A. B. C. D. 2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT C14-2021-0100 8176 N. MoPac Expressway This Restrictive Covenant (“Restrictive Covenant”), is executed as of _________, 2021, by Luby’s Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, successor by limited partnership conversion (“Declarant”) and its successors and assigns, for the benefit of Northwest Austin Civic Association, a Texas nonprofit corporation (“NWACA”) and is as follows: to Luby’s Restaurants Limited Partnership, a Texas RECITALS Declarant owns that certain tract of real property located at 8176 N. MoPac Expressway, being more particularly described as Lot 1, J.V. WALDEN ADDITION, a subdivision in Travis County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof, recorded in Volume 77, Page 314, Plat Records of Travis County, Texas (the “Property”). Declarant has filed a zoning application with the City of Austin under in File No. C14- 2021-0100 (the "Zoning Case") to rezone the Property to permit development and use of the Property for a multifamily residential apartment project (the “Multifamily Project”). NWACA is a Texas nonprofit corporation which exists to preserve, promote, and enhance the exceptional and unique character of the neighborhood by monitoring key municipal and county issues and advocating for the neighborhood, addressing fire safety, transportation, crime prevention, oak wilt and other environmental concerns, wildlife management, zoning and planning, and other matters as they arise, keeping residents informed of relevant news and happenings, and sponsoring neighborhood events and working to build a strong sense of community. In consideration of NWACA’s support of the Zoning Case, Declarant has agreed to impose upon the Property these covenants and conditions for the benefit of NWACA, provided that the effectiveness of this Restrictive Covenant shall be conditioned on final approval of the Zoning Case as set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Property is subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, and agrees as follows: 1. Recitals Incorporated. The above Recitals and all terms defined therein are incorporated into this Restrictive Covenant for all purposes. Multifamily Project. If the Multifamily Project is developed and constructed on the Property, Declarant agrees as follows: {W1070864.4} Restrictive Covenant for Unified Development with Maintenance of Drainage Easement, June 19, 2015 Page 1 of 4 3. 4. 5. (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) Exterior Materials. The exteriors of the multifamily apartment buildings will primarily utilize materials such as brick, stone, stucco, glass and/or metal panels. Hardi-plank siding is prohibited. Garage Screening. Declarant will …
From: Janet Brooks Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 12:11 AM To: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov>; Janet Brooks Subject: C14-2021-0012 zoning case objection/materials for placement in zoning commission files by Aug.11th and public files by Aug. 13th part 1 of 2 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Heather, I was unaware Sherri would be unavailable when all file materials and public hearing forms are due. Will you be taking care of all of this and should other neighbors email their forms and materials to you? I already emailed Sherri a copy of what’s below so she’ll see it when she returns past this week’s deadlines. That’s when I received her out of office email to contact you. All of this email and supporting photos and TNRCC documents objecting to this rezoning case are to be included in the file given to zoning commission this Wed. And available to public this Fri. as described in Sherri’s previous email which did not give a deadline for inclusion. Items will be below this email which contains concerns/ objections/questions. Please confirm receipt and inclusion in zoning case file by prompt email. See contact info below. IF TNRCC plan cannot be sent with this email, it will be sent in next email as part 2 Environmental bjection concerns/ Questions: 1. Lot 11 multifamily proposal (SP2021-0124C includes using the wet pond in Lot 12, why isn’t Lot12/wet pond included if multi family in Lot 11 is using it, who will maintain wet pond/enforce codes and ordinances if it’s not included in rezoning/proposal, and how will increased demand from multifamily affect the adjacent Old Milwood neighborhood and their already strained 37 year old infrastructure, drainage, Walnut Creek And Edwards Aquifer watersheds and protection plans, floods, overflow, water, wastewater, etc.? Since about 1984, These watersheds have run through a wide and deep grassy drainage ditch in our neighborhood before flowing through pipes which empty into wet pond in Lot 12. 2. Is The existence of abandoned unfinished parking garage in Lot 11 a violation of pre-existing Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan issued by TNRCC? Since Karlin LLC et al are newer owners of these lots, are they responsible for any violation and/or requirements including that new owners cannot commence operations on these lots without a new watershed protection plan issued by the TECQ(formerly TNRCC)? In addition the geologic survey in this plan identified 4 caves, 4 sinkholes, and 3 solution …
SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEET CASE NO.: C8J-2017-0277.1A COMMISSION DATE: August 17, 2021 SUBDIVISION NAME: Barton Creek Sections K, L, and O Phase 1 Final Plat ADDRESS: 3101 Lost Creek Blvd. APPLICANT: Stratus Properties (Erin D. Pickens) AGENT: LJA Engineering (John Clark, PE) ZONING: Not applicable - ETJ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Not applicable AREA: 341.51 acres COUNTY: Travis LOTS: 23 DISTRICT: Not applicable - ETJ WATERSHED: Barton Creek JURISDICTION: Full Purpose SIDEWALKS: Sidewalks will be along interior streets and the subdivision side of Tecoma Circle. VARIANCE: N/A DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The request is for the approval of Barton Creek Sections K, L, and O Phase 1, a final plat out of an approved preliminary plan. This plat proposes 12 single-family lots, one open space/drainage/water quality easement lot, one private street/drainage easement/public utility easement lot, and 9 multi- family/condo lots on 341.51 acres. The plat does not comply with the criteria for approval in LDC 30-2-84(B) and staff recommends disapproval for the reasons listed in the attached comment report. An application that has been disapproved with reasons may be updated to address those reasons until the application expires. If the applicant submits an update to address the reasons for disapproval, that update will be presented to the Land Use Commission within fifteen days of submittal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disapproval of the plat for the reasons listed in the comment report dated August 12, 2021 and attached as Exhibit C. CASE MANAGER: Jennifer Bennett PHONE: 512-974-9002 E-mail: jennifer.bennett-reumuth@austintexas.gov ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Vicinity map Exhibit B: Proposed plat Exhibit C: Comment report dated August 12, 2021 B111 of 28 RAMSEY LAND SURVEYING 14 15 13 12 6 7 5 11 8 4 16 10 9 3 B112 of 28 RAMSEY LAND SURVEYING B113 of 28 RAMSEY LAND SURVEYING 14 15 13 12 6 7 5 11 8 4 16 10 9 3 B114 of 28 7 2 B R A Y S U R V E Y N O . A B S T R A C T N O . 7 4 J O H N L . RAMSEY LAND SURVEYING 1 0 0 7 4 1 S T A N D E R F O R D S U R V E Y N O . A B S T R A C T N O . J . B115 of 28 RAMSEY LAND SURVEYING B R A Y 7 2 A B S …
Water Conservation Update Item 3 Resource Management Commission Kevin Kluge | August 17, 2021 Water Conservation Updates Onsite water reuse system incentive program Water supply outlook Upcoming activities: • Voluntary reclaimed connection incentive • Instant savings pilot project • Water benchmarking of new development • Landscape transformation ordinance development Lakes Buchanan and Travis Total Combined Storage Projections City of Austin Drought Contingency Plan Drought Response Stage Triggers: Conservation Stage: Above 1.4 MAF Stage I: 1.4 MAF Stage II: 900,000 AF Stage III: 600,000 AF Emergency Response Stage IV: Catastrophic event including prolonged drought Highland Lakes Storage summary as of June 4, 2021 Combined lake storage: 1.613 million acre feet Combined reservoir total: 80% RMC Monthly Report – July 2021, FY21 13 Onsite Water Reuse System Incentive Program Voluntary, mandatory phases Incentives up to $250,000 and $500,000 1 application, 2 potential applications Reauthorization of funding Voluntary Reclaimed Connection Incentive Required to connect to the reclaimed water system? 80 customers with irrigation systems and cooling towers Up to 75% of project costs Initial Goal: 5 -10 applicants Instant Savings Pilot Project – Austin Energy Austin Energy’s SPUR program & 3rd-party vender (CLEAResult) Pilot project for hose water timers at The Home Depot Instant savings of $8 Water Benchmarking of New Development New commercial, MF, and mixed use survey Required benchmarking Staff provide conservation measures & incentives Public hearing – Aug. 26 Landscape Transformation Ordinance Water Forward 2018 Strategy Council interest regarding implementation Public input and drafting over Fiscal Year 2022 May limit area of spray irrigation based on lot size QUESTIONS? Kevin Kluge Water Conservation Division Manager City of Austin | Austin Water 512-974-3901 kevin.kluge@austintexas.gov
