Dove Springs Public Health Facility Project Review Application — original pdf
Backup
All documents
Givens Park Presentation — original pdf
Backup
Givens Park Project Review Application — original pdf
Backup
November 2021 Animal Services Report — original pdf
November 2021 November 2021 Animal Services Report ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT Animal Services News • The live outcome percentage for November was 98.8 percent. • A total of 1,252 animals were brought to the shelter which included 705 dogs, 511 cats, 5 birds, 1 livestock and 30 animals listed as other. • A total of 634 animals were adopted (329 cats, 288 dogs, and 34 small animals such as guinea pigs and rabbits). • A total of 119 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 41 animals to their owners in the field during the month of • Officers handed out 29 fencing assistance applications, impounded 101 injured animals and delivered 37 wildlife • Officers entered 227 rabies exposure reports and submitted 17 specimens for rabies testing. Animal Protection November. • 2 microchips were implanted in the field. animals to Austin Wildlife Rescue. 2 positive results, all bats. • 37 total coyote related activities o 2 Observations o 16 Sightings o 7 Encounters o 1 Incident o 6 Wild sick o 5 Wild injured • Out of 37 coyote related activities, 24 fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, and incident). • Encounters: Pets were a factor in all activities: o 5 encounters involved a coyote following or approaching a person with no incident o 1 encounter involved a coyote following a person walking dogs o 1 encounter involved off-leash dogs in a natural area o 1 encounter involved mange coyotes Incident: Pets were a factor: • o 1 incident involved a coyote taking unattended chickens in a fenced backyard at night November 2021 Animal Services Report Volunteer, Foster and Rescue Programs • A total of 142 volunteers donated 1,771 hours during November. • The Volunteer Coordinators held 4 orientations for new volunteers in November, introducing 99 people to the shelter programs. 47 new volunteers attended their first training or mentor shifts in November. • More than 180 families provided foster care, and a total of 97 animals were adopted directly from foster care. • There are 1,378 approved fosters in GivePulse, and 94 new foster applications were processed. • There are currently 268 animals in foster homes. • 193 animals were transferred to 22 AAC rescue partners (This data is for our rescue program only and does not include transport data). • 4 owner surrender appointments were posted to …
Backup_ATCFPB_DRAFT _Annual Internal Review Activity Tracking _20211213 — original pdf
12/9/21, 4:10 PM DRAFT - Annual Internal Review Activity Tracking DRAFT - Annual Internal Review Activity Tracking Please fill this form out monthly (1st Monday of the month) to track individual and working group activities throughout the year. Here is the Board's mission for reference: bit.ly/ATCFPBmission * Required 1. Date * Example: January 7, 2019 2. First and last name * the food policy board? * Mark only one oval. Yes Skip to question 4 No Skip to question 13 Other: Description of the work 3. Over the last month, have you been able to advance any work related to your role on https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uaHgBxcyK3w_LYPUy9iyDs8kPI4rEZM2wcbmdcbG2PM/edit 1/6 12/9/21, 4:10 PM DRAFT - Annual Internal Review Activity Tracking 4. Please briefly describe any activities or actions you have taken/are taking to support the board's mission ( bit.ly/ATCFPBmission). 5. This work was done as part of (check all that apply) Check all that apply. Food System Planning Working Group Healthy Food Access Working Group Other Working Group Individual Project Other: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uaHgBxcyK3w_LYPUy9iyDs8kPI4rEZM2wcbmdcbG2PM/edit 2/6 12/9/21, 4:10 PM DRAFT - Annual Internal Review Activity Tracking 6. Which components of the mission are you working on? Visit bit.ly/ATCFPBmission to review mission Check all that apply. areas Monitor the availability, price and quality of food throughout the Austin and Travis County Collect data on the food security (i.e., access to an affordable, diversified local food supply) and the nutritional status of city residents; Inform city and county policy makers, administrators, and the public at large about