10 SPC-2023-0110C - Stassney Park; District 2 Letter of Support 2 — original pdf
Backup
All documents
10 SPC-2023-0110C - Stassney Park; District 2 Staff Memo — original pdf
MEMORANDUM ****************************************************************************** 06/21/2024 Claire Hempel, Chair Planning Commission Members Mike McDougal Development Services Department SPC-2023-0110C – Stassney Park Environmental Commission Recommendation TO: FROM: DATE: RE: ****************************************************************************** The motion to approve the requested variances failed to receive the minimum necessary Environmental Commission votes. Consequently, no motion was approved by the Environmental Commission for the Stassney Park variances requests (item number 5, June 5, 2024, Environmental Commission meeting) and the variances are presented with no recommendation. The motion to recommend the requested variances with conditions failed on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second on a 2-6 vote. Those voting aye were Commissioners Nickells and Sullivan. Those voting nay were Commissioners Qureshi, Einhorn, Bedford, Bristol, Brimer, and Krueger. Commissioners Cofer and Schiera were absent.
10 SPC-2023-0110C - Stassney Park; District 2 Staff Presentation — original pdf
STASSNEY PARK 6200 E STASSNEY LANE SPC-2023-0110C Mike McDougal Environmental Policy Program Manager Development Services Department STASSNEY PARK 6200 E Stassney Ln North NTS PROPERTY DATA • Williamson Creek Watershed • Suburban Watershed Classification, Desired Development Zone • Not Located over Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone • Austin Full Purpose • Council District 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED EXISTING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED EXISTING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED CWQZ Slopes >15% North NTS VARIANCES REQUESTED 1. Request to vary LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut up to 24 feet 2. Request to vary LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill up to 23 feet 3. Request to vary LDC 25-8-301 to allow driveway construction on a gradient in excess of 15% NTS VARIANCES REQUESTED - CONTINUED 1. Request to vary LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut up to 24 feet 2. Request to vary LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill up to 23 feet 3. Request to vary LDC 25-8-301 to allow driveway construction on a gradient in excess of 15% NTS GRADING VARIANCE FINDINGS IN SUMMARY • Variances for grading have been granted for similar projects. • Grading is a design decision but the project provides greater environmental protection with increased landscaping, increased creek restoration, and increased Critical Water Quality Zone restoration. • The project does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. • The variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. SLOPES VARIANCE FINDINGS IN SUMMARY • Variances for driveway construction on slopes have been granted for sites with similar constraints. • Driveway construction on slopes is necessary to allow for a reasonable use of the property and is not a design decision. • The project does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. • The variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. FINDINGS OF FACT PER LDC 25-8-41 • City Staff determined the Findings of Fact have been met per LDC 25-8-41 for the requested variances • Consequently, City Staff recommended approval of the variances to the Environmental Commission (6/5/2024 Environmental Commission meeting) with variance conditions STAFF VARIANCE CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VOTE The Environmental Commission may accept or reject City Staff’s recommendation APPLICANT PRESENTATION
10 SPC-2023-0110C - Stassney Park; District 2 Staff Report — original pdf
PLANNING COMMISISON SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW SHEET 512-978-1750 512-418-1771 6200 E Stassney Lane PC DATE: July 23, 2024 Williamson Creek (Suburban) 53.29 acres (Limits of Construction) SPC-2023-0110C Stassney Park Alyse.ramirez@austintexas.gov Kimley-Horn (Jason Reece) 10814 Jollyville Road, Bldg IV, Ste. 200 Austin, TX 78759 Orion IV Stassney LP c/o Brookfield Properties (USA) LLC (Jason Bengert) 469-203-0272 2121 N Pearl Street, Ste. 1210 Dallas, TX 75201 CASE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: ADDRESS: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: McKinney CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 APPLICANT: AGENT: CASE MANAGER: Alyse Ramirez AREA: EXISTING ZONING: W/LO-CO-NP, and LI-CO WATERSHED: WATERSHED ORDINANCE: Comprehensive Watershed Ordinance T.I.A.: N/A CAPITOL VIEW: N/A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit site plan for construction of five (5) industrial buildings totaling approximately 313,000 feet, surface parking, drives, and associated utility and drainage improvements. The applicant is requesting the approval per 25-2-584(F)(2) to allow a building height of 35 feet. Planning Commission approval is required because the site is zoned W/LO-CO-NP, and LI-CO. The LDC Section 25-2-584(F)(2) states: “(F) The Land Use Commission may approve, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25-5, Article 3 (Land Use Commission Approved Site Plans), the following modifications to the site development regulations: a structure with a height greater than 25 feet, but not more than 35 feet; or” SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit because it meets all applicable criteria The site plan will comply with all code requirements prior to site plan release. Land Use: The proposed site is located along the 6200 block of East Stassney Lane and falls within multiple tracts zoned W/LO-CO-NP, and LI-CO. Since the building height in the site portions zoned W/LO are greater than 25 feet and not more than 35 feet, this site plan must be approved by a Land Use Commission. The current land use is vacant and the proposed use is Limited Warehouse and Distribution. Environmental: The principle site requires environmental variance. The motion to approve the requested SPC-2023-0110C Stassney Park 2 53.29 W/LO-CO-NP, and LI-CO East Stassney Lane Existing 00:1 0% 0.00% variances failed to receive the minimum necessary Environmental Commission votes. Consequently, no motion was approved by the Environmental Commission for the Stassney Park variances requests (item number 5, June 5, 2024, Environmental Commission meeting) and the variances are presented with no recommendation. The EV Variance back- up materials and motion notes are provided …
