodplain and water quality protections. “In your previous presentation, you cite this proposal will streamline the Question 2. development process for approximately 3,500 sites. Is that the total universe of which properties could utilize this streamlined process? Or an estimated number who DSD believes will use the streamlined process?” Under the Site Plan Lite (“SP-Lite”) proposal, no engineered drainage analysis or Response: onsite detention facilities would be required for 5-16 projects if: (1) the site is no greater than 0.50 acres; and (2) the applicant provides a topographic drainage plan demonstrating that water flows naturally to the street or storm drain system. Providing engineered drainage analysis and onsite detention facilities can account for at least 30-40% of total costs, so projects that meet …
Affordability Impact Statement Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 Initiated by: Resolution No. 20221201-048, 20230504-023 Case number: C20-2023-045 Date: October 21, 2024 Proposed Regulation The proposed amendments would do the following: Infill Plats • • • • Provides small-scale residential developments with a streamlined subdivision review process to facilitate fee-simple ownership of lots as an alternative to condominium regimes. • Aligns impervious cover assumptions used in the streamlined subdivision review with impervious cover limits imposed by zoning regulations, which will provide more flexible subdivision options, allowing landowners to create smaller lots without triggering full subdivision review. The modified drainage standards are limited to applications that meet the following criteria: Less than one acre in site area; o Not located within the Wildland Urban Interface; o Is within a previously platted residential subdivision; and o Does not require a plat vacation. Projects under 11,500 square feet are not required to provide a drainage study or onsite detention. Projects between 11,500 square feet and one acre must provide a drainage plan demonstrating that, without altering natural topography, stormwater will discharge to an existing storm drainage system or right-of-way. Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 • • • The modified drainage standards are limited to applications that meet the following criteria: o Less than 11,500 square feet in site area; and o 5 to 16 units on a single lot. • Qualifying projects must provide a drainage plan demonstrating that, without altering natural topography, stormwater will discharge to an existing storm drainage system or right-of-way. Establishes a new “small-project” category for developments of 5 to 16 units that qualify for the modified drainage standards, streamlining the review process with shorter review times and reduced fees. Land Use/Zoning Impacts on Housing Costs The proposed changes would have a positive impact on housing costs by facilitating the delivery of missing middle projects through a less onerous permitting process and by expanding options for “fee simple” ownership of units on separate lots rather than condominium regimes. Like Home I and Home II, this housing strategy is aimed at increasing attainable housing options for middle-income Austinites, which is supported by many of the Strategic Housing Blueprint and Imagine Austin Goals to encourage diverse housing types throughout Austin. The modified drainage standards apply only to areas outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). However, further analysis and discussion are necessary to determine if these standards are entirely unavailable …
Case Number: C14-2024-0104 PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 10/22/2024 383964.4944 26.64% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 3001 E 51ST LLC ATKINS CARLA D AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORP BISHOP JULIAN NEPEAN CARTER MAXINE COCHRAN LIFE ESTATE & EASLEY GILBERT JR GAMMILL PATRICK & JANIS JOHNSON RUFUS ET AL TRUSTEE KIRKWOOD LEAH & RYAN MIKULENKA LOPEZ JOHNNY M & IRENE V MENDEZ ROBERT PATRICK 3005 E 51 ST 78723 5223 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3015 E 51 ST 2989 E 51 ST 78723 5207 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5107 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5111 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 3037 PECAN SPRINGS RD AUSTIN 78723 3103 E 51 ST 78723 5112 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5205 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5113 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 0216200116 0218201213 0216200103 0216200123 0218201211 0218201204 0218201206 0218201215 0216200104 0218201111 0218201210 0218201207 0217221502 - 0217221509 3108 E 51 ST UNITS 101-103, 201-203, 301-302 MULTIPLE OWNERS (CONDOMINIUMS) 0218201217 0218201209 0218201214 0218201208 0218201205 0218201108 0218201110 0218201212 0217200314 0218201112 0216200124 0218201109 Total 3006 E 51 ST 78723 5203 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5225 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 5201 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5109 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5204 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5200 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5221 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3107 E 51 ST 78723 5110 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 3007 E 51 ST 5202 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 MUSGROVE MARCELLA E ODEN ALMA & JOHNNIE POWELL OLINGER JAMES & WAYDE FREY PHILLIPS EMILY & NICKOLAS NOBEL RANDLE JOHN C JR ROSAL ANA IXCHEL & LISA V BYRD SHORT DAVID JR & LOLA MAE SMITH CONSTANCE Y & DAVID ST STEPHENS BAPTIST CHURCH TAO ROBERT D & QUYNH N NGUYEN THOMPSON GLENN WAYBORNE LLC no no no no no no no no no no no no yes no no …