the status of the region’s food system and food security Monitor and analyze the administration of city and county food and nutrition programs Explore new means for the city and county to improve the local food economy, the availability, sustainability, accessibility, and quality of food and our environment, and assist city and county departments in the coordination of their efforts Review availability and recommend measures to promote the preservation of agricultural land in the City of Austin and Travis County Recommend to the city and county adoption of measures that will improve existing local food production and add new programs, incentives, projects, regulations, or services Other: 7. Has or will a recommendation be created to support this work? Mark only one oval. Yes No Maybe Mark only one oval. City of Austin Travis County Both Other: 8. Does this work impact City of Austin, Travis County, or both? https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uaHgBxcyK3w_LYPUy9iyDs8kPI4rEZM2wcbmdcbG2PM/edit 3/6 12/9/21, 4:10 PM …
Backup_ATCFPB_Recommendation_20211213 — original pdf
AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD POLICY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Recommendation Number: _TBD_____ Supporting Values-Based Procurement Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerable links in our local food system, resulting in food supply chain disruptions that caused economic harm to households, food service workers, small businesses like grocery stores and restaurants, public institutions like schools no longer accessible for school lunches, and the broader food industry across our region. Covid-19 revealed the flaws in a food system built for profit and efficiency at the expense of access and justice. The crisis demonstrated why we need to build a food system that is more transparent, sustainable, humane, and accountable, especially in the era of Climate Change. A strong local and regional economy is able to pivot quickly to meet changing demands for food. When confronted with supply chain disruptions, our local and regional farms, processing plants, distribution channels, and businesses make our communities resilient. Institutional food purchasing is an enormous lever for change and a critical tool for equity. The Good Food Purchasing Program is a values-based procurement framework that helps public institutions better understand the source of the food they purchase, and provides a methodology to quantify the impact of that food along five core values: nutrition, local economies, valued workforce, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare. This procurement framework, developed by community members and food procurement professionals, is managed by the Center for Good Food Purchasing, and has been successfully adopted by over 60 institutions in 24 major cities across the nation, with over $1 Billion in annual aggregate purchases. Such Values-Based Procurement is a powerful tool for large scale food systems change that can nonetheless be managed at a local and municipal level. Since 2016, the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability has led a collaborative effort bringing together a cross-sector coalition of anchor institutions, community based organizations, academia, philanthropy, nonprofits, and the business community and invested in leveraging the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) as a tool to catalyze transformational food systems change by supporting Austin institutions to participate. This work has been further invested in with the generous support of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Unified around a shared vision and set of values, Austin-based institutions involved with the Program have made important gains, but the pandemic has reinforced how much work is left to be done. Through the launch of the first ever City of Austin’s community-driven food systems …
Item1a_2021-11-15_URB_DRAFT_Minutes — original pdf