10 SPC-2023-0110C - Stassney Park; District 2 Staff Variance — original pdf
COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NAME & NUMBER OF PROJECT: NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ITEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA June 5, 2024 Stassney Park SPC-2023-0110C Nick Brown / Kimley-Horn LOCATION: 6200 E Stassney Lane, Austin, TX, 78744 COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAFF: Mike McDougal, Environmental Policy Program Manager, Development Services Department, 512-974-6380, mike.mcdougal@austintexas.gov WATERSHED: Williamson Creek, Suburban, Desired Development Zone REQUEST: Variance request is as follows: 1. To allow fill up to 23 feet within the Desired Development Zone (LDC 25-8-342) 2. To allow cut up to 24 feet within the Desired Development Zone (LDC 25-8-341) 3. To allow driveway construction on a gradient in excess of 15% (LDC 25-8-301) Page 2 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. Parking lot trees shall have a minimum diameter of 2 inches. 2. Provide 25 additional street yard trees with a diameter of at least 3 inches each. 3. Increase wetlands plantings by 10% (based on the square footage of mitigation required) using plants approved by Watershed Protection Department. 4. All cut and fill over 8 feet will be contained with rock retaining walls with a natural stone surface. 5. Restoration plantings within the creek before and after the bypass culvert as approved Watershed Protection Department. 6. Increase plantings in disturbed Critical Water Quality Zone areas by 50% as minimally required by 609S in the vicinity of the bridge abutments as indicated in the site plan. The 50% requirement can be addressed by providing a larger mitigation area or by providing more dense plantings. 7. A tree-shaded outdoor seating area will be provided to encourage employees to take breaks on-site rather than driving to other locations. A. Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Stassney Park SPC-2023-0110C Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: To allow fill up to 23 feet within the Desired Development Zone (LDC 25-8-342) Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege, or the safety of property given to owners of other similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development; Yes: Stassney Park proposes 313,062 square feet of warehouse space with a consistent floor elevation, as well as loading docks, fire lanes, and parking that will be constructed at elevations appropriate for the warehouse finished floor elevation. …
11 C20-2023-045 - Site Plan Lite Phase 2 & Infill Lots Staff Report — original pdf
Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: August 27, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2023-045 | Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats Amendment Introduction: This staff report discusses amendments to the Land Development Code (“LDC”) proposed in response to two separate council initiatives intended to facilitate construction of infill housing: Resolution No. 20221201-048 (“Site Plan Lite”) and Resolution No. 20230504-023 (“Infill Plats”). These amendments, which will be included in a single ordinance, seek to better calibrate non-zoning regulations and review procedures to the scale of “missing middle” housing. The report also describes changes initiated or under consideration by individual departments to address non-LDC related challenges to development of missing middle housing, including amendments to administrative criteria manuals and improvements to existing review procedures. Amendment Background: — Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 On December 1, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 20221201-048 initiating LDC amendments to better scale site plan review for residential projects of three to sixteen units located on a single lot. For Phase 1, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20230720-158 on July 20, 2023, creating a site plan exemption for projects of four or fewer residential units. This change, coupled with subsequent passage of the first HOME ordinance, has enabled staff to conform the review process for 3-4 unit residential projects more closely to the process used for one and two-unit projects. For Phase 2, staff’s proposed amendments would modify applicable drainage regulations and adopt a new “small project” classification to enable further streamlining the review process for projects of five to sixteen units. These amendments, coupled with additional department- initiated changes, will make it easier to construct smaller multi-family projects on appropriately zoned lots. — Infill Plats On May 4, 2023, Council approved Resolution No. 20230504-023 initiating LDC amendments to facilitate the creation of infill lots and expand opportunities for “fee simple” ownership within existing residential subdivisions. Staff’s proposed amendments would help to further this objective by modifying applicable drainage regulations, which are a significant cost driver, and changing how impervious cover is Case No. C20-2023-045 | Page - 1 calculated to allow re-subdivisions to include a greater number of lots. In tandem with additional department-initiated changes, these amendments will better calibrate regulations applicable to small-lot single-family uses as authorized by the second HOME ordinance. Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: August 27, 2024 — Department-level Improvements Aside from drainage regulations codified in LDC Chapter 25-7 (Drainage), …
12 Affordability Impact Statement July 2024 — original pdf