Name:_____________________________________ Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Public Forum #10: District 5 | Aug. 17, 2021 | Zip codes: 78704, 78735, 78744, 78745, 78747, 78748, 78652 Ann Kitchen, Council Member, district5@austintexas.gov, 512-978-2105 Directions: Examine the map for common areas of interest (e.g. neighborhoods, schools, churches, shopping centers, or your grocery store). Mark their locations with points on the map. Then, draw a circle around the unique characteristics of the community that you believe should remain intact within the district. You may also leave written comments below that explain your reasoning, as well as any other thoughts about redistricting in Austin generally. Please return this document to the Commission when you are finished. It will be saved for the purpose of redrawing maps once Census data arrives. Thank you for being with us today. (Map may not include some newly annexed portions of Austin.) Name:_____________________________________ Comments:________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ May we contact you? NAME _____________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________________________________________________ City EMAIL_____________________________________________ Street Address Zip Code State To create your own proposed maps for the City of Austin, go to districtr.org. Send the link to the finished map to matthew.dugan@austintexas.gov. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Name:_____________________________________ Public Forum #10: District 5 | Aug. 17, 2021 Directions: Examine the map of the ten city council districts and provide any redistricting markings and suggestions. You may also leave written comments below that explain your reasoning, as well as any other thoughts about redistricting in Austin generally. Please return this document to the Commission when you are finished. It will be saved for the purpose of redrawing maps once Census data arrives. Thank you for being with us today. #RedistrictATX2021 Name:_____________________________________ Comments:________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Commissioners Question Groups What do I need to know about your district? How do you live your life in your community? What routes do you take to work? What churches, mosques, temples do you attend? What grocery store to you frequent? What schools do your children attend (pre-K, elementary, high school, private, community college, university)? How accessible is Capitol Metro bus line? What are some of the shared community spaces-shopping centers, home owners’ associations, parks, pools, etc.? Where do you go to the doctor? Where is the nearest police and fire station in your community? What are your communities shared interests- health conditions, land …
Q\.\I.SON "'1 <'.. : ·�AMNA • • • • -z. �Nooo ASSOCIATION * * Working for" Better Community August 15, 2021 Richard Mathias 5800 Monmarte Cove Austin, TX 78744 Reference Project File Name #Cl4-2021-0090 Name: 620 Hill Country Center. and Per it/Case Number: 2021-065�19 ZC, The-Anderson _Mill Neighborhood Associa ion a cepts the following: • The applicant is to amend the applif at ion and remQve the MU overlay fr<?m the GR use designation on both tracts (Lo s 6 and 8). will agree with the st· ff rec • The applicant prohibition of a car wash µse. • The Neighborhood i oppose, prohibit, Association or restrict, a I . I I - and he ci y staff will support, car wash use on lot 8 (1.88-acre tract). or not for.the bmll!endation, except This amendment - the Restrictive property owners. is consistent with the previou�ly approved ' to by he applicant subdivision plat and and the surrounding Covenant that was agreed PhiUip R Denney President Anderson 512-925-2358 Mill Neighborhood A 'sociation 78717 PO Box 8717, Austin TX
Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) P U B L I C FO R U M : D I S T R I C T 5 V I A V I D EO CO N F E R E N C E T U ES DAY, AU G U S T 1 7 , 6 P M Public Forum Agenda 1. How to sign up for testimony 2. Background on the Independent Citizens Redistrict Commission (ICRC) 3. Current City Council district maps and demographic information 4. History of the 10-1 Austin City Council districts 5. Explanation of the delayed Census, and 6. Instructions for how to proceed through breakout sessions and how to use map print outs. Find us on Facebook and Twitter at Austin Redistricting Find us on Instagram @austinredistrict ICRC websites: https://www.speakupaustin.org/city-of-austin- redistricting https://redistrictatx.org/ http://www.austintexas.gov/content/independen t-citizens-redistricting-commission How to Sign Up for Testimony Step 1: Put your first and last name in the chat, the district you reside in, and your email address. Step 2: After the