URBAN RENEWAL BOARD REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2021 at 6:00PM 1000 East 11th Street, Room 400A Nathaniel Bradford Jacqueline Watson Kobla Tetey Staff in Attendance Mandy DeMayo Laura Keating Megan Santee, URB legal counsel CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Manuel Escobar, Chair Darrell W. Pierce, Vice Chair Danielle Skidmore Amit Motwani Members in Attendance Manuel Escobar Darrell W. Pierce, Vice Chair Amit Motwani Jacqueline Watson Nathaniel Bradford Danielle Skidmore Members Absent Kobla Tetey PURPOSE: The Board of Commissioners primary responsibility the implementation and compliance of approved Urban Renewal Plans that are adopted by the Austin City Council. An Urban Renewal Plan's primary purpose is to eliminate slum and blighting influence within a designated area of the city. to oversee is DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Escobar called the meeting to order at 6:09pm with 6 members present. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding agenda items and items not posted on the agenda. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of the October 18, 2021, regular meeting minutes. On Commissioner Motwani’s motion, Commissioner Bradford’s second, the October 18, 2021, minutes were unanimously approved. 2. NEW BUSINESS 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Presentation from the East Austin Creative Coalition regarding the organization’s work and Resolution #20210902-048, and discussion. Harold McMillan addressed the board. Discussion occurred. a. Presentation from City staff on the status of the Urban Renewal Plan and Neighborhood Conservation Combining District amendments, discussion, and possible action. On Chair Escobar’s motion, Commissioner Watson’s second, the memo with the additional statement and clarification discussed was unanimously approved with Commissioner Bradford off the dais. b. Discussion regarding letter from Austin Revitalization Authority (ARA) to the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) related to URA owned property (1100 E 11th St and 920 E 11th St), procedure around unsolicited proposals for property disposition, and the response the Board received related to the letter. Discussion occurred. c. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Memorandum of Understanding and Interlocal Agreement Addendum with AEDC related to the property disposition of Urban Renewal Agency owned property (1100 E 11th St and 920 E 11th St). On Chair Escobar’s motion, Commission Skidmore’s second, the approval of the Memorandum of Understanding with AEDC failed 3-2. Those voting aye were: Chair Escobar, Commissioners Skidmore and Watson. Those voting nay were: Vice Chair Pierce and …
Item1b_2021-11-30_URB_DRAFT_Minutes — original pdf
URBAN RENEWAL BOARD SPECIAL CALLED MEETING November 30, 2021 at 6:30 PM 1000 East 11th Street, Room 400A Nathaniel Bradford Jacqueline Watson Kobla Tetey Staff in Attendance Mandy DeMayo Laura Keating Megan Santee, URB legal counsel CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Manuel Escobar, Chair Darrell W. Pierce, Vice Chair Danielle Skidmore Amit Motwani Members in Attendance Manuel Escobar Amit Motwani Jacqueline Watson Nathaniel Bradford Danielle Skidmore Members Absent Darrell W. Pierce, Vice Chair Kobla Tetey PURPOSE: The Board of Commissioners primary responsibility the implementation and compliance of approved Urban Renewal Plans that are adopted by the Austin City Council. An Urban Renewal Plan's primary purpose is to eliminate slum and blighting influence within a designated area of the city. to oversee is DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Escobar called the meeting to order at 6:32pm with 4 members present. Commissioner Motwani joined at 6:38pm. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding agenda items and items not posted on the agenda. 1. OLD BUSINESS a. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Memorandum of Understanding and Interlocal Agreement Addendum with Austin Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) related to the property disposition of Urban Renewal Agency owned property (1100 E 11th St and 920 E 11th St). Discussion occurred. On Commissioner Watson’s motion, Commissioner Skidmore’s second, the Memorandum of Understanding with the AEDC was approved 4-1. Commissioner Motwani voted nay. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chair Escobar adjourned the meeting at 7:24 pm without objection. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Laura Keating at Housing and Planning Department, at (512-974-3458 or laura.keating@austintexas.gov), for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Urban Renewal Board, please contact Laura Keating at (512-974-3458 or laura.keating@austintexas.gov).