Affordability Impact Statement 2024 International Residential Code & Local Amendments Date: 7/1/2024 Proposed Regulation The proposed adoption of the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC) and associated local amendments. These codes would replace the current 2021 IRC and corresponding local amendments. The IRC is a model code published by International Code Council (ICC), a non-profit entity with a robust democratic process for weighing the costs and benefits of code changes. The Development Services Department has the stated goal of minimizing the number of 2024 local amendments to the IRC and deferring to the model codes whenever possible. When amendments are made it is generally because they are mandated by council, responding to business needs, clarifying language, and improving the City’s Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating. Land Use/Zoning Impacts on Housing Costs The proposed changes would likely have a neutral impact on housing costs via land use and zoning. Impact on Development Cost The proposed changes would likely have a neutral impact on development costs. 2024 Model Code Update: The University of Florida researched the cost impact of updating from the 2023 Florida Building Codes to the 2024 International Codes (Issa et al. 2024).1 The 2023 Florida Building Code adopts the 2021 IRC as one of its model codes, so it may be a helpful baseline to understand the overall cost impact of the changes from the 2021 IRC to the 2024 IBC. The State of Florida does adopt amendments to the model codes, but they have the closest available comparison to understand the cost impacts of adopting the 2024 IBC. The University of Florida study models the adoption of the 2024 International Codes on seven different building types, including small office, retail, primary school, small hotel, mid-rise apartment, 1-story residence, and 2-story residence. The average net change in cost estimate between all the building types is +0.45% according to their report. The IRC applies to “detached one- and two- family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height” (see Section R101.2 of the IRC), so the 1-story and 2-story residences from the Issa et al. report are the most informative cost impact models.2 The Issa et al. report estimates 1-story residences will be +10% more expensive to build and 2-story residences will be +16% more expensive to build, with both increases due to National Electrical Code (NEC) changes rather than IRC changes. Local Amendments: The most …
12 Affordability Impact Statement June 2024 — original pdf
Affordability Impact Statement 2024 International Building Code & Local Amendments Date: 6/25/2024 Proposed Regulation The proposed adoption of the 2024 International Building Code (IBC) and local amendments would replace the current 2021 IBC and corresponding local amendments. The IBC is a model code published by International Code Council, a non-profit entity with a robust democratic process for weighing the costs and benefits of code changes. Most of the changes to the local amendments simplify or streamline code regulation and interpretation. The most impactful local amendments are likely the new requirements for natural light in living spaces and the reduction of required egress stairways in apartment buildings up to five-stories. Land Use/Zoning Impacts on Housing Costs The proposed changes would have a neutral impact on housing costs via land use and zoning. 2024 IBC and local amendments will update Austin’s land development code to reflect the most current standards. Keeping building codes up to date helps to ensure consistency with other jurisdictions and appropriate consideration of newer building materials/practices, such as mass timber. Impact on Development Cost The proposed changes would likely have a neutral impact on development costs overall. The 2024 IBC is a model code that makes incremental changes to improve building standards. Some changes raise the cost of construction in the interest of improving factors such as safety, accessibility, and code consistency. Other code changes decrease costs through means such as eliminating unnecessary requirements, providing clarification, or allowing greater design flexibility. The wider cost benefits of improved building safety, resilience, consideration of newer technology, and consistency with other jurisdictions’ building codes can counterbalance immediate building cost increases as well. 2024 Model Code Update: Research from the University of Florida is currently underway to evaluate the cost impact of updating from the 2023 Florida Building Codes to the 2024 International Codes (Issa et al. 2024).1 The 2023 Florida Building Code adopts the 2021 IBC as its model, so it may be a fair baseline to understand the overall cost impact of the changes from the 2021 IBC to the 2024 IBC. The State of Florida does adopt amendments to the model codes, but they have the closest available comparison to understand the cost impacts of adopting the 2024 IBC. The University of Florida study models the adoption of the 2024 International Codes on seven different building types, including small office, retail, primary school, small hotel, mid-rise apartment, 1-story residence, …
12 International Residential Code and International Building Code IBC Adoption Review — original pdf
PROPOSED IBC 2024 CODE V1, DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING DIVISION 1 OF ARTICLE 1 OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25‐12 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE; REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 10 OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25‐12 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE; AND CREATING OFFENSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. City Code Chapter 25‐12 (Technical Codes) is amended to repeal and replace Division 1 of Article 1 (Building Code) to read: DIVISION 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS § 25‐12‐1 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. (A) The International Building Code, 2021 2024 Edition, published by the International Code Council ("2021 2024 International Building Code") is adopted and incorporated by reference into this section with the deletions in Subsection (B) and the amendments in Section 25‐12‐3 (Local Amendments to the International Building Code). (B) The following provisions of the 20241 International Building Code are deleted. 