presentation, you will be called on by administrative manager, Christine Granados. Unmute / Mute : If the host gives you permission, you can unmute and talk during the webinar. All participants will be able to hear you. If the host allows you to talk, you will receive a notification: Note: You can still access the audio settings by click on the ^ arrow next to the Unmute/Mute button. For any written comments, email the full commission at icrc.commissioners@austintexas.gov ICRC Commissioners District 1 – Errol Hardin District 1 – Selina Yee District 6 – Eugene Schneider District 7 – Christina Puentes (Chair) District 2 – Sara Inés Calderón District 7 – Camellia Falcon District 3 – Brigham Morris District 3 – Hoang Le District 8 – Joshua Blank District 9 – Shaina Kambo District 4 – Dr. Sterling Lands District 10 – Luis Gonzalez (Vice-Chair) District 5 – Prabhu Kannan District 10 – Erin Dempsey District 5 Commissioner Prabhu Kannan Prabhu Kannan has over 20 years of experience leading teams and influencing meaningful change. He is passionate about giving back to the community and bringing together people, technology and thought to deliver solutions and services to help others. He is a motorcycle enthusiast, and a fan of the outdoors who loves camping, spending time with family and is always equipped with a camera to capture life’s moments. “Let the people draw the maps.” --Austinites …
August 17, 2021 Zoning and Platting Commission Meeting Registered Speakers Speaker B-1 Applicant - J Segura Jake Brown John Noell Mike Mullone Don Szczesny Suzanne Schwertner Opposed Jon Iken Debbie Maynor Mark Miller Liela Bucco Michelle Iken Meg Murphy Liz Diaz Cyndy Murphy Aaron Thorp Tom Herrera Ana Aguirre B-2 Applicant - Michael Whellan Michael Gaudini For Brett Denton James Killian Opposed Hugh Higgins B-3 Applicant - Amanda Brown B-5 Applicant - Nikelle Meade B-6 Time Allotment 6min / 3min Rebuttal 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 6min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min 3min Public Hearing Continued - TBD Public Hearing Continued - TBD Public Hearing Continued - TBD Public Hearing Continued - TBD Public Hearing Continued - TBD 6min / 3min Rebuttal 6min / 3min Rebuttal Applicant - Richard Mathias Opposed: (Neutral ) Randy Lawson Michalyn Porter B-7 Applicant - Richard T. Suttle, Jr Amanda Morrow Opposed Kirsten Hofmann B-8 Applicant - Penny Greene 6min / 3min Rebuttal 6min 3min 6min / 3min Rebuttal 3min 6min 6min / 3min Rebuttal
The Dead Dog Caves Report 4CAVES Institute P.B.C. Compiled by Justin Leigh Shaw Provisional Edition, August 2021 Acknowledgements Special thank you to the Austin History Center and the Texas Speleological Survey for assistance with this research. Direct information was provided by persons who have been in the Dead Dog Caves: Jerry Atkinson, Terry Rains, and William Russell. Additional information and research was provided by: Katie Arens, Jerry Atkinson, John Cradit, William Elliot, Terry Holsinger, Ethan Perrine, Terry Rains, Peter Sprouse, and William Russell. Front Cover: Tommy Phillips at the original natural entrance to Dead Dog Cave #1. Photo by Terry Rains. Danny Evans (left) and William Russell (on rope) at the bottom of the fissure in Dead Dog Cave No. 2. Photo taken about 1955, probably by T. R. Evans. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Cave Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Dead Dog Cave No. 1 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Dead Dog Cave No. 2 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Dead Dog Cave No. 3 ........................................................................................................................ 6 Dead Dog Cave No 4 ......................................................................................................................... 7 Dead Dog Cave No. 5 ........................................................................................................................ 7 Dead Dog Cave No. 6 ........................................................................................................................ 7 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Dead Dog Cave No 1 ......................................................................................................................... 8 Dead Dog Cave No 2 ......................................................................................................................... 9 Dead Dog Cave No 2 ....................................................................................................................... 10 Chronology ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Biology ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Dead Dog Cave No. 1 ...................................................................................................................... 