ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CC Date: December 1, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C14H-2022-0139 HLC DATE: November 2, 2022 PC DATE: November 15, 2022 APPLICANT: J. Pieratt (owner-initiated) HISTORIC NAME: Felts-Moss House WATERSHED: Shoal Creek ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 2311 Woodlawn Blvd. ZONING CHANGE: SF-3 to SF-3-H COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from family residence (SF-3) to family residence-historic landmark (TOD-H-NP) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture, historical associations, and historical associations under Criteria Consideration G of the National Register of Historic Places as defined in Land Development Code § 25-2- 352(A)(1). HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: Grant the applicant’s request to rezone the property from family residence (SF-3) to family residence-historic landmark (TOD-H-NP) combining district zoning (11-0). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CASE MANAGER: Kalan Contreras NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Homeless Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Old Enfield Homeowners Assn., Pease Neighborhood Association, Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Save Historic Muny District, Shoal Creek Conservancy, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: N/a BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: § 25-2-352(3)(c)(i) Architecture. The property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. PHONE: 512-974-2727 The 1938 house is a good example of Georgian Revival architecture constructed by central Texas architect Lee M. Smith. It was the first building constructed on Woodlawn Boulevard. According to the application: In 1938, Lee M. Smith's architectural office was at 311 W. 7th St. Smith first appears in the Austin City Directory of 1935 as an architect working for Van C. Kelly Lumber Company, then in the Austin City Directory of 1937 as an architect with Calcasieu Lumber Company, which had its own stable of building designers, most of whom were not certified architects (registration of architects did not begin until the 1930s). He appears to have had …
1183A45353535118329045453603603607135351304535183183183130Loop 1PalmerLaneIH 35Loop 360RR 2222Toll SH 45FM 969US 183US 290US 71RM 620NLAMARBLVDW6THSTANDERSONMILLRDSPRINGDALERDWBRAKERLNW 38TH STS1STSTDESSAURDBRODIE LNERIVERSIDEDRSLAMARBLVDWWILLIAMCANNONDRE7THSTWSLAUGHTERLNCAMERONRDBURNETRDMC NEIL DRSCONGRESSAVETODD LNAustinFull and Limited Purpose City of Austin BoundariesLarge CorridorLight RailMedium Corridor Name Segment Category Corridor Type Center Ridge Drive Between North I.H.‐35 Frontage Road and Center Line Pass Project Connect Light Rail North Lamar Boulevard 3 West Guadalupe Street Between West Guadalupe Street and the south curb of West H Between Guadalupe Street and North Lamar Boulevard d L Project Connect Light Rail Project Connect Light Rail Guadalupe Street Between 45th Street and West Cesar Chavez Street Project Connect Light Rail 5 West Riverside Drive Between South 1st Street and South Congress Avenue Project Connect Light Rail South Congress Avenue Between Riverside Drive and Ralph Ablanedo Drive Project Connect Light Rail East State Highway 71 Frontage Roads Between Spirit of Texas Drive and South U.S. Highway 183 Project Connect Light Rail Between South U.S. Highway 183 and South Congress Avenue Project Connect Light Rail Between its terminus south of Cesar Chavez and East 4th Street Project Connect Light Rail Between Trinity Street and Guadalupe Street Project Connect Light Rail 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 Riverside Drive Trinity Street 10 11 4th Street IH‐35 Between City Limit & City Limit 12 MOPAC EXPRESSWAY (LOOP 1) 13 US 183/183 A (RESEARCH Between SH 45 N & SH 45 S Between City Limit & City Limit BLVD/ANDERSON LN/ED BLUESTEIN 14 W US 290 Between City Limit & CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY (LOOP 360) Level 5 15 W SH 71 Between City Limit & W US 290 16 BEN WHITE BLVD (US 290/SH 71) Between CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY (LOOP 360) & US 183 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Larger Corridor Between AIRPORT BLVD & City Limit Between US 183 & City Limit Between US 183 & City Limit SH 45 S SH 130 20 21 22 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY (LOOP Between MOPAC EXPRESSWAY (LOOP 1) & FM 1626 Between City Limit & City Limit Between US 183 & BEN WHITE BLVD (US 290/SH 71) 17 18 19 E US 290 E SH 71 SH 45 N 360) 11/9/22 DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 23 …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if WG Vote Tally ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes 5-0-0 and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail No No We want housing in 4-0-0 transit supported areas 5-0-0 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No 5-0-0 (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. program. - a structure can reach the allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property, whether it is participating in an affordable housing program or not. 5 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (C) 5 of 14 Define what is or is not allowed in the 25 foot compatibility No This …