Item2a_2012_DevStrategy_Engagement_Summary — original pdf
May 25, 2021 Prepared for Scoring Criteria Working Group by City Staff The following is taken from the appendix of the “East 11th and 12th Street Development Strategy” technical report prepared for the City in 2012. Engagement for this report consisted of multiple public meetings, an online survey and stakeholder interviews. Below are items from Appendix E: Public Engagement Summary that relate to the use of Block 16 and 18 on East 11th Street. However, the appendix has a good overview of the engagement and major takeaways that should be reviewed for context. Public Meeting #1 Survey: “Respondents tend to live near 11th Street and go to businesses on 11th Street, which is consistent with development and services offered in the respective corridors.” From summary of comments: Stakeholder Interviews • Dispose of City Land. Most of the city-owned land was purchased with Federal money and comes with many restrictions for development including land use and financing limitations. The City did not develop it within a timely manner, and residents do not trust the City to develop the properties in the ways they want. There was mention of a mismanagement of funds. Others felt the City spent too much on projects for 11th Street and now there is no funding projects on 12th Street. • A rental or rent-to-own component could be successful in the neighborhood. An affordable housing developer said he has a waiting list, a for-profit developer said the rental-market is strong now, and another developer believed that rent-to-own development would allow young professionals to get emotionally invested in the area before being financially capable of owning their own home. • Those active in the community want to be sensitive to gentrification and displacement. Some residents wanted to explore property tax relief for those who have lived in the community for years as part of the development strategy. • Those who have lived the community for years want development to preserve and promote the local businesses. The leaders of African American heritage organizations want to preserve the history of the neighborhood while adapting to the current needs of the broader community. • Most stakeholders identified a need for healthy eating options like a grocery store and health- conscious restaurants. • A few stakeholders want to see more services provided for the poor and needy in the community. They want to see the crime problems addressed instead of simply moved …
Item2a_AEDC_Pres_12-13-21 — original pdf
Implementing inclusive and equitable public development services as a non-profit partner to the City of Austin December 13, 2021 Urban Renewal Agency Urban Renewal District Blocks 16 & 18 Program from: Urban Renewal • Plan/NCCD zoning overlay, • Multiple planning community engagements, Recent Council resolution related to African American Cultural District • Immediate Next Steps Dec 9 2021- March 9 2021 March 9 1991-June 9, 2021 Dates (from the Effective Date) Project Phase Weeks 1 through 12 (3 months) Establish Project Plan: Project planning, outreach manager hired, consultants secured Weeks 12 through 24 (3 months) Pre Development : Market research, market outreach, community engagement, feasibility, site diligence, draft Solicitation Week _24 through 36 Release Solicitation (RFP) : includes solicitation distribution, technical assistance to respondents Weeks 36 through 48 (3 months) Evaluation and pre-selection activities—technical analysis, facilitating committee review, and scoring. Weeks 48 through 72 (6 months) Estimated transaction negotiation Week 76 through 88 (3 months) URA, AEDC and City approval and financial close ("Closing") Urban Renewal Agency | AEDC December ‘21-May ‘22 Summer 23 Plan & Pre Development Feasibility AEDC: • Community relations Manager hired Facilitate engagement plan, pre-dev feasibility & economic pre-analysis Complete Phase II environmental (with City) Draft RFP Summarize prior studies/community feedback Review proposed scope for engagement and feasibility Participate pre-development • URA: • • • • • May 22- Spring 23 RFP Solicitation Through Approvals Issue RFP (URA Approval) AEDC: • • Marketing for RFP TA for respondents • Facilitate evaluation committee • Transaction negotiations • Facilitate URA/Council • approvals URA: • Nominate Committee & Participate in Evaluation Review and Approve Developer (City Council Final Approval) • Development Post Occupancy AEDC: • • Development support If applicable, Cultural Trust investment support URA: • Oversee development • process through regular reports by AEDC Consider additional efforts to support district development activity AEDC: • Asset Management for any City owned property (e.g. Ground Lease, Cultural Anchor) URA: • District role to be determined Transaction Fee Asset Management Fee Immediate Next Steps for Discussion ▪ Identify Designated Representative ▪ Form Partnership Working Group ▪ Develop Engagement Plan ▪ Develop Scope for Pre-Development Services ▪ Summarize Prior Community Feedback-’initial program’ (HPD) ▪ Receive/review prior studies/zoning analysis (HPD) ▪ Test-fit of program on Blocks 16+18-develop scenarios ▪ Develop economic strategies/pro-formas aligned with scenarios ▪ Updated district map with opportunity sites ▪ Review district precedents (other Urban Renewal Districts) Austin EDC 5