14 Dead Dog Cave No. 2 ...................................................................................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................................................. 15 3 Introduction This report seeks to compile a thorough account of high quality information on the Dead Dog Caves. The Dead Dog Caves are a cluster of 6 known caves formed in Edwards Limestone and are part of the vadose zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Two of the caves are known to be comparatively extensive for the area, one of them has a perennially flowing waterfall and cave pool, and both are known to contain cave invertebrates. (Russell 2018, Reddell & Russell 1961, Fieseler 1972, Dean 2016, Reddell 1969) Historically, all 6 cave entrances have been filled in. Several attempts were made at sealing Dead Dog Cave No. 2; by blasting, and filling it with rock, dirt, and debris, but it has a history of reopening itself. Dead Dog Cave most recently began reopening sometime prior to 2015, and today the first room of the cave is once again accessible. (Russell 2018, Reddell & Russell 1961, Fiesler 1976) The caves are primarily located under, or near to, …
\.t'-SON "'1 * * ; A.M.N.A. �hooo ASSOCIATION * * Working for a Better Community I August 15, 2021 Mathias Richard 5800 Monmarte Cove Austin, TX 78744 Reference Name: 620 Project File Name #Cl4-2021 Country 10090 and Per it/Case -Center. Hill Number: 2021-065319 ZC, The Anderson Mill Neighborhoop a ,cepts Association the following: ! ' I • The applicant is to amend the appHcation 1 and remove the MU overlay from the GR use designation on both tracts (Lofs 6 and 8). recpmmendation, for tre except will agree \A{ith _the staff • The applicant I , of a car wash use. I prohibition _hood Association • The Neighbor oppose, prohibit, • If they are suc�essful or not ' and the cify staff will support, or restri,ct, a car wash ule on Lot 8 (1.88-acre tract). restriction on the Final from GR to the resi�ential change in re,moving a zoning f lot 6 (3.5 acre tract) would-support Plat, we MF2. � , l ty 1 This amendment the Restrictive owners. property is consistent ;ith the previol.l approved Covenant that w�s agreed to by he applicant subdivision and the surrounding plat and I ip R Denney P President Anderson Mill 512-925-2358 Neighborhood Association r8717, Austin PO Box L TX 78717
Zoning and Platting Commission Q & A Report B-02 C14-2021-0100 - Luby's Site Question Commissioner Denkler/ Response in blue. Does the Luby's site have to comply with current code requirements? Yes Pending Can Housing tell us what the rent maximums would be for an efficiency, a 1- bedroom or a 2- bedroom unit on the site for 2021 year? A representative of one of the neighborhood associations has complained the applicant is not using Flood Pro to model the site's drainage. Does the applicant have to use Flood Pro or can other modeling methods be approved? I reached out to Watershed Engineering Division staff and learned the following: The Applicant should definitely should be using the City’s effective floodplain model for the portion of the site impacted by Onion Creek that is available from our FloodPro website. The site is also impacted by an unnamed tributary to Onion Creek that is not currently studied (see attached map). The floodplain shown along this tributary in the current floodplain mapping is water that backs up from Onion Creek. Watershed Engineering Division staff is currently re-studying the Onion Creek watershed to incorporate Atlas 14 rainfall. This will include a study of the stream that runs through the site in question. Unfortunately, it will be at least 8 months before Watershed Engineering Division staff has an updated Onion Creek model and a new model for the unstudied tributary. In the interim, the Applicant should be using the 500-year floodplain from our regulatory Onion Creek model and performing their own study to delineate the regulatory floodplains for the unstudied tributary (since it has more than 64 acres of drainage their site). If the Applicant submits for site plan, they will need to have completed their own floodplain study of the unnamed tributary and consider the combination of the tributary and Onion Creek floodplains. Why does the applicant not have to plat? The Applicant isn’t required to plat because the configuration of the property hasn’t changed since annexation into the City limits and is eligible to receive City utility services. Review of environmental, drainage and utilities will occur with the site plan application. Has this part of the watershed been mapped for Atlas. The model has not yet been updated to include Atlas-14 rainfall. The City’s Watershed Engineering Division is in the process of performing a study update for Onion Creek, However it will be several …