To: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners M E M O R A N D U M From: Stevie Greathouse, Housing and Planning Department Date: November1, 2022 Subject: Palm District Plan Adoption This memo provides a brief synopsis of the Palm District Initiative planning process. In 2019, City Council Resolution No. 20190523-029 directed staff to develop a small area plan for the eastern edge of Downtown: the Palm District. The planning process formally kicked off in May 2021, and staff has engaged community through a number of methods, including: • SpeakUpAustin! website (https://www.speakupaustin.org/palmdistrict) • On-line and paper surveys in English and Spanish • A Palm District on-line interactive map • Social Media and E-mail newsletter • Courtesy notification postcard to residents and businesses • June 2021 Virtual Community Visioning Forums • July 2021 American Institute of Architects Virtual Design Workshops • Recordings of all the virtual events to the SpeakUpAustin! website • Ongoing, targeted outreach to Austin’s Mexican American community leaders and longtime residents through interviews and focus groups. To summarize the collective results of all of these engagement efforts, Housing and Planning staff created the Listening Report: What We Heard During the Visioning Phase. Staff next reviewed and analyzed the community input to develop the draft plan’s major themes. Their findings were released in February 2022 in the Draft Vision Framework. In August 2022, a series of four in-person workshops, hosted by the Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA), were held at the Neal Kocurek Memorial Austin Convention Center. A design team from Asakura Robinson led community stakeholders through several scenario planning exercises. Based on those results, through conversations with stakeholders, and a review of previous plan materials, the consultant team developed scenarios based on three different themes: Live, Work, and Play. Staff solicited input on those scenarios through a public survey. The Palm District Plan includes a preferred scenario that aligns with the Vision Framework and is guided by public input. Housing and Planning Department staff are briefing the following boards and commissions about the draft Palm District Plan prior to Council consideration: • Small Area Planning Joint Committee • Environmental Commission • Downtown Commission • Parks Board • Design Commission • Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Resource Advisory Commission • African American Resource Advisory Commission • Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Board • Historic Landmark Commission.
PALM DISTRICT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 11/01/2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 EQUITY FRAMEWORK 4 HISTORY 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS 24 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 36 VISION FRAMEWORK 41 KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES 42 DESIRED OUTCOMES 48 SCENARIOS 53 IMPLEMENTATION 65 RECOMMENDATIONS 66 LOOKING FORWARD 75 Appendices A1 The Palm District: Austin’s Cultural Hub - AIA Communities by Design Report A2 Listening Report for Palm District Visioning Phase A3 Palm District Existing Conditions Report A4 Palm District Planning City Council Resolution EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2019 the Austin City Council directed staff (Resolution No. 20190523-029) to develop a small area plan for the eastern edge of Downtown: The Palm District. Initial work on the plan began in the latter part of 2019 and early 2020 but was halted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. As 2020 wound down, staff resumed work on the project by developing and refining background documents, designing the public engagement strategy and planning process, conducting preliminary stakeholder outreach, and preparing for the formal kickoff of the planning process in May 2021. Beginning in 2019, Housing and Planning Department Staff convened a City of Austin Palm District Planning Team comprised of representatives from multiple City Departments including Convention Center, Parks and Recreation, Watershed Protection, Transportation, Sustainability, Economic Development, Real Estate, and the Corridor Program Office to provide input and review key deliverables throughout the process. HPD staff also met regularly with representatives from the Downtown Austin Alliance and Waterloo Greenway, as well as Travis County staff, and other key community stakeholders serving as partners in support of the planning process. The Palm District planning process employed a five phase planning process: • Pre-Planning—The project team researched the Palm District in preparation of developing the plan. • Visioning—The project team engaged community and developed a draft vision and outline for the plan. • Active Planning—Staff used the draft vision to identify recommendations and to develop multiple scenarios for the Palm District. As part of their partnership with the City in support of this process, the Downtown Austin Alliance engaged a professional urban design firm, Asakura Robinson, to assist with outreach, focus group facilitation, development of possible future scenarios and a preferred scenario for the draft plan. • Draft Review—Staff developed the draft plan with guidance from city and key stakeholder partners and released the draft for public review and comments. • Plan Adoption—During this time staff reviewed the plan with City of …