C-1 C16-2021-0011 LATE BACKUP-PPMT REQ — original pdf
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Renee Bornn Ramirez, Elaine Ramirez, Diana RE: [EXT] REMINDER: Mon. Dec. 13, 2021 BOA PRESENTATION deadline Thursday, December 02, 2021 9:35:13 AM image004.png image005.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Morning ladies, I still have not heard back from the new owners so I would like to postpone our meeting on the agenda until next month please: C16-2021-0011 / 2111 Rio Grande St Please note our office will be closed the following days: Closed Dec. 24th-January 2nd Renée Bornn Senior Account Executive www.buildingimagegroup.com Building Image Group, Inc. 1200 E. Third St. Studio One Austin, TX 78702 t: 512.494.1466 d:512.592.4716 f: 512.494.1403 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by "reply to sender only" message and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication, including attachments. From: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 7:48 AM Cc: Ramirez, Diana <Diana.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: [EXT] REMINDER: Mon. Dec. 13, 2021 BOA PRESENTATION deadline Importance: High Attention: This is an external email. Please note if this warning is present on an email from a @buildingimagegroup.com email it is likely a phishing impersonation attempt. Please block and mark as junk. Good morning Applicants on the Mon. December 13th, 2021 BOA mtg. Agenda, C-1/1-LATE BACKUP Please read this entire e-mail The deadline to submit the Presentation (must be submitted in PDF format or PowerPoint) is Monday, December 6th, before 3p.m. Presentation: If you would like the Board to follow along with you as you are giving your presentation (You will have 5 minutes to hone in on the main aspects of the case as you are presenting the case to the Board), you will need to have your Presentation completed and sent to me in PDF format or PowerPoint to give to our City Technician as well as our BOA Board will have access to view this the week prior to the meeting (DO NOT send in a drop box as our systems do not support drop box). The Deadline for this is Monday, December 6th, before …
D-1 C15-2021-0057 LATE BACKUP-OPPOSITION — original pdf
D-1/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Kurt Schultz Ramirez, Elaine Public hearing LD Code Variance. Case# C15-2021-0057 (2000 Peach Tree) Wednesday, December 08, 2021 3:57:57 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms Ramirez, Referring to Case Number C15-2021-0057 The applicant is requesting a variance from Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (D) Fences as accessory uses). I received a notice in the mail because I live within 500 feet I have lived in and owned my house since 1995 and am against granting this variance for several reasons. First and foremost is that we reported this deviation from code well before the fence was finished. When the pre-framing was started, it was obvious that the fence was going to be too high. It was reported to 311, who then referred me to Residential Review where I reported it again. I was then referred to Code Compliance where I reported it again. I was then referred to Code Violation where I reported it again and had several conversations with the inspector during the time the fence was under construction. At least four (4) Notices of Violation were sent, along with a requirement allowing 30 days to comply (with accompanying fines mentioned The other reasons have to do partly with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Granting a variance like this will only encourage others to request variances which will further erode the character of the neighborhood. These types of fences result in what looks like "Compounds" that discourage the neighborliness of the neighborhood and make it feel more like a separated "Gated" community. These kinds of additions also drive up property values which, because taxes are based on "market value", results in higher taxes for everyone in the neighborhood. The fence is also built on a berm, so the effective height is well over seven (7) feet. The new owners also contend that there is a business across the street on the Bluebonnet side which justifies their request, but that business has been there for many, many years and the previous owner of the property had only a much shorter chain link fence which encompassed only half of his lot The new owners also think that because there are a few other out of compliance fences in the neighborhood, that in itself should justify allowing a variance. I disagree and think that those fences should also be made to come …