ESB-MACC ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Date: 17 August 2021 Subject: ESB-MACC Advisory Board Recommendation Opposing Red River Street Extension Motioned By: (name) Seconded By: (name) Recommendation Recommendation to stop any planning or consideration of an extension of Red River Street through the Mexican American Cultural Center which has received Dedicated Parkland status in perpetuity (Ordinance No. 20160128-086) as well as serving as the heart of the Rainey Street Historic District since 1985. Description of Recommendation to Council In 1956 when East Avenue was converted into I-35, the Rainey Street neighborhood began a transformation from a single-family, Mexican-American neighborhood to the most densely populated corner of Texas. Part of the symbolism that is ingrained in I-35’s legacy is the division of our community by way of a street. This legacy is at the heart of the current discussions and on-going community engagement sessions for the renovation of the I-35. An extension of Red River Street through the ESB-MACC campus would repeat the mistakes of 1956 by dividing the community once again with the construction of a street. Recently, a variety of mobility studies and pilot programs have been executed by the Austin Transportation Department to help understand the effectiveness of mobility concepts that are intended to help the area adapt to the rapid increase in density. The ESB-MACC Advisory Board and community have found the conclusions on these reports to grossly mischaracterize the true concerns from MACC staff and patrons. It is therefore imperative, that the ESB-MACC Advisory Board clearly state our opposition to any recommendation set forth by any city department or partner that may use as reference the Rainey Street Pilot Program, Rainey Mobility Study, or any other document that did not deliberately or consistently engage with the MACC staff and patrons through a meaningful community engagement process. Furthermore, the MACC community intends to ensure that the city honors the Designated Parkland protection which was granted in perpetuity. The community is concerned that a Red River Street extension could set the precedent for other Designated Parkland sites in culturally sensitive areas to be converted into roadways thereby cementing the city’s practice of cars over people and developers over community.. Lastly, the ESB-MACC community embraces the opportunity to expand our center through a Phase 2 expansion and we do not want to see the advocacy and hard work that went into the creation of the MACC once again become compromised by …
1 ESBMACC BOARD RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSALS TO EXTEND RED RIVER STREET THROUGH THE EMMA S. BARRIENTOS MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER (ESBMACC) DESIGNATED PARKLAND AND GUTTING RAINEY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS the City of Austin designated the ESBMACC site as parkland “in perpetuity” principally as moral reparation for the City’s taking of Rainey Neighborhood and nearby East Austin properties from Mexican Americans founders through urban renewal and other City displacement processes in the 1950s and 1960s, and WHEREAS, the City of Austin historically only takes parkland for required utilities, it would be setting a dangerous precedent by taking ESBMACC parkland for the Red River Street extension, and WHEREAS, the proposed street extension would further devastate Rainey Street Historic District, designated as such for its distinctive history as a Hispanic enclave since the 1800s, and for its lovely and serene environmental quality protected thus far by Mexican American stakeholders participating throughout the Waller Creek Tunnel development, concurrent land development processes and the ESBMACC PHASE II planning, and WHEREAS, due to Rainey Street Neighborhood status as a Historic District, and the ESBMACC’s symbolic representation of 182-year presence of Hispanics in downtown Austin, for decades, the City has promised to respect Rainey Street Neighborhood’s integrity, the ESBMACC property, and the bucolic environment that the Hispanic community enjoyed and preserved for many generations, and which due to their diligence and care, Austinites throughout the city enjoyed, and WHEREAS Mexican American founders and stakeholders of ESBMACC advocated for this particular site, to commemorate our “antepasados” and honor our shared heritage, seeking the land’s designation as parkland expressively to protect the site and historic district in perpetuity, from encroachments and takings, to which the City