VISION STATEMENT The Palm District is a vibrant historic hub of downtown where the past is honored, culture is celebrated, and the future is shaped. Dense transit-oriented development is balanced with history and natural spaces creating physical connections that invite people to move easily to and through the district. The district is a dynamic place, growing and evolving, while actively retaining families and individuals who have traditionally called this place home. Creativity and innovation are cultivated, and people from Austin and beyond are welcome to live, relax, work, play, learn, and connect with others. 40 Public Review Draft Palm District Plan VISION FRAMEWORK As the district evolves, the plan will guide development and programming to achieve the vision for a vibrant, accessible and successful district. Informed by an understanding of area history, the elements of the vision are inclusive growth, culture, connection and nature. The desired outcomes for each of these elements are outlined in the following sections. 41 Public Review Draft Palm District Plan KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES Key Opportunities identified on the following map series represent sites that are controlled by a variety of public and private entities, and not all sites are under the direct ownership of the City of Austin. Opportunity sites are sites that are likely to serve as key anchors supporting placemaking and helping to achieve desired outcomes in the District over the years ahead. The Vision is intended to provide an aspirational view of how the district could develop over time. Implementation will require a range of actions by the City of Austin and its partners. While Palm Park is currently owned by the City of Austin, the adjacent Palm School is owned by Travis County, and Travis County has been undertaking a process to explore options for this site. For additional information on the Palm School site please visit - https://www.traviscountytx.gov/planning-budget/economic- development-strategic-investments/palm-school. 42 Public Review Draft Palm District Plan Dell Medical School and Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas at Austin 35 Health South Waterloo Park Texas State Capitol INCLUSIVE GROWTH VISION FRAMEWORK Key Opportunities Palm District Parks Waterways To Huston-Tillotson University, Six Square Black Cultural District, and French Legation ARCH APD Headquarters To Plaza Saltillo East Austin 35 To Republic Square Convention Center INCLUSIVE GROWTH PARTNERS & COORDINATION RESOURCES » Housing and Planning » Capital City Innovation » Waterloo Greenway Conservancy » Austin Convention Center » Downtown Austin Alliance …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas 6 Appendix BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas A. ETOD Engagement Process B AUSTIN paletas ETOD Engagement Approach Our community outreach approach was guided by the following set of principles and values to elevate interest, establish trust, and involve the right mix of community voices in a productive and iterative process: 1. Inclusive and Diverse: Participation should be inclusive and available to a variety of demographics, socioeconomic statuses, abilities, languages, and people with other identifying characteristics. 2. Transparent: Transparency helps build trust between the Outreach Team and community members. Community members should be provided with project information and opportunities to shape the ETOD Study instead of reacting to established decisions. A summary of community feedback will also be available on the project’s website to promote knowledge sharing. in 3. Co-Creation: Engagement this study should go beyond simply hearing feedback, rather community input will iteratively shape decisions and direction throughout the study. Community members are the local experts and this process will be designed to respect their time and willingness to share their lived experiences through compensation and open communication channels. 