D-1 C15-2021-0057 LATE BACKUP-SUPPORT — original pdf
D-1/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Abbey Seidensticker Ramirez, Elaine Case Number C15-2021-0057; Variance Request Hearing 12/13/21 Monday, December 06, 2021 1:48:33 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Case Number: C15-2021-0057 Abbey Seidensticker 1602 Bluebonnet Ln, Austin, Texas 78704 512-529-4074 I am in favor of granting the variance. Comments: I am the next door neighbor to Mr. & Mrs. Burkhart and our property shares a fence line with their property. We believe the variance request should be granted Bluebonnet Lane is a busy street, not only for vehicular traffic, but also bicycles and pedestrians. It is a popular route to get to large events such as ACL Festival, Trail of Lights, Blues on the Green, and many others. Our properties are also across the street from businesses such as Bluebonnet Food Mart and Thoroughbread, further increasing the amount of activity around our homes. Tall fences are the norm along this street to ensure privacy and increase security. The fence at 2000 Peach Tree Street is very attractive and in similar taste as many other fences along Bluebonnet. Please let me know if you need any additional information in order to have my comments submitted to the Board of Adjustment. Thank you, Abbey Seidensticker 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. D-1/2-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Cindy Cross Ramirez, Elaine Case # C15-2021-0057 Variance Friday, December 10, 2021 3:23:24 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Cindy Cross 2001 Peach Tree Street Austin, TX 78704 I live across the street from the Burkharts. I am strongly in favor of granting the variance, for the following reasons: 1) Aesthetically the fence and landscaping are gorgeous! A+ on the whole project. The fence fits wonderfully into the Peach Tree neighborhood as well as this section of Bluebonnet. It actually improves the cohesiveness of the neighborhood. 2) Directly across the street from the Burkharts’ home is a commercial section. Michael A Laundry, Bluebonnet Market, Thoroughbread, as well as Zilker Properties are there. Modelo and Budweiser routinely park their 18 wheeler trucks and cabs in front of their home, as the beer companies seem to deliver around 7:30 in the morning. I’m sure the fence provides some relief …
D-2 C15-2021-0101 LATE BACKUP-OPPOSITION — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: TONY ALONZI Ramirez, Elaine C15-2021-0101 Sunday, December 05, 2021 12:21:56 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 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. Sent from my iPhone D-2/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Zach Reich Ramirez, Elaine C15-2021-0101 - Variance I OPPOSE (Both A and B) Monday, December 06, 2021 9:28:36 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I am completely opposed to this variance for this property. This is the property listed in the case number I put in the subject line. This change will dramatically raise the heights of this development and I think will be a big detractor in the neighborhood. Higher buildings mean more people which means more traffic and more potential parking spaces getting taken not to mention the size will be over bearing. 40 feet is already high enough but the fact they want to raise it to 60 feet is not acceptable in my opinion. I am completely opposed to this variance and I will be returning the form to the city and I will also make my best efforts to attend the variance hearings. In a nutshell I oppose this variance request. If you have any additional follow-up questions please feel free to contact me. Elaine, Regards, Zach R. 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. D-2/2-LATE BACKUP D-2/3-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Amelia Hinds Ramirez, Elaine BOA12/13 Comments for Koenig SECO ventures height variance Monday, December 13, 2021 8:12:46 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello Ms. Ramirez, Please include this written comment opposing the height variance for Koenig Hangar/Tx Gas Service on Koenig/Ave F. This variance would be extremely out of place, and create a huge increase in an already congested area surrounded by single family homes. The traffic light at this corner is already a dangerous mess. The property is surrounded by single family homes that have been there since the 50s. I have been here since the 80s, and have relied on …