Case Number: C14-2024-0104 PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 10/21/2024 383964.4944 20.77% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 3001 E 51ST LLC ATKINS CARLA D AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORP BISHOP JULIAN NEPEAN CARTER MAXINE COCHRAN LIFE ESTATE & EASLEY GILBERT JR GAMMILL PATRICK & JANIS JOHNSON RUFUS ET AL TRUSTEE KIRKWOOD LEAH & RYAN MIKULENKA LOPEZ JOHNNY M & IRENE V MENDEZ ROBERT PATRICK 3005 E 51 ST 78723 5223 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3015 E 51 ST 2989 E 51 ST 78723 5207 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5107 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5111 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 3037 PECAN SPRINGS RD AUSTIN 78723 3103 E 51 ST 78723 5112 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5205 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5113 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 0216200116 0218201213 0216200103 0216200123 0218201211 0218201204 0218201206 0218201215 0216200104 0218201111 0218201210 0218201207 0217221502 - 0217221509 3108 E 51 ST UNITS 101-103, 201-203, 301-302 MULTIPLE OWNERS (CONDOMINIUMS) 0218201217 0218201209 0218201214 0218201208 0218201205 0218201108 0218201110 0218201212 0217200314 0218201112 0216200124 0218201109 Total 3006 E 51 ST 78723 5203 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5225 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 5201 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5109 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5204 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5200 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5221 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3107 E 51 ST 78723 5110 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 3007 E 51 ST 5202 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 MUSGROVE MARCELLA E ODEN ALMA & JOHNNIE POWELL OLINGER JAMES & WAYDE FREY PHILLIPS EMILY & NICKOLAS NOBEL RANDLE JOHN C JR ROSAL ANA IXCHEL & LISA V BYRD SHORT DAVID JR & LOLA MAE SMITH CONSTANCE Y & DAVID ST STEPHENS BAPTIST CHURCH TAO ROBERT D & QUYNH N NGUYEN THOMPSON GLENN WAYBORNE LLC no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes no yes yes …
310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu October 22, 2024 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to add residential uses to areas zoned for Commercial Highways, and for a variety of high intensity industrial uses. A recent report published by the American Planning Association summarizes a decade of research conducted by the EPA detailing the connections between ambient pollutants coming from highways and industrial facilities and health outcomes including cancers, fertility disorders, kidney diseases, stroke, lung cancers or diseases, lower life expectancy, thyroid disorders, depression, autoimmune conditions, and the leading cause of death in the United States: cardio-vascular disease (Quattro 2024, pg 28). For the past two years I have been working with an interdisciplinary team at UT on a study of the relationship between neighborhood air quality and asthma, under a grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. The team is led by Elizabeth Matsui, MD, at the Dell Medical School and includes experts in air pollution/air quality and in health conditions resulting from exposure to pollutants, including asthma. The team has been studying the relationship between neighborhood air quality and trips to the emergency room for acute asthma. The study was motivated by a desire to explain the disparately high levels of asthma experienced by people of color in Travis County. In 2017, 8 times as many black children, and 2.5 times as many Latinx children were hospitalized for asthma, compared to rates for white children. And people coming to the emergency room for treatment for asthma were concentrated in a subset of Austin neighborhoods. Highways and industrial facilities are key sources of the pollutants linked to asthma. My colleague, Dr. Alex Karner, has published a review of the existing literature on the connection between exposure to pollutants from highways and health. I include his letter giving you the key points from his review. There is widespread agreement that placing residential uses or uses for sensitive populations next to highways is a bad idea. While there are strategies for mitigating the impacts of exposure, they are second best options. The first best is not to place these uses alongside highways. A recent study from the Urban Institute documents the disproportionate siting of MF housing close to highways in Los Angeles and makes recommendations aimed at preventing co-location of housing and highways, and for reducing dependence …