4. Engaging: To make the process interesting, accessible, and relevant, outreach efforts should include multiple ways to interact and provide input. Participatory engagement is meaningful and collaborative, and community members will be included as part of the decision-making process along the way. We implemented a range of strategies to hear from the community members that have historically been under-represented and disproportionately impacted by racism, disinvestment, and gentrification in Austin. Critical to our engagement strategy was turning up the volume on voices from Austin’s BIPOC community, low- income earners, people with disabilities, non-English speakers, transit users and elderly residents. To do this, it meant (1) coming up with targeted methods for reaching those key communities that may be outside of the traditional methods and (2) turning down the volume on voices that traditionally have dominated public engagement forums. A2 DRAFT - ETOD Policy Plan Through the community engagement process, we wanted to know how the community defined equity and how the new station areas could create opportunities to push forward equitable outcomes beyond traditional TOD. Our channels to hear these voices included small, compensated focus groups with residents, community-based organizations and small business owners, online surveys, a public forum, and tabling at existing community events. The project enlisted the assistance …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas 6 Appendix BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas paletas F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit B AUSTIN How to use the Toolkit The ETOD Policy Toolkit provides a framework for Project Connect station- area planning and investment so that residents, businesses, and neighborhoods can fully and equitably realize the benefits of transit investment in Austin. The 6 ETOD goals guided the identification of 46 policies for pursuing equitable outcomes across five broad categories: small business and workforce, housing, mobility, land use and urban design, and real estate and finance strategies. includes four main Each policy tool sections. To the left of the toolkit, a sidebar includes details on the proposed implementation lead and partners, relevant goals, and policy timeline, prescription set. Description: This section provides a summary of the recommended tool and suggestions for what considerations should and the guide implementation of the tool. design At the end of each Description section, for tools that are not already active in Austin we provide a national example to help demonstrate what the tool can look like in Austin and offer any lessons learned where applicable. Does something like this exist in Austin today?...: This section describes how to update existing tools to reflect ETOD goals, lessons from similar existing tools in Austin, and information on feasibility. Some policy tools already exist but are recommended for expansion/updates, some tools don’t exist but could be modeled on existing Austin efforts, and some tools would be brand new to the Austin context. This Challenges and Implementation section outlines Considerations: any financial, legal, and programmatic considerations for the Implementation Lead to know when planning and designing the tool. Success Metrics: This section includes a small set of metrics that will be developed further by the Implementation Lead to measure the success of the tool over time. or Implementation organization who would create or manage the tool. Agency Lead: A24 DRAFT - ETOD Policy Plan Partners: Additional agencies or organizations who can support in tool implementation. Timeline: Details including how soon to begin preparing and designing the tool (within 1 year, 1-2 years, 3-4 years, and 5+ years) and when the tool should be used (before, during, or after construction of Project Connect). City Council Goals: Identifies which portion of the guidance in City Council’s June 2021 ETOD Resolution (Resolution 20210610-093) that a specific policy tool …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone involved in creating Austin’s Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan, especially the Community Advisory Committee working group members and Community Connectors who put in countless hours engaging their networks and advising staff over the course of a year. We also appreciate the City of Austin, CapMetro, and Austin Transit Partnership staff who reviewed drafts of the policy tools and contributed key information on local context and implementation considerations. We could not have completed the ETOD Policy Plan without the hard work of our consultant team, including HR&A Advisors, Nelson\Nygaard, Perkins&Will, Asakura Robinson, Cultural Strategies, and Movitas Mobility. Lastly, we thank the people of Austin, especially historically marginalized communities, for joining us as partners. You helped envision the future we want and you’ll be the key to implementing ETOD so that we can achieve the equitable outcomes that everyone deserves. BAUSTINpaletas Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................5 1. Background.........................................................................................6 Introduction...................................................................................8 Planning History and Impact of Existing TODs in Austin...................9 Adding the “E” to TOD...................................................................12 2. ETOD Goals........................................................................................14 Approach to ETOD Goal Development.............................................16 ETOD Goals....................................................................................17 3. Station Area Typologies and Planning Priorities..................................18 Typologies Background.................................................................20 