D-2 C15-2021-0101 LATE BACKUP-SUPPORT — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Patrick Goetz Ramirez, Elaine Case #C15-2021-0101 Tuesday, December 07, 2021 10:06:31 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi - I'm writing to state that I SUPPORT the requested variance. The LDC Section 25-2-1063 is one of the primary reasons Austin has the among the highest housing costs in the nation. In the absence of a new, more inclusive LDC, we have to do the best that we can. Thank you. 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. D-2/1-LATE BACKUP D-2/2-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Brian Poteet Ramirez, Elaine In support of C15-2021-0101 Friday, December 10, 2021 3:07:10 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Elaine, I can't attend the meeting next week, but I would like to voice my support for the variance request for the property at 403/201 East Koenig Ln and 5613 Avenue F. Here are a few reasons I think the variance should be approved: The city is behind on its housing goals (both affordable and market rate), and building higher on this lot will get us close to meeting those goals. The property is serviced by two high frequency bus lines. Building more housing on this lot will help the city meet its mode shift goals outlined in the ASMP. The North Loop Neighborhood Association unanimously voted in support of the variance. Personally I don't think this should matter given how unrepresentative the association is of the neighborhood, but I guess that probably matters to some of the commissioners. Compatibility requirements have a huge impact on this site, and it would be a real shame if we let those requirements get in the way of a better project for everyone. Best regards, Brian Poteet North Loop Homeowner 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. D-2/3-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Shannon May Ramirez, Elaine Hangar project at Koenig & F Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:58:46 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Case # C15-2021-0101 - 403/201 Ms. Ramirez, I’m …
E-2 C15-2021-0100 LATE BACKUP-OPPOSITION — original pdf
Zilker Neighborhood Association __________________________________________________________________ Zoning Committee zilkerneighborhood@gmail.com Austin, TX 78704 December 5, 2021 Re: 1003 Kinney, lot-size variance, Case C15-2021-0100 December 13 Agenda item E2 To: Board of Adjustment c/o Elaine Ramirez, Development Review Dept., City of Austin via email Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov Chair and Board Members: Thank you for allowing the zoning committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association (ZNA) to review the variance request for 1003 Kinney (to decrease the minimum lot size from 5750 to 5464 square feet) and to share our recommendations with the applicants. City of Austin Supervisor Eric Thomas has now dated the parcel to September 1947, confirming that the minimum lot requirement of 5750 sf applies. His email of November 17 appears on page 9 of this letter. It eliminates the applicants’ argument that “At one time previously, it was likely this lot was larger, and would have met the minimum 5750sqft area for SF-3 and to not be considered a substandard lot.” Documents submitted by the applicants show that the alley has existed in its current configuration since 1896, and the dimensions of the parcel have always been approx. 62 ft × 88 ft—beginning in 1947, through 1962 when a house was built under the previous code, through March of this year when the applicants demolished the house, and up until today. That takes us back to the demolition question raised by ZNA at the hearing on November 8. The ZNA zoning committee believes that the “non-complying structure” regulations apply in this case (see 25-2-963 and 964, on page 7). This code allows an owner to rebuild or maintain an existing structure that does not comply with current code, as long as 50% of the supporting structure is preserved. Clearly, the zoning regulations allowed reasonable use before the house was demolished. ZNA is aware of two similar variance requests, at 1107 Kinney and 1516 Kinney, where lots were scraped without regard to 25-2-963. Both variances were denied for lack of a qualifying hardship. At 1003 Kinney, we now know that the entire structure was demolished sometime this year, and it was the applicants’ responsibility to verify before demolition that new construction would be 1 E-2/1-LATE BACKUP allowed. Evidence submitted by the applicants confirms that they were aware of the substandard lot size as early as January 2021, before they purchased the property. (A chronology appears on page 6.) Their survey in February 2021 …
80 Rainey Working Group Memo — original pdf