414.1.3305.2.3 503.1.4 plus subsections 308.2.3 Chapter 9 308.2.4 1612 plus subsections 427.6 2901.1503.1.4 1108.6.4.2 1301.1 3102.5Chapter 9 103 plus subsections Table 1004.5308.3 3201.11008.2.1 1507.8 plus subsections 1507.9 plus subsections 1607.8.2 1612 plus subsections 2901.1 2902.2 2902.6 3102.5 3201.1 3202.1 Table 2901.1 Footnote (e) 1010.1.2308.3.1.1 1010.3.3 308.3.2 3202.1 1009.3 3202.3.41010.1.2 1102.1308.5 1204 plus subsections 308.5.1 1301.1 308.5.3 1507.8 plus subsections 308.5.4 1507.9 plus subsections 310.2 1607.8.2310.4.1 406.4.3 1010.2.7 1010.3.3 1101.2 1102.1 1108.6.1.2 1108.6.2.2.2 1108.6.2.3.2 1108.6.3 Page 1 of 19 101.4.1 101.4.2 101.4.3 104.32.1 105.1.1 105.2 105.5 107.2.6 110.3 112.3 113 plus subsections 305.2 305.2.2 Table 1004.5 414.1.3 (C) The following definition is deleted from Section 202.2.1 (General Definitions) of the 2021 International Building Code: (C) The city clerk shall file a copy of the 20241 International Building Code with the official ordinances of FOSTER CARE FACILITIES. (B) the City. § 25‐12‐2 CITATIONS TO THE BUILDING CODE. In the City Code, "Building Code" means the 20241 International Building Code adopted in Section 25‐12‐1 (International Building Code) as amended by Section 25‐12‐3 (Local Amendments to the International Building Code). In this article, "this code" means the Building Code. § 25‐12‐3 LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Each provision in this section is a substitute for the identically numbered provision deleted in Section 25‐12‐ 1(B) (International Building Code) or is an addition to the 20241 International Building Code. [A] 101.4.1 Gas. The provisions of the International Fuel Gas Code and the Plumbing Code shall apply …
12 International Residential Code and International Building Code IRC Adoption Review — original pdf
PROPOSED IRC 2024 CODE V1, DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES Section R101.1 Section R101.2 Section R104.10.1 Section R105.2 Section R105.3.1.1 Section R106.1.4 Table R301.2 Section R105.3.2 Section R322.1 Section R322.1.4 Section R322.1.4.1 Section R322.1.4.2 Section R322.1.5 Section R322.2 Section R301.2.4 Section R322.2.1 Section R306 Section R322.2.2 Section R322.2.3 Section R322.2.5 Section R322.2.6 Part IV BAAE107 & subsections Section R320 & subsections § 25-12-241 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE. (A) The International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, 20214 2024 Edition, published by the International Code Council ("20214 2024 International Residential Code") and Appendices AC, BA, BB, AE, BFAH, AJ, AQ, BIAR, BJAS, BKAU, BM, and BOAW are adopted and incorporated by reference into this section with the deletions in Subsections (B), (C), and (D) and the amendments in Section 25-12-243 (Local Amendments to the International Residential Code). (B) The following provisions of the 2024 International Residential Code are deleted (C) Except for P2904, Part VII (Plumbing) of the 2024 International Residential Code is deleted (D) The following definition is deleted from R202 (Definitions) of the 2024 International Residential Code: HEIGHT, BUILDING (E) The city clerk shall file a copy of the 2024 International Residential Code with the official ordinances of the City. Source: Ord. No. 20170406-048 , Pt. 1, 7-5-17; Ord. No. 20210603-054 , Pt. 1, 9-1-21. § 25-12-243 LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE. Each provision in this section is a substitute for the identically numbered provision deleted in Section 25-12- 241 (B), (C), and (D) (International Residential Code) or is an addition to the 20241 International Residential Code. R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two- family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height. Exception: The following shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with this code where provided with an automatic sprinkler system complying with Section P2904: 1. Live/work units located in townhouses and complying with the requirements of Section 508.5 of the International Building Code. Page 1 of 9 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms. A care facility with six or fewer persons receiving …
12 International Residential Code and International Building Code Staff Report — original pdf
2024 International Building Code & International Residential Code Adoption Amendment: 2024 Technical Code Adoption- International Building Code & International Residential Code Planning Commission Date: August 13., 2024 Description: The purpose of this report is for recommendation of the 2024 technical code adoption of the 2024 International Building and International Residential Code. Development Services is purposing the adoption of the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC) and International Building Code (IBC). DSD Engagement team has conducted public engagement for both the IRC and IBC, which are currently open for public input from June 25 through July 24. This engagement pertains to the adoption of the 2024 editions of the technical codes, including proposed local amendments. The 2024 editions of the technical codes are scheduled for adoption by the City Council on October 24, 2024, with implementation slated for March 1, 2025. On May 3, 2024, resolution # 20240502-094 was approved by the council. Summary of Proposed Code Adoption: Adopting the most recent codes helps protect the health, safety and welfare of Austin residents by, • Responding to new findings from building science research, field experience, or changes in community expectations • Responding to building performance assessments following catastrophic events to • increase resilience in new structures Introducing new and innovative technologies and construction methods Aligning with other current accepted codes and standards Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the 2024 IBC and IRC. Board and Commission Actions On July 24, 2024, There is a scheduled meeting with the Building and Fire Board of Appeals to present the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC). Additionally, the Planning Commission is set to convene on August 13, 2024. City Council Action May 3RD, Council approved resolution # 20240502-094 Single Stair Resolution Attached: 2024 IRC Redline 2024 IBC Redline 7/1/2024 Single Stair Memo IBC Affordability Impact Statement IRC Affordability Impact Statement Ordinance Number: N/A City Staff: Todd Wilcox- Building Official, Jessica Lopez Phone: Jessica Lopez 512-978-4661 Todd Wilcox 512-974-1681 Email: Jessica.lopez@austintexas.gov / Todd.Wilcox@austintexas.gov 7/1/2024