Elements of the ETOD Station Typologies......................................22 Austin’s ETOD Typologies..............................................................24 Station Area Planning Priorities.....................................................28 4. ETOD Policy Toolkit............................................................................38 Introduction to the Policy Toolkit..................................................40 Summary of Policy Tools................................................................41 5. Next Steps / Action Plan...................................................................48 6. Appendix...........................................................................................56 A. ETOD Engagement Process.......................................................A2 B. Station Area Existing Conditions Analysis.................................A5 C. ETOD Goals Development.........................................................A6 D. ETOD Typology Methodology.....................................................A8 E. Station Area Planning Priority Methodology.............................A14 F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit.........................................A24 How to Use the Toolkit........................................................A24 Small Business & Workforce Development...........................A27 Housing Affordability..........................................................A46 Mobility...............................................................................A74 Land Use & Urban Design.....................................................A95 Real Estate & Financial Strategies.....................................A117 BAUSTINpaletas City of Austin - DRAFT 5 BAUSTINpaletasExecutive SummaryPurpose of the PlanThe Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) Policy Plan is a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. The City of Austin worked with our partners at CapMetro and the Austin Transit Partnership as well as the community to craft the goals of ETOD in Austin, the tools that can help us reach those goals, and the actions we must take to achieve equitable outcomes along the transit system. Ultimately, the …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development ETOD Policy Plan Planning Commission - November 2022 Purpose of the Plan Provide a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. ETOD Resolution 20210610-093 • Prioritization of equitable outcomes • Categorization of TODs by tiers using context-sensitive criteria • Anti-displacement strategies • Preservation of existing and creation of affordable housing • Creation of market-rate housing • Compact, connected and transit-supportive • Mix of land uses • Codify community benefits What is ETOD? TOD vs. Equitable TOD Why we are going from this.... To this! 4 The ETOD Team 5 Austin’s ETOD Journey Corridor Bond, ASMP, and Project Connect ETOD Study ETOD POLICY PLAN REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Established corridors of Establishes protypes for TOD Recommendations for focus, mode split goals, that reflect Austin’s vision to planning prioritization, and procured funding for equitably share the benefits typologies, policy tools, high-capacity transit of transit investments for and next steps to project delivery. residents of all income levels, implement ETOD in Austin. to zoning. Could be and backgrounds. Adopt ETOD station area plans and code amendments that may include updates expanded to other geographies in the future. WE ARE HERE 2016 - 2020 2021 - 2022 2022 - 2023 2023 - onward 6 ETOD Study • $1.65 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) TOD planning grants • 98 stations across all Project Connect lines 1 2 Quantitative analysis of existing conditions within ½ mile of station areas Qualitative data collection through robust community engagement 7 Dashboard – Existing Conditions Dashboard Home Page Multifamily Inventory Total Jobs by Industry Station Tour Interactive Data : • Population • Displacement Risk • Jobs • Urban Fabric • Real Estate • Mobility s c i m a n y D s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c l a i c o S l a c i s y h P 8 8 Engagement Touchpoints Community Presentation Large format meetings to present project milestones CAC Working Group Briefings Monthly meetings, Ongoing guidance throughout project and major milestones Tabling/Intercept Surveys In-person events to target specific neighborhoods or demographics Focus Groups & One-on-ones Guided discussions with groups to identify vision and needs and to build consensus amongst stakeholders …