Date: To: From: Subject: November 1, 2021 City of Austin Design Commission Planning & Urban Design Working Group Density Bonus Working Group review of 80 Rainey for substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines October 22, 2021; 12:00 pm; Virtual Microsoft Teams Meeting Amanda Swor- Drenner Group Meeting date: Applicant: The project is located at 80 Rainey Street. The project includes mixed use of residential (482,317 sf) and retail (17,444 sf). The project also includes 5 parking levels (none underground). The applicant is seeking a Density Bonus to raise the FAR from 8:1 to 20:1 resulting in a total project gross area of 564,979 gsf. The site is 0.66 acres (28,814 sf) with a current allowable building size of 230,512 nsf based on the current allowable 8:1 FAR. The total building height is 546 ft (49 floors). The maximum height achievable under the Density Bonus program is unlimited. Per the Density Bonus Program ordinance, the applicant is required to meet the three gatekeeper requirements: • Substantially comply with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines • Provide streetscape improvements along all public street frontages consistent with the Great Streets Program Standards • Applicant must commit to a minimum of 2-star green building rating (3-star proposed). WORKING GROUP COMMENTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AREA WIDE GUIDELINES 1. Create dense development – 25:1 far is being requested. Project complies with this Section. 2. Create mixed-use development – Residential and substantial retail uses are proposed. Project partially complies with this Section. 3. Limit development which closes downtown streets – This project is not permanently closing down any streets. Project complies with this Section. 4. Buffer neighborhood edges- The reused existing bungalows and proposed Paseo help buffer the adjacent neighborhood edges. Project complies with this Section. Incorporate civic art in both public and private development – This project is proposing public art at the Paseo Gateway. Project complies with this Section. 5. 6. Protect important public views – Since this project is already surrounded by high-rises, there are no important public views to protect. Not applicable. This project is protecting and reusing two existing on-site bungalows. Project complies with this Section. 9. Acknowledge that rooftops are not seen from other buildings and the street – 7. Avoid historical misrepresentations – Project complies with this Section. 8. Respect adjacent historic buildings- Project complies with this Section. 10. Avoid the development of theme environments- Project …
Colony Park Updated Presentation — original pdf
Backup
Givens Park Updated Presentation — original pdf
Backup
Updated 80 Rainey Presentation — original pdf
80 Rainey Design Commission December 13, 2021 1 Project Team Developer: Architect: Landscape Architect: Civil Engineer: Agent: Lincoln Ventures Pappageorge Haymes TBG Partners Wuest Group Drenner Group 2 3 Current Use Food truck lot, bar and small office. 5 Zoning Central Business District (CBD) 6 Property Facts Address: 78-84 Rainey Street Lot Size: 0.66 acres / 28,814 square feet Rainey Street Entitled Height: 40 feet DDBP Allowable Height: Proposed Height: Unlimited 546 feet / 49 floors CBD Zoning Entitled FAR: DDBP Allowable FAR: Proposed DDBP FAR: 8:1 15:1 20:1 7 Project Facts and Bonus Area Benefit 564,979 Total Project Gross Square Feet (GSF) Rainey Street Density Bonus Area Below 8:1 FAR: Net Residential Floor Area Within 8:1 FAR Density Bonus Affordable Set-Aside Total Required Affordable Square Feet = = 230,512 NSF X 5% 9,797 NSF 9,797 SF (18 units) will be set aside as affordable for-lease residential units at 80% MFI, in order to exceed the 40 feet maximum height limit per the Rainey Street Subdistrict regulations. Downtown Density Bonus Area Between 8:1 to 15:1 FAR: Total GSF Bonus Area Per DDBP (8:1 to 15:1) Green Building Community Benefit Area Total Density Bonus FIL Area Between 8:1 & 15:1 FAR = 201,698 GSF = (57,628) GSF 144,070 GSF = Total Density Bonus FIL Area Between 8:1 & 15:1 FAR Rainey DDBP Fee per SF Total Density Bonus FIL Contribution Between 8:1 & 15:1 FAR = = 144,070 GSF X $5 $720,350 8 Project Facts and Bonus Area Benefit 564,979 Total Project Gross Square Feet (GSF) Downtown Density Bonus Area Above 15:1 FAR: Total GSF Bonus Area Per DDBP (Above 15:1) Additional Affordable Housing Benefit Area Total Density Bonus FIL Area Above 15:1 FAR Total Density Bonus FIL Area Above 15:1 FAR Rainey DDBP Fee per SF Total Density Bonus FIL Contribution Above 15:1 FAR Gross Residential Floor Area Above 15:1 FAR Density Bonus Additional Affordable Set-Aside Total Additional Affordable Square Feet = = = = = = = 3,319 SF (5 units) will be set aside as affordable for-lease residential units at 80% MFI, in order to exceed the 40 feet maximum height limit per the Rainey Street Subdistrict regulations. 132,769 GSF (66,385) GSF 66,385 GSF 66,385 GSF X $5 $331,923 66,385 NSF X 5% 3,319 NSF 9 Total Bonus Area Community Benefit 16,435 SF (23 units) will be set aside as affordable for-lease residential units at 80% MFI, in …