12 Resolution No. 20240502-094 — original pdf
M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Council Members THROUGH: Veronica Briseño, Assistant City Manager FROM: José G. Roig, Development Services Director Chief Joel Baker, Aus�n Fire Chief Chief Robert Luckritz, EMS Chief, Aus�n Travis County EMS DATE: June 26, 2024 SUBJECT: Resolu�on No. 20240502-094 Staff Update - Single Stairway Provisions for Mul�family Developments Up to Five-Stories We want to provide all of you with a mul�-departmental recommenda�on on Resolu�on No. 20240502-094 which proposes an amendment to the 2024 Interna�onal Building Code (IBC) allowing a single stairway for mul�family developments up to five stories. Technical code and first responder experts from the Development Services Department (DSD), Aus�n Fire Department (AFD), and Aus�n/Travis County Emergency Medical Services (ATCEMS) reviewed Aus�n’s single stairway amendment and found significant poten�al safety risks to occupants and first responders were we to amend the Code. As a result, staff recommends that the City of Aus�n con�nue to allow the model na�onal codes to set minimum standards for construc�on in Aus�n, thereby maintaining two means of egress for mul�family developments. Safety Concerns Construc�ng a single stairway --as opposed to two separate stairways-- for a five-story building poses escape hazards for occupants during fire, ac�ve shooter, severe weather, or large-scale emergencies. The following points highlight primary safety concerns: • Occupant Risk Considera�ons – Fire-loss data, some�mes cited by proponents of single stairway design, suggests that such an approach poses a low risk to occupants. While the probability of a fire is low, the consequences of a fire with a single stairway design make this an inherent risk. The na�onal standard set in the model code manda�ng two staircases reflects the increased likelihood of significant injury and mass casual�es in limi�ng occupants to a single exit in the event of a fire or other emergency. • Subject Mater Expert Findings – A na�onal proposal to permit mid-rise buildings to be served by a single exit stairway was reviewed and overwhelmingly rejected by the Interna�onal Code Page 1 of 4 Council (ICC) Technical Commitee, ci�ng tes�mony from many na�onal safety experts about the dangers it would pose to occupants and first responders. • Hindered Evacua�on Tac�cs – AFD employs evacua�on tac�cs by designa�ng one stairwell for evacua�on and the second stairwell for firefigh�ng opera�ons. Elimina�ng a stairwell may lead to unsafe exposure of fire condi�ons to occupants and cause counterflow and conges�on with occupants …
06 C14-2024-0071 - Thornton Road Multifamily; District 5 Letter of Opposition — original pdf
To: Planning Commission, City of Austin From: Lorraine Atherton, Zilker NA zoning committee member Re: August 27, 2024, agenda item 6, Thornton Road rezoning, Case C14-2024-0071 Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners, In 2015 and 2016 the Zilker and South Lamar neighborhood associations opposed attempts to upzone the 2300-2400 blocks of Thornton Road, as described in the following letter. I have sent the South Lamar NA letter in a separate attachment. The 2016 rezoning case was withdrawn before the City Council could finalize its approval of MF2. Item 6 on your current agenda is essentially a revival of the request for VMU that was denied in 2015, only much worse. Today, ten years later, implementation of the South Lamar Mitigation Plan is proceeding very slowly. Two eminent domain cases, involving the acquisition of drainage easements on either side of the 2300 block of Thornton Road, are on the City Council’s August 29 agenda. It would be wise to put off any rezoning of these properties until after construction begins on the drainage projects. Note that point 4 in the ZNA letter is relevant to your agenda item 11 on changes to residential drainage requirements, and that the street improvements proposed in the South Lamar Mitigation Plan have not been pursued. Here is the text of the 2016 Zilker NA letter: The Executive Committee and Zoning Committee of the Zilker Neighborhood Association agree with the South Lamar Neighborhood’s position on the rezoning case C14-2015-0047 (Thornton Road). The main points are: 1. The VMU overlay is not appropriate for properties that are not on a designated core transit corridor. ZNA studied this issue in connection with our successful VMU proposal in 2008, and we concluded that VMU was not appropriate on Oltorf west of the railroad track. If it’s not appropriate on Oltorf, it is certainly out of the question on a street like Thornton, with no possible connection to South Lamar. 2. Properties within the South Lamar Mitigation Plan should not be rezoned before staff has "enhanced tools to better anticipate the cumulative effects of increasing density on a neighborhood’s natural and manmade infrastructure," as proposed in the mitigation plan. The South Lamar Neighborhood Association has described a potential 1 analytical approach that tries to capture methods to determine what the infrastructure can support. It or a better method should be implemented before any of these properties are upzoned. 3. The rezoning …
06 C14-2024-0071 - Thornton Road Multifamily; District 5 Public Comment — original pdf