November 10, 2022 -- Meeting Notes – Re: Brodie Oaks Development Austin Energy, COA Law Dept, Brodie Oaks Development Team, Planning Commissioner Greg Anderson • AE: Andy H., Stuart, Scott B., Lisa, Maria, Michael P., Reza, Nick S., Noelle, Pamela E. • COA: Kait • Armbrust & Brown: Jewel, David Lionheart: Rebecca, Abby • • Brodie Oaks Owner Rep: Milo • Engineers & Planners: Steven, Joe Longaro Intros Rebecca Leonard • Apologized for communication breakdowns; transparency and engagement have been cornerstones of the approach for the last 3 years • Have had many meetings with AE staff • Most recently Summer 2022; included Stuart and Jackie o Clear direction that only option was 1.5 acre substation site on property o Approx 1/3 of substation capacity would be for the Brodie Oaks development Left the mtg thinking that was AE's final say; didn't realize AE was still working on things • • Does not support substation on site • Have met with several entities and none of them think this is a great location for a substation • Stuart Interested in hearing more from AE in terms of what options are available • Did not intend that meeting to be final • • We have not been approaching this as, this is a nice to have, so we can burden this site and Left the meeting with the intent that the teams would look for creative solutions together • serve other areas First and foremost, we need a substation to serve this site and we don't have the substation capacity elsewhere to serve it • All sites are not the same from an engineering perspective • Never encountered this issue at the zoning stage of the work • This is a long way out; why now? • What would AE do if Milo decided not to do this project? How would you serve S. Austin • Can't plan out too far due to 10 year rule associated with eminent domain • A load such as this, which is a few years out, is really right around the corner for us • Team provided very preliminary loading estimate; was very conservative on it • Expect they will come in lower than that • AE recognizes that load estimates are estimates and that load varies over time; thus, AE applies a diversification factor to load estimates; used to determine how to feed the …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if WG Vote Tally ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes 5-0-0 and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail No No We want housing in 4-0-0 transit supported areas 5-0-0 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No 5-0-0 (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. program. - a structure can reach the allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property, whether it is participating in an affordable housing program or not. 5 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (C) 5 of 14 Define what is or is not allowed in the 25 foot compatibility No This …
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20221005-003 Date: October 5, 2022 Subject: Park 290 Logistic, SP-2021-0095C Motion by: Jennifer Bristol RATIONALE: Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 28 feet and requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut over 4 feet up to 22 feet and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends this variance, with conditions having determined the required Findings of Fact have been met. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following conditions: Staff Conditions: • Provide a tree-shaded outdoor seating area as to encourage employees to take breaks on-site, rather than driving to alternative locations. • Provide an on-site trail with drainage swales that naturally convey flows into existing on-site ponds. • Provide vegetative walls adjacent to the critical environmental feature located on the site. • Provide terraced landscaping area in the open space allocated on the site. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: • • • • • • Recommend including solar technology where possible Recommend using A/C condensation catchment system to be used for landscaping Include at least one EV charging station for staff or visitors Encourage long-term tree care plan for the new and existing trees Utilize native plant standards for Blackland Prairie Utilize Dark Sky lighting in outdoor spaces The applicant will work with staff and landscape architect to increase the number of trees on site by 50 additional trees beyond what is on the plan set to the maximum extent practicable per site condition availability. Incorporate plants that support pollinators. The applicant will work with staff to review the reflective glass product they have proposed to ensure it is reducing bird strikes onsite. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, Thompson, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Barrett Bixler and Nickells Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair • • • 2
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20221005-003 Date: October 5, 2022 Subject: Park 290 Logistic, SP-2021-0095C Motion by: Jennifer Bristol RATIONALE: Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 28 feet and requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut over 4 feet up to 22 feet and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends this variance, with conditions having determined the required Findings of Fact have been met. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following conditions: Staff Conditions: • Provide a tree-shaded outdoor seating area as to encourage employees to take breaks on-site, rather than driving to alternative locations. • Provide an on-site trail with drainage swales that naturally convey flows into existing on-site ponds. • Provide vegetative walls adjacent to the critical environmental feature located on the site. • Provide terraced landscaping area in the open space allocated on the site. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: • • • • • • Recommend including solar technology where possible Recommend using A/C condensation catchment system to be used for landscaping Include at least one EV charging station for staff or visitors Encourage long-term tree care plan for the new and existing trees Utilize native plant standards for Blackland Prairie Utilize Dark Sky lighting in outdoor spaces The applicant will work with staff and landscape architect to increase the number of trees on site by 50 additional trees beyond what is on the plan set to the maximum extent practicable per site condition availability. Incorporate plants that support pollinators. The applicant will work with staff to review the reflective glass product they have proposed to ensure it is reducing bird strikes onsite. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, Thompson, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Barrett Bixler and Nickells Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair • • • 2
REGULAR MEETING of the PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE of the HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 – 11:00 A.M. STREET-JONES BUILDING, ROOM 400A 1000 E. 11TH STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS: x Beth Valenzuela, Chair x Harmony Grogan x Ben Heimsath ab Carl Larosche DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL 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. There were no speakers APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. 2. June 29, 2022 August 15, 2022 MOTION: Approved the minutes on a motion by Commissioner Heimsath, seconded by Commissioner Valenzuela. Vote 3-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. ULI Technical Assistance Panel update • In future discussions with ULI TAP – stress the term “preservation” be solely connected to the Historic Preservation Program and current Preservation Plan initiatives. Not to be confused with projects or programs outside of our prevue. 4. Preservation plan handoff workshop recap • Meeting canceled due to lack of quorum. Informal conversations were recorded by staff. • City Council fully funded Preservation Plan proposed budget for FY23. 5. Project website updates • Summer Intern, Katherine Enders, developed and posted a survey to the website for public feedback and input. • Draft Recommendations for Preservation Plan will be posted to website within the next month. platforms. 6. Communications about draft plan this fall • Flyers will start to be posted around Austin. • Social media outreach and engagement videos will begin to appear on online • Press releases will be sent out regularly through the beginning of the year. • Reaching out to City Boards & Commissions to raise interest. 7. Engagement around draft plan • Hiring process has opened for consultant firm. • Newly created (temporary) staff position will begin hiring process early next year. • Look into combining Committee and Working Group meetings for future meetings. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Consultant scope • Community Ambassador recruitment • City Council …
Last week, staff did not address Commissioner Schneider’s question about “the 10 percent Opposition to Case C814-2021-0099, Brodie Oaks PUD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND PUD BONUS CALCULATIONS Nov. 14, 2022 From: Lorraine Atherton, member, Zilker Neighborhood Association Zoning Committee 2009 Arpdale, Austin TX 78704 Council District 5 Over the three years that ZNA has been aware of this case, the affordable housing component has always come up at the end of the discussion, when everybody is ready to go home. If affordable housing is the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s top priority, however, the PUD requirements for affordable housing really should be examined more closely. standard in typical bonus programs.” They simply stated that the package met superiority. If the applicant did intend to develop on-site affordable units at the 10% standard, the PUD would be incorporating 170 affordable units (10% of 1,700) onsite, in addition to contributing an $8.6 million fee- in-lieu to cover the nonresidential bonus area. Also, it should be noted that the new standard for bonus height programs is 12% of units (in this case 204 affordable units). Please ask staff to explain how the value of the land under an unfunded future affordable housing complex of only 100 units can be higher than the value of 170 affordable units onsite and a cash contribution of $8.6 million to NHCD that could be used to support projects offsite immediately. The “stand-alone”affordable apartment building offered in the Brodie PUD is not a gift, and it is not even a reliable commitment. To make a long story short, Austin cannot rely on speculative rezoning agreements to provide affordable housing in the short-term. The history of the tiny PUD at Riverside and South Lamar (Taco PUD) is instructive. TACO PUD COMPARISONS To summarize: vaguely defined fee-in-lieu of less than $500,000 was deemed superior as an affordable housing contribution. The PUD ultimately delivered no housing and no fee-in-lieu. 108 hotel rooms and 27 luxury condos; plus, a direct, immediate cash donation was made to a deeply affordable 110-unit permanent supportive apartment project about one mile away from the PUD site. Construction on the nonprofit project began almost immediately, followed closely by the PUD hotel project, delivering $3.7 million to Austin’s affordable housing program. 2013 Taco PUD ordinance The Affordable Housing section of the 2013 PUD ordinance for 1211 W. Riverside (211 S. Lamar) reads: “PART 9. Affordable Housing Program. The …