enthusiastically acquiesced and legally supported, and WHEREAS, the ESBMACC site on designated parkland, and its stakeholders represent the Mexican American founders of Rainey Street Neighborhood and 2 nearby East Austin residents who created the Rainey Street Historic District and strongly oppose further gutting of the tiny historic neighborhood and its sacred lakefront by locating an intrusive and unnecessary roadway since frontage road of IH 35 (scheduled to be “sunk” in the next decades), Cesar Chavez Street, and River Street provide access to the dense environment recently created by the City, and WHEREAS, ESBMACC founders and stakeholders have done due diligence in actively participating in the Waller Creek Tunnel Project and in Waterloo Greenway Conservancy planning events for the past 20 years as …
Board of Adjustment Deep Dive: Key Topics & Issues Development Services Department August 17, 2021 1 Agenda ● General Background & History of BOA ● Core BOA functions & requirements: Variances Special Exceptions Appeals BOA Process Issues ● Boat Dock Regulations ● Environmental & Lake/Shoreline Regulations ● Residential Review 2 …..but first, introductions: BOA Members Michael Von Ohlen Kelly Blume Melissa Hawthorne Brooke Bailey Jessica Cohen Barbara McArthur Richard Smith Daryl Pruett Agustina Rodriguez Carrie Waller Rahm McDaniel Nicholl Wade Thomas Ates City Staff Jennifer Verhulst Chris Johnson Elaine Ramirez Diana Ramirez Lyndi Garwood Susan Barr Liz Johnston Keith Mars Lee Simmons 3 • • Zoning Boards of Adjustment Included in the 1929 model “state zoning enabling act,” promulgated by U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Intended to provide greater flexibility by authorizing “variation” of zoning regulations and provide administrative oversight. • Unlike municipal planning/zoning commissions, which performs a mix of advisory and decision-making functions, all BOA functions are quasi-judicial. 4 Austin’s Board of Adjustment • Austin’s BOA established by 1931 zoning ordinance: 5 Zoning Variances 6 Variance Criteria per Land Development Code Findings for Approval Guidelines No Reasonable Use The requirement does not allow for a reasonable use of property. Determined by context. Landowner needn’t prove a “taking” (i.e., loss of all economically viable use), but desire for “highest & best” use is insufficient. Harship Area Character Harship is unique to the property and is not generally characteristic of the area in which the property is located. Typically involves features of the property itself, but overall context of development may also be considered. Development under the variance does not: (a) alter the character of the area adjacent to the property; (b) impair the use of adjacent property; or (c) impair the purposes of the applicable zoning district regulations. Considers how development allowed by variance would impact properties differently than development without a variance, as well as well as development patterns in the surround area and goals of the regulations 7 Variance Standard per State Law Per Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, a board of adjustment may: “[A]uthorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance if the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance is …
Site Plan Review for Boat Docks What Site Plan reviews… • Site information - Zoning and use - Plat - Size of the lot • Setbacks - 10’ from adjacent property line - 75’ or 25’ if platted prior to April 22, 1982 or lot less than 200’ deep. Structure Information • Square footage - A maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. • Dock height – 30 ft. • Extension into the lake – 30 ft. • Navigational safety light at furthest extension • Maximum of 20% of the shoreline in width • Allowed up to 2 motorboats • Must be at least 66% open on all sides. • Allowed 48 sq. ft. of storage space. • Cluster docks allowed 600 sq. ft. for each unit Non-complying Structures • Removal of no more than 50% of walls and • Replacement or repair of structural elements supporting structures including framing. • Damaged or destroyed structures may be restored to its original footprint within 12 months. - Evidence of original foot print - Insurance claim for structure Thank You! Clarissa Davis Clarissa.Davis@austinrtexas.gov (512)974-1423
Environmental Considerations for Austin’s Lakes Presented to: Board of Adjustment August 17, 2021 Liz Johnston, Deputy Environmental Officer LAKE AUSTIN - Finding the Balance • Drinking Water • Residential • Commercial • Boating/Marina • Parkland • Fishing • Passive Recreation Environmental Issues Zebra Mussels Bank Erosion Shoreline Erosion Poor Shoreline Habitat Non-Complying Structures Compliance/Work Without Permits Wave Impacts Riparian Zone Functions A robust shoreline vegetative community improves water quality, prevents erosion, and aids in flood control. Trees & deep-rooted plants prevent erosion. Dense shoreline development degrades shoreline health. Poor Riparian Function VS Good Riparian Function Poor Functioning Good Functioning Costs of Degraded Water Quality ▪ Water treatment costs due to suspended sediment ▪ Algae proliferations ▪ Poor fishery ▪ Lowered Austin Lake Index scores in ▪ Habitat ▪ Invertebrates ▪ Vegetation Environmental Review • Site plan & Subdivision compliance with LDC 25-8 Subchapter A • Boat docks/shoreline modifications/shoreline access require site plans • DSD environmental review staff • CWQZ compliance • Erosion controls • Restoration • Cut/Fill • WPD environmental review staff • CEF setbacks • Bulkheads • Dredging • Land capture/fill in the lake • Floodplain modifications & restoration (riparian functioning) § 25-8-261 Critical Water Quality Zone Trams Stairs CWQZ on all Lakes: - 75’ from shoreline (492.8 msl) for single family - 100’ for all other uses (1) A dock, bulkhead or marina, and necessary access and appurtenances, are permitted in a critical water quality zone subject to compliance with Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C, Article 12 (Docks, Bulkheads, and Shoreline Access) Gangways § 25-8-281(C) Critical Environmental Features Canyon Rimrock and 150’ CEF Buffer Canyon Rimrock Wetland Seep Spring § 25-8-652 – Restrictions on Development Impacting Lakes Unpermitted fill in Lake (A) The requirements of this section apply to development on or adjacent to Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, or Lake Walter E. Long. (B) Except as otherwise provided by this section, placing fill or dredging in a lake is prohibited. (C) A retaining wall, bulkhead, or other erosion protection device may not capture or recapture land from a lake unless doing so is required to restore the shoreline to whichever of the following boundaries would encroach the least into the lake: (1) the shoreline as it existed 10 years prior to the date of application, with documentation as prescribed by the Environmental Criteria Manual; or (2) the lakeside boundary of the subdivided lot line. (D) A bulkhead may …
Residential Review at the City of Austin Susan Barr Board of Adjustment Board Members – August 17, 2021 Building a Better Austin Together TOPICS • Overview • Zoning Review • Technical Review • Community Outreach o What Can be built o Red Flags o o o o o Helpful Tips Permit History Search Expired Permits Exempt Work Permit Requirements Building a Better Austin Together OVERVIEW We permit residential building types that fall under the International Residential Code (IRC) and their accessory structures. a. One and two family dwelling units no more than (3) stories above grade b. Townhouses that are no more than (3) stories above grade and don’t have overlapping units c. Pools d. Garages & carports Building a Better Austin Together Zoning Review 1. Zoning a. Common classifications i. ii. iii. iv. v. LA RR DR SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, SF-4A, SF-5, SF-6 MF b. (+/- 60) neighborhood plans c. (6) NCCD’s d. Conditional Overlays e. Subchapter F f. PUDs g. Driveway & Sidewalk h. Parking i. Use i. ii. iii. iv. Single family Secondary apartments Two family Accessory Uses Building a Better Austin Together Technical Review 1. International Residential Code - Chapters 1-3, 5, 6, 8 2. Fire Resistance Rated Construction 3. Visitability Ordinance Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – What can be built? • • • Depends on the zoning classification and the existing conditions a. Impervious cover b. Building cover c. Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) How to find a property’s zoning: http://www.austintexas.gov/gis/ propertyprofile/ Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Red Flags 1. Converted garage 2. Windows &/or the interior does not match the age of the house 3. No permit found for date on equipment Unpermitted work needs to be permitted and is to be included with the proposed scope of work. Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach - Permit History Search https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/public-search-other BACK DATE TO 1980 Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Expired Permits • • • • If solely a remodel or stand alone trade permit before March 2007, the permits can be voided Can be reactivated if they have not been reactivated in the past If previously received a reactivation, a review of the project will need to be conducted before reactivation Age of permit might qualify for a life safety inspection once reactivated Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Exempt Work City …