Case Number C14-2024-0071 Kim Vitray Fri 8/23/2024 12:36 PM To: Hadri, Cynthia <Cynthia.Hadri@austintexas.gov> Cc: Dana Lasman Board or Commission's Name: Planning Commission Scheduled Date of Public Hearing: Aug 27, 2024 Case Number: C14-2024-0071 Contact Person: Cynthia Hadri Cynthia, External Email - Exercise Caution I am writing to vehemently object to both this rezoning request by the developer and the alternative recommendations of city staff. My understanding of the developer's rezoning request is to enable construction of a 350-unit apartment building on Thornton Rd, and that city staff's counter recommendations would allow the developer to still build multi-family housing but not to the height and density they are requesting. I own and live in a condo at 2216 Thornton Rd, which is just a block down the street from the proposed rezoning and development area. Most alarming about the rezoning request is the neighborhood traffic analysis that projects an increase in vehicle trips per day from the current 217 to an expected 1623. The analysis also notes that Thornton Rd is already operating at an undesirable traffic volume for the kind of street it is, which will get significantly worse if the properties are rezoned and developed as requested, or as alternately recommended. The developer indicates its goal is progress toward the city's affordable housing goal, which is laudable. However, the infrastructure on Thornton Rd simply cannot support more multi-family development. The developer also indicates the existing zoning allows for intense commercial uses with higher vehicular impact; however, no such commercial development currently exists or is planned, and if it were, the neighborhood would similarly object. The developer mentions "easy access" to Oltorf and South Lamar - have they been there lately? With all the development currently on South Lamar, both north and south of Oltorf, South Lamar has become virtually impassable, and the terrible effects of this have spilled onto Oltorf and Thornton Rd. There's no "easy access" anywhere in our neighborhood right now! Also, any development of any kind on Thornton Rd would necessitate considerable street improvements, in terms of widening, sidewalks, and parking, as well as designated right and left turn lanes and a signal at the intersection of Thornton and Oltorf (although I've been told the latter is not possible because of proximity to a nearby railroad crossing). Otherwise, traffic on Thornton will become gridlock and our neighborhood will become unlivable and dangerous. I am aware of …
13 Draft Interim Planning Commission Rules and Procedures — original pdf
1 Interim Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Note: These are based on current rules and practices. Where conflicting rules exist, current practice is noted. Any change with no clear guideline or precedent is highlighted in yellow. Procedure for Amending Rules After Initial Adoption These rules may be amended through unanimous consent or with support from two- thirds of the body, once a motion has been made and seconded. For unanimous consent, the Chair may ask if there is any objection to the proposed action, and if there is none, announce the result. Speaker Registration As listed on the Planning Commission agenda, whether for in-person or via teleconference. Speaker Time Allocation for Discussion and Action Items Applicable to zoning cases, neighborhood plan amendments, land development code amendments, comprehensive plan amendments, and all other action items that are not on the consent agenda or being considered for postponement. 5 minutes each, up to 8 minutes total with donated time* Primary speaker in favor and primary speaker opposed (primary speaker is selected by parties in favor and opposition or is the first person to sign up. There can only be one primary speaker. 3 speakers in favor and 3 speakers opposed (in order of sign-up. This can be changed by the interested parties with consultation from the persons who signed up in the order) All other speakers in favor or opposed 3 minutes each, up to 6 minutes total with donated time* 1 minute each, up to 2 minutes total with donated time* Applicant rebuttal (speaker designated by applicant) 3 minutes, with no donated time *Speaker donation of time is an available option for in-person participants. Both the registered speaker donating time and the speaker recipient must be present when the public hearing is conducted. The amount of donated time is dependent upon where in the list the secondary speaker falls (e.g., 3 minutes or 1 minute). 2 Speaker Time Allocation for Discussion Postponements Testimony regarding a discussion postponement consists of applicant and public comment on the postponement alone and should not delve into the merits of the case. The granting of a postponement must be approved by affirmative vote of the Commission. All speakers in favor or opposed (those in favor of postponement speak first) 3 minutes* Applicant rebuttal (speaker designated by applicant) 3 minutes* *Donation of time is not an option for discussion postponement. Speaker Time Allocation for Consent Agenda Items …
Item #2 Population Change and Demographic Trends for Austin's Hispanic/Latino Population Presentation — original pdf
Population Change and Demographic Trends for Austin’s Hispanic/Latina/o/x Population Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Resource Advisory Commission August 27, 2024 Austin’s population has been doubling every 20 to 25 years. Recent growth has been at a slower rate. 1,137,983 961,855 974,447 Period of greatest growth 656,562 Period of fastest growth since 1900 251,808 National Ranking: 73rd 67th 56th 42nd 27th 16th 14th 11th 10th Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses 1870 – 2020; 2022 Vintage Census Bureau Population Estimates; 2025, 2030 CoA Projections. 2 1,250,000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 .974 million 4,428 0 The Hispanic population has always been a part of Austin’s growth history. 