From: To: Subject: Date: JJ Reinken Rivera, Andrew Janis Reinken comments for PC Mtg 11-15-22, Items 19 and 21 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:33:39 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 11-15-22 Dear Mr. Rivera, Please distribute these comments to the Planning Commission for the special called meeting today. I oppose Item 19 and Item 21, and urge the PC members to follow the city staff recommendation opposing Item 19, and reject the city staff recommendation that favors Item 21. PC members would be way off base to push these proposals forward without current, verifiable facts to support them. Population demographic information prepared by the previous City Demographer was ignored, and the alternate data used for these proposals is overly broad and out of date. Infrastructure needs to augment and improve water / wastewater capacity in Austin are being ignored, and the "notice" sent to a limited number of persons about encroachments in their vicinity fails for lack of sufficiently specific information to enable people to know what changes are afoot, and the notice is lacking about how to protest these actions. A thorough analysis of the labor market and earning power of workers within Austin city limits needs to be made and adjustments to the concept of “affordability” and the FPL limits need to be modified to include 10-50% levels. Fees in lieu of providing affordable units need to be removed. This undermines the goals of helping "working class" residents find adequate housing for their needs. Building tall towers of "Class A Luxury Apartments" does not address the affordability issue. It is time for the City Commissions and City Council to quit making sweeping decisions first, and thinking afterward about the adverse implications imposed on the residents and taxpayers of Austin. Sincerely, Janis Reinken reinken.austx@gmail.com Austin, Texas 78757 (CD 7, Precinct 220) CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
C20-2022-004 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET (Planning Commission 11/15/22) Amendment: C20-2022-004 Compatibility on Corridors Description: Consider an amendment to Title 25 of the City Code to modify compatibility standards as applied to certain projects on certain corridors. Proposed Language: See attached draft code language and background information. Summary of proposed code amendment • The proposed amendment will generally reduce compatibility for a residential or mixed-use project on a defined set of corridors: Medium, Large, or Light Rail Line. For all eligible projects on a corridor: o Compatibility will extend 300’in distance (vs 540’ today) o Compatibility will be triggered by zoning only (not use) o An additional 5’ of height will be allowed vs current standards • Projects providing affordable housing may be granted a further reduction in compatibility: o Maximum height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property for projects on a light rail line o 65’ of height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 200’ from a triggering property on a large corridor o 65’ of height at a distance of 150’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 250’ from a triggering property on a medium corridor • Minimum parking requirements are reduced for residential or mixed-use corridor properties: o 25% of what would otherwise be required for a light rail line or large corridor o 50% of what would otherwise be required for a medium corridor Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution 20220609-066. The City of Austin’s current compatibility standards apply to sites that are within 540 feet (or nearly two downtown blocks) of the property line of an urban family residence (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning district. Compatibility standards also apply when a site is adjacent to a lot on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located. Current compatibility standards include: • Height and Setback Limitations • Scale and Clustering Requirements • Screening Requirements 11/15/2022 1 C20-2022-004 The dimensional characteristics of the City’s current compatibility standards are shown in the image below, with annotations in pink text showing the proposed compatibility standards along light rail lines, large corridors, and medium corridors as defined in the ordinance: Existing Compatibility Standards and Proposed Compatibility Standards Along Specified Corridors In June 2022, City Council adopted a resolution that directed staff to modify the application of compatibility to projects on certain …