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 First time Hispanics were broken out from White. Black population split into “free” and “slave”. Initially measured simply as “Chinese”. “Mexican” included in Other Race. White Hispanic Black 1850 628 1860 2505 1870 2813 1880 7407 1900 1890 10956 16414 22366 27928 38209 73025 114652 161806 184859 232324 287166 353706 385271 452994 1940 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980 2010 2020 1990 2000 1910 1920 American Indian & Alaska Native Asian & Pacific Islander Population 9 10 1 8 2 14 22 27 29 4 40 10 107 39 184 170 622 1,003 1,756 1,967 2,002 3,642 14,141 31,421 49,560 86,381 1 989 1615 3587 3610 5822 7478 6921 14861 17667 24413 29845 42118 55824 66738 60760 66002 5014 9868 36623 64766 106868 200579 277707 312448 Asian & Pacific Islander Population American Indian & Alaska Native Black Hispanic White Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census 1790-1990; Texas Demographic Center 1980-2000; data.census.gov 2010-2020 3 Hispanic or Latina/o/x Population, Austin, 1970-2020 88% 312,448 77% 200,579 65% 106,868 277,707 38% 36,623 64,766 13% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Hispanic Population Percent Change 312,448 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census Statistics for Large Cities and Other Urban Places in the U.S. 4 Where do Austinites come from? Place of Birth, 2022 Total Population Hispanics Asians Born in Texas Born in other US State Native born, outside US Born in Another Country 48% 32% 2% 18% 58% 13% 2% 27% 19% 18% 2% 61% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2022 1-Year Estimates Note: Figures in red represent a decrease since 2012, in blue an increase since 2012. 5 Components of Population Change, Austin Metro Area, 2022-2023 Drivers of Growth Migration continues to be a major component of growth …
Item #3 Austin/Travis County Food Plan Presentation — original pdf
A Food Plan for Austin-Travis County Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Advisory Commission August 27, 2024 Today’s Topics ● Background ○ What is a food system ● How we Created the Austin Travis County Food Plan ○ What did Plan co-creation process look like? Who participated? ● What’s in the Plan and What’s Coming Next ○ Plan vision, goals, and strategy highlights ○ Next steps 2 2 Background 3 Some Food for Thought Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. Food Justice: How systemic racism & colonization impact how the food system works — or doesn’t work — for each member of our community. 5 Some of Our Food System Challenges Disasters and severe weather events: Winter Storms Uri and Mara Rapid community growth and planning for land use Supply chain disruptions: COVID-19 pandemic The climate impacts of the food system 6 How We Co-Created the Food Plan 7 Origins • • In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City Manager to initiate a planning process. In December 2022, Travis County Commissioners Court approved formal Travis County participation in the plan. Why a Food Plan? • Sets clear goals and strategies to move toward a more equitable, sustainable, resilient food system. • Builds on existing plans and initiatives from the County, City, and community to tackle key food system issues. • Centers equity and the lived expertise of those most impacted by the current food system. 8 8 Project Timeline Phase 0: Planning for the Plan Phase 1: Vision Development Phase 2: Goal & Strategy Development Phase 3: Review and Ground truthing 2021 – Jan 2023 Mar – Aug 2023 Aug 2023 – Feb 2024 Mar – Aug 2024 ● Website launch 📶 4 World Cafes ☕ ● ● ● ● Building Community Awareness 📰 Release of State of the Food System Report 📚 Onboarding Planning Consultant⭐ Recruitment of …
Item #3 Draft Austin Food Plan Summary - reduced — original pdf
DRAFT AUGUST 2024 20 24 SUMMARY AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY F O O D P L A N A food plan provides an opportunity for local government to co-create a vision and actionable goals for the local food system alongside community members, farmers and farmworkers, food retail and service workers, students, small business owners, and other partners. 2 The Food System The food system is the interconnected network of everything that happens with food — where and how it is grown, distributed, sold, consumed, wasted, or recovered. Globally, the food system is shaped by its stakeholders, practices, and the laws that regulate both. This food plan envisions the food system as five interconnected arenas with food justice at the center:1 • Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching to backyard gardening. • Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. • Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. • Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. • Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. • Food Justice: Seeking to ensure that the benefits and risks of where, what, and how food is grown, produced, transported, distributed, accessed, and eaten are shared fairly. It represents a transformation of the current food system, including but not limited to eliminating disparities and inequities. d F o o d Processing ction & D istribution o o F R & u d o r P P o s t - & C F o o n s u o d W a Food Justice m ption Fo o d C o ste s n & A c u c F o o d M a r k e t s e t a i l e s s m ption This plan considers our local food system to include the 5-county Austin Metropolitan Statistical Area of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. However, the vision, objectives, goals, and strategies outlined in this plan are focused geographically on the City of Austin and Travis County. Travis County Austin 3 FOOD PLAN SUMMARY2024 Community Centered Process …
Item #3 Draft Food Plan — original pdf
DRAFT AUGUST 2024 Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introductory Letter ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Plan Authorization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 The Food System .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 What this Plan is and Isnʼt .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Framework & Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 A Plan of Plans .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Food Plan Oversight ................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 CAC Mission Statement ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Values .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) Values .................................................................................................................... 16 Food Plan Vision & Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Parts of the Food Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Food Plan Goals & Strategies .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 A Note on Strategies Related to Populations Who are Underserved or Historically Disadvantaged ............................................... 25 Goal 1. Land ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Goal 2. Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Goal 3. Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Goal 4. Preparedness ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Goal 5. Institutions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Goal 6. Access ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Goal 7. Food Recovery ........................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Goal 8. Pro-Climate, Pro-Health ........................................................................................................................................................ 60 Goal 9. Empower ................................................................................................................................................................................ 64 Plan Implementation & Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................................... 68 Implementation Planning .................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Strategy Sequencing .......................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Implementation Network ................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Funding ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Measurement & Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Afterword ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Appendix 1: Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix 2: Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ 79 Appendix 3: Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) ............................................................................................................. 88 Appendix 4: Strategy Implementation Details ................................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix 5: Plan Crosswalk to Existing Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 124 Appendix 6: Companion Documents ............................................................................................................................................... 126 The photos in this plan were provided by the Office of Sustainability or were licensed from stock resources. Exceptions are noted as listed. AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN DRAFT (AUGUST 2024) Preface 1 AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN DRAFT (AUGUST 2024) Introductory Letter Food connects us all. Every seed planted, garden tended, acre harvested, and plate served sparks a ripple effect, impacting the system that nourishes our community. From farmers and grocery store workers to families, chefs, and health providers, we're all part of this story. While the City of Austin and Travis County continue to grow, this food plan exists to move us toward ensuring everyone has access to the nutritious food that they need to thrive. We are working for a future where food is a fundamental human right. The instability of the food system was widely felt in February 2021 when Winter Storm Uri arrived in Austin-Travis County during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. We experienced a multitude of emergencies, including food shortages, and while everyone was impacted, it was …
Item #4 Affordable Childcare Now / Cuidado Infantil Economico — original pdf
¿Porqué Invertir en Cuidado Infantíl Económico? Apoya a las familias trabajadoras: El acceso a guarderías económicas es esencial para las familias trabajadoras y que desean participar en la educación o capacitación para empleo. Al ampliar los servicios de cuidado infantil, ayudamos para que los padres mantengan sus empleos y procuren avances profesionales, que utlimadamente resulta en mejor estabilidad económica y desarrollo de nuestra comunidad. Programas de calidad en la primera infancia tienen un impacto significativo en el éxito futuro de los niños: Los que asisten a estos programas tienen cinco veces más probabilidades de leer con competencia en tercer grado, graduarse, y asistir a la universidad. Cuando invertimos en el cuidado infantíl, invertimos en el futuro de nuestros hijos. Programas de calidad extracurriculares y los de verano aumentan las habilidades académicas y desarrollan habilidades de los jóvenes para futuras carreras, mejoran su asistencia escolar, apoyan la salud mental y física, y las familias trabajadoras se benefician porque sus hijos participan en actividades sanas cuando no hay clases. Acceso al cuidado infantíl no solo apoya a los padres que trabajan, sino que también contribuye a mejorar la educación de los niños: Permite que los padres mantengan mejor equilibrio entre el trabajo y la vida personal; más felicidad para las familias, crea comunidades fuertes y vibrantes. Los Fondos Serían Para: Mayor Acceso con impacto a 10,000 niños anualmente incluyendo más horas y en las zonas más necesitadas. Costos más económicospara familias en diversas condiciones, ayudando a cubrir la diferencia entre el costo de cuidado infantíl y lo que las familias pueden pagar. Mejores sueldos y capacitación para reclutar, instruir, y retener personal de las guarderías. “ “ El cuidado infantíl económico es la salvación de las familias que luchan para sobrevivir. Por eso estamos tomando este paso gigantesco para remediar la carga económica de las familias trabajadoras y asegurar que todo niño de cualquier condición económica pueda acceder el cuidado y ambiente acogedor merecido”. Judge Andy Brown La falta de cuidado infantíl económico retrasa nuestra economía, comercios, y familias, sin duda. Por lo tanto, yo apoyo totalmente aumentar la inversión pública en programas de cuidado infantíl y aprendizaje. Acceso al cuidado infantíl de calidad y económico, no solo es cuestión de familias- es cuestión de la fuerza laboral, y económico que impacta a las empresas en todo sector. Inversiones en el cuidado infantíl deberían ser consideradas como inversiones de infrastructura". Bobby